Talk:Morris Review

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --IFRS17 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of the article are closely worded to the source, which I referenced and have now put in quotation marks. Is this sufficient? IFRS 17.

PS note that the content in the bullet points was itself copied by the source from the Morris Review, i.e. it can hardly be a copyright violation if it was itself copied? IFRS17 —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note this teahouse discussion

See WP:Teahouse#Not_a_friendly_place, regarding IFS17's attempt to improve this article. IFS - I'm including this notice so that other editors have some context, and specifically see that you're working in good faith, as you improve this article.Grenschlep (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]