Talk:Field Hockey Canada

Recent reversion
, In this edit you removed not only contributions by by ones by me as well. While the edits by FIGHTER KD were a direct copy and page (although cited, and short enough that the mere addition of quote marks would have made them acceptable), my edit was, i believe, a sufficient restatement of the facts that it was not a copyvio. You also reverted other changes by me, ones not in any way involved in copyright issues. Perhaps i should have revdel'd the original edit by FIGHTER KD. But your reversion went farther than is justified, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi DES. I saw your paraphrase. and indeed it had no copyvio problems at that stage. But, in your version, there were two more paragraphs that were verbatim copyvios from the source. So, my choice was, either excise these manually, and leave your paraphrased part, or revert to the last clean version, before the sock's edit. I chose the latter, since, all sock edits must be reverted in their entirety. Since I think this editor quacks rather loudly, I didn't want to leave the impression that I edited the sock's edits to improve them. As far as using quotes, that's not a good idea in this case. We use quotes when there is something stated in the words of a person, when these words are remarkable or illustrative of a point. Using quotes on routine, descriptive text, which can be paraphrased, is not a good idea. But this point is moot, given that a sock made these edits. Perhaps, you don't believe this person is a sock, but I do. Therein lies the difficulty. Dr.   K.  21:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not correct that. Edits made by a sock who is evading a ban or block may be reverted on sight, but there is no requirement to do so, and if an editor in good standing has made substantial changes, such edits may not be reverted merely because of the socking. I have no problem taking responsibility for and improving on the useful edits of a banned editor, and I have in several cases done so to avoid a G5 speedy deletion of a useful article. In this case the source text has so little originality that a case could be made that under the Feist decision it has no valid copyright at all under US law, but I will assume that it does. I will examine the prior edit later today, and will probably restore my edit with additional paraphrasing to take care of any copyright issue. This will also mean that no text from will remain without substantial changes. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD says: (Emphasis added) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROXYING says: (Emphasis added) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was not looking at the sock policy manual when I replied, so I should perhaps have said that "all sock edits may be reverted" instead of "must be reverted". In any case, due to the complexity of the situation, involving sock edits, copyvio in the sock edits, intervention by a good-faith editor who paraphrased some, but not all, of the copyvio etc., I chose to simply revert to the non-sock version, since it seemed the cleanest way out of the mess. However, if you would like to restore a paraphrased version of the copyvio edits, please feel free to do so. Dr.   K.  00:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)