Talk:Gaylord City Park

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/nrhp/docs_pdfs/0019_gaylordcitypark.pdf. 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, 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. Ammodramus (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the "History and significance" section was taken verbatim from the NRHP nomination form: I searched the document for half a dozen phrases that occurred in the article section, and in each case found an exact match. The nom form was filled out by someone with a Roseville, MN address and an e-mail address that suggested a local preservation group: in other words, probably not a federal employee at work, so we can't assume that the nom form is in public domain.  Ammodramus (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Same story with the "Property" section, which was apparently created by stitching together sentences and paragraphs taken from nom form, with occasional bits of original phrasing. Ammodramus (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem restored, removed again
An IP editor has just reverted the edits I've described above, with the edit summary "Citations were sufficient".

The citations are not the issue. Per FAQ/Copyright, final paragraph, "But be careful not to closely paraphrase; the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation." This is not the case here: most of the article consists of passages taken verbatim from the NRHP nomination form, with some very minor tweaks, e.g., the nominating form's "It included the usual mix of speeches, athletic events, fireworks, and dancing" changed to "They included a typical mix of speeches, athletic events, fireworks, and dancing." Searching the nom form for half a dozen randomly selected phrases from the article turned up identical phrases or phrases that differed by only a word or two. This seems to match the description of close paraphrasing at WP:CLOP.

I am undoing the IP editor's reversion of my removal of these passages and other problems that I corrected in my last visit to the article. I'd encourage my fellow editor to spend some time reading WP's copyright policy before undoing this edit. Ammodramus (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)