Talk:Kaskaskia–Cahokia Trail

[Untitled]
The copyvios have been removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dylan (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No, there is still a significant amount of content that is a Copyright Violation of this Web page - 65.6% of this article is copied, according to Copyright Violation detection software. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(David Dylan (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)) I'm working on rewording the whole article. I'm still not finished. When I tell you I have finished, start discussing again.

I don't think you're getting it. If you're working on the article, you should be working on it in Draft space or in your sandbox. No Wikipedia editor is under any obligation to wait for you - you don't own this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(David Dylan (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC))OK.(David Dylan (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC))

(David Dylan (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC))Are there anymore copyvios?(David Dylan (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)) (David Dylan (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)) It looks like I have removed all the copyvios. If not, tell me in which section. Or fix them yourself. (David Dylan (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)) (David Dylan (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)) Is it really possible to reword a basic list. Learn your 5th grade English (David Dylan (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC))

(David Dylan (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)) The attractions have been reduced to a basic list. That's the most free of copyvios as it can get. (David Dylan (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC))

Wanton removal of encyclopedic content
I've seen some content that has been removed without reasoning on this page by several editors. David Dylan (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

- This is Wikipedia. Any editor may add or remove content to articles. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding back list
Is it OK to add back some content you removed under the grounds of copyvios if I rearrange the list.

Here's the list [copy vio redacted] diff instead (David Dylan (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC))


 * No. If it was removed as a copyright violation you cannot simply reorder the items. And if it was a copyright violation the article it is still a copyright violation to place it on the talkpage. I have redacted it and replaced it with a diff to the edit. Meters (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note Verifiability, Creative organization being cause, and Don't willingly omit information


 * What of that list is copyrighted. (David Dylan (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Take the issue of what is copyrighted up with the editor who removed the information as copyvio. I didn't look at the content on the original site. I simply answered your question. Reordering the items will not remove any copyright concerns.
 * Linking to WP:V and WP:CENSOR is pointless. Neither of them applies if this is a copyvio. And the link to where you raised this on the Teahouse is also pointless. It just shows that you have already asked this and been answered. Meters (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I trimmed more almost verbatim copyvio. there isn't much left of the article Meters (talk)