Talk:RCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus

Copyvio
As pointed out previously, the bulk of this article is a foundational copyvio -- most of it is a copyvio of just one source. This was noted, but not addressed. It is just this sort of thing that drives SOPA to seek to foist greater obligations on the Project. I'm also challenging all uncited text, which is almost the entire article, per WP:CHALLENGED, given the foundational copyright.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, at the time it was noted but not addressed as I did not have time to address. I will do so now.  At the very least the version of 02:36, 5 February 2008 appears not to be a copy violation and hence not a G12 as the criteria clearly states "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained".  This is especially true when you also consider the infobox that exists in later versions.  The combination of the infobox and that old version definitely makes a viable stub even if everything else is infringing.  In these circumstances tagging with copyvio my be warranted but tagging with G12 is not. Dpmuk (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dp. I'm not sure that the infobox is really that relevant -- half of it is BLP info, that is unsourced (and challenged).  But I've no problem at all with the retention of any text that meets WP:CHALLENGED.  Sorry as to not having understood the timing issue; I didn't realize you were intending to come back to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest and should have made the fact that I was planning to come back clearer, although that doesn't stop it being an invalid G12. I'll also be honest and say the infobox is a bit smaller than I thought.  That said I still think it's a valid stub.  Please do consider adding copyvio instead of G12 when there is non-infringing text.  I know we've got stricter on BLP but, while possibly technically correct, challenging something positive, like the dean's name, which is easily verifiable using the external link seems excessive. Dpmuk (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes -- we are more sensitive to BLP violations these days, and with SOPA and PIPA seeking to foist liability on wp for failing to be pro-active enough in addressing copyvios, we are more sensitive to articles that clearly contain foundational copyvios of the bulk of the article from just one source, where the rest of the article is completely unreferenced, and challenged. The burden in such cases is on those seeking to add the content to provide inline citations, as well it should be not only per our core policy at wp:v, but also given the extraordinary focus on copyvios at wp these days.  Editors  don't -- by creating copyvio articles, that are bereft of refs, create an obligation in other editors to support their edits, though of course it is nice if other editors do so.  To suggest otherwise does not, IMHO, properly weigh the importance of our verifiability and copyvio policies.  But, as I've said, I fully support a stub with RS-supported text that is not a copyvio.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RUMC-Logo-Horizontal.pdf