Talk:Practice Enterprise

Note: User:WikiDan61 redirected this to Business simulation right before I placed this tag; I assume he was unaware of the cut-and-paste move - I'd say this title should either be left deleted (after the history delete) or redirected to Practice firm. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the redirect. You can see from this search that this isn't a term that isn't used.  If the original text is a copyright violation, I agree that the history should be deleted and the redirect reapplied.  Is it a copyright violation?  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  17:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the copyrighted text and made a note to whichever admin is patrolling CSD tags at the moment. I only say this because we've bumped into each other twice in the last hour but I believe that being more thorough will help you avoid these issues in the future.  You're obviously right and it's easy to see what's going on once you take some time but making a note of your findings saves everyone else from taking that time to catch up.  It also helps the author understand why this page is being deleted.  Also, please leave your messages on the talk page instead of in the article.  That's what the talk page is for.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  17:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Really the only confusion was due to the fact that Dan and I moved in opposite directions at the same time. I have no problem with the redirect, I was just saying that the page needed to be deleted as a cut-and-paste move. Also, if it's indeed a copyvio of the source you gave, I believe quite a few revisions to Practice firm may be in need of revdel.
 * I think that you and I have bumped into each other twice in the past hour because we're both doing New Page Patrol, and also because, statistically, of the 40 pages I've nominated in the past few hours, with a few of them I'm going to make a mistake. As for the mainspace comment, sorry, I've had to redact a few personal attacks on soon-to-be-deleted but non-G10 pages today, so I was sort of in that frame of mind. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 18:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of mess. I've removed the speedy delete tag and allowed the article to redirect to Business simulation. I've also short-cutted the merge discussion at Practice firm and redirected it to Business simulation (and commented on the talk page of Practice firm). I don't believe there's sufficient copyright violations to be concerned about having the content in the articles' histories.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is a mess. But what about the attribution/licensing issue from the cut-and-paste move? Or is that taken care of too? — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 18:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that it's close enough to be considered plagiarism but I'm not going to argue. At the very least, I think that we can all agree that the redirect is warranted.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone please explain the "attribution/licensing issue" and the "plagiarism" in more detail? I focused only on the alleged copyright violation, and I'm not following the rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The original reason I nominated this article for speedy deletion was that the first draft was a copy of this version of the Practice firm article. Of course, it's highly probably that everyone who contributed to the original is employed by the same company as (see also his comments at my IP comments talk page), but that's immaterial. I suppose you could put up whatever template it is that says that this page has content that was copied from another, but it seems much simpler to just delete the history. —  Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 18:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My tag was with regards to the source listed in the template. See the comparison here.  You can see that some portions are taken directly from it while others are close paraphrases with a few words changed.  I didn't realize that it was possible that both the text from this article and from the journal could have originated on WP, negating and issue with this article's history.  The journal was published on 1/23/2011.  For the record, if there isn't a copyright violation based on the journal, I don't believe that there's any guideline that requires one WP article to attribute another.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The CC-BY-SA license requires that all articles on Wikipedia contain in their history documentation of every editor who contributed to the text, and what their contribution consisted of. I believe the relevant guideline is WP:COPYWITHIN. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I removed the tag, I did two things. I eyeballed the previous iteration of the article and the journal article, and I looked at the duplication report. But when I reviewed the duplication report, it didn't report what it now reports, which is why I concluded that the copyright violations weren't that serious. I can't explain that. I've now reviewed the "right" report, but I'm still not convinced. A lot of the matches are pretty minor, e.g., matching country names, matching phrases "non profit association" and "business procedures", as well as matching words like "responsibility". I'm still inclined to leave it alone but I'm a bit more concerned than I was before. User:Moonriddengirl is a great admin and a Wikipedia copyright expert; you might ask what her view is.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One mystery solved. The duplication report link in the tag pointed to the current article version, not the old version, unlike the link above. I saw at the top of the report that there were only a couple of minor matches and didn't read the stuff below, or I would have realized the problem with the link. It's nice to know I'm not seeing things, just perhaps moving a bit too quickly for my own good.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the guidelines are pretty clear when it comes to copying within Wikipedia, though... copying an article without attribution violates the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. See WP:COPYWITHIN. I haven't looked into the general copyright issue, but as far as copying within Wikipedia goes, the rules are clear. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 19:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring you, F&A, but shouldn't you be doing something else rather than citing guidlines I wasn't even aware existed? :) I'd like to focus on the copyright issue, which I think is more important, first. When I have less of a headache from trying to read Wikipedia's 3,405,122 "rules" (has anyone ever counted?), maybe I'll try to really ready COPYWITHIN, which sounds more like an espionage movie than a guidline.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This does all seem rather convoluted for what we agree will end up being a redirect. I can't help but note that deleting the history and redirecting would solve the problem but maybe not via policy.  I think I'm just going to walk away slowly an hope that no one notices.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  20:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not walking away slowly enough; I see you. Your point is well taken, but, by the same token, I'm not sure it matters all that much if it's in the history, either. If you don't care that much and I don't care that much, that leaves it in the hands of F&A to decide what to do next and how much he cares.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with that.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha sorry. I've been busy flagging down functionaries to deal with the mess at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and trying to actually, you know, improve the article a little bit in the mean time. Ummm, I can't think of any reason not to delete the history, as long as we can agree that the only substantive revision was copied from the other article. No different than, say, deleting a page's history before redirecting it after an AfD. Now I'm off to invoke WP:SUMMARYDESYSOPDUETOLACKOFPOLICYKNOWLEDGE against Bbb... bet you didn't know about that one either, didya? — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm here to learn. Please don't post anything more here until I've taken my nap.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)