Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material/old

Copied from User:Sambc/wip/Removal of Uncited Material?
Was the initial version of this copied from/based on User:Sambc/wip/Removal of Uncited Material? The loss of the edit history might be seen as causing some GFDL problems, as well as being unethical. I understand why it was done, but the original intent had been to get into it a much less 'raw' state before moving into the project namespace.

Also, it become very difficult to find out what changes, if any, were made to the initial version in this location compared to the base version. Also, edits have since been made to the original. SamBC 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you think it should be here, move-and-redirect could work, and saves the edit history (AIUI). SamBC 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as indicated in the edit summary this was taken from the essay that was proposed on the talk page and people agreed it was a good idea. Should have provided a link in the edit summary. Didn't. Sorry. But it is not a license violation because all of wikipedia can be seen as a single work for some purposes. It is normal and common to copy stuff from one article to another and note somewhere in talk or edit summary where it came from. Sorry I seem to have ruffled your feathers, but I wanted to make sure this effort was not dead. WAS 4.250 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it is a license violation as the license requires a reasonable way to track the history to determine who gets what attribution. It is not about a single work, it is about multiple contributors that need attribution. I suggest simple doing a null edit stating in the edit summary that X revision came from Y page/revision. That will satisfy GFDL. The other way would be to do a history merge. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While it can be useful to easily be able to tell who contributed what, that is not a requirement of the license. WAS 4.250 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As the edits made have been simple, I would suggest working in just one place; I'm happy for it to be this one. However, I will make impassioned arguments (and bold actions) to retain sections and add back in-place comments that were included by editors as a guide to what they were thinking and where to go next. The essay should not appear to be complete, or people are liable to give it undue weight. SamBC 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From the GFDL license: "Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence." - the history needs to be maintained. If you don't want to do it, I will just dig through and figure out what revision you used and I will do it myself. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I used the latest version. WAS 4.250 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)