Talk:Lee Bracegirdle

Lee Bracegirdle
You've worked extensively on Lee Bracegirdle. However, the original article was a copypaste or paraphrase of a source not properly licensed for our use. Light copy edits do not remove the problem. See PARAPHRASE for more information, or ask me.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick, re- Lee Bracegirdle

Yes I have worked extensively on this page, and I have noticed so have others, and using Wikipedia's guidelines have gradually and carefully got rid of paraphrasing. But how many ways can one re-phrase, for example, "so-and-so was born in New York"? All the information for that page about this eminent person was carefully gathered (and I can see, I might add, also edited by others over a long period) and you have with one stroke of a pen deleted all of it. There was nothing in that article that is not already in the public domain, and it had all been re-phrased. There was complete in-line citation work and clear referencing done, and it was all done according to Wikipedia's guidelines. So I would ask you to please restore the entire article as it was, otherwise myself and all of the others who have worked on it will have to start again, and go through the entire re-phrasing process again.

After this information has been restored, I would welcome you to get back to me about specific items with which you have an issue. I would like to move on to making other contributions and related articles.

Thanks

210.56.73.132 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)impressionistic210.56.73.132 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

With reference to the article on James Chambers, yes there are only a few places where this information is available, but this is all in the public domain as well. It would be difficult to re-phrase this very basic information, which has already been repeated in many references.

Please re-instate this article as well and ask specific questions about issues you may have.

210.56.73.132 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)impressionistic210.56.73.132 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright review.
The article is substantially similar to this site That site has been in existence longer than the WP article See 2011 version

While it is not identical, it is too close. See PARAPHRASE to see why light editing is not enough. I've removed all of the sections that are derived from the source.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)