Talk:Tom Carr (artist)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.tomcarrstudio.com/tom_carr/curriculum.html. 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: while archive.org does not appear to have this url, the unusual formatting of this edit in particular make the presumption of copy-pasting a certainty. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't see a large body of text at the url you give. There is a list of works and that's it. However, I agree this article remained unsourced and there were also some significant COI editing taking place. All the same, I can't see that as a justifiable reason to delete 5 years of edits. That seems to be a mis-use of rollback. Sionk (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm truly sorry if the way I dealt with the copyvio here has upset you. It is the only surefire way I know of doing it: revert to the last clean version before the addition, add back the essential referenced material subsequently added, and then request revision-deletion of the intervening edits (which has now been done here - I can't do that myself because I'm not an admin; actually I'm not a roll-backer either, but Twinkle gives me the "restore this version" option). If it isn't done that way, the copied material can still be accessed through the article history, and thus is still (illegally) stored on Wikipedia servers. I can understand your displeasure that your work got thrown out with the bath-water, but I think we agree that there were big sourcing and COI problems here also. Apart from the legal aspects, the main problem as I see it with massive insertions of material from elsewhere is that they stifle the natural development of the article by normal wp processes. This article has improved more in the last 12 hours or so than in the whole of those five years (thank you!). I very much doubt if it will now be deleted; if I see it expand much more I will probably in any case withdraw the nomination.


 * I think we will soon meet again at Pablo Reinoso (designer), where there also seem to be substantial COI problems. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)