Talk:Enoch Pratt Free Library/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Enoch Pratt Free Library. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Copyright check
The copyright violations raised earlier have not been addressed; see Duplicate Detector report for many remaining examples of verbatim copying (and there are many more examples of close paraphrasing). The history section is the most problematic. Dcoetzee 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.prattlibrary.org/about/index.aspx?id=1604. Infringing 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. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Finding lists and Reports
Rajmaan (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this an article about the Roman Catholic Church in Baltimore?
Wikipedia has a plethora of articles larded with cross-references that have little or nothing to do with the main subject. This is, hands down, the worst I've yet seen. I have my editorial gunsights on this article, and will probably enact blue-penciled revenge before the end of the year. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)