Talk:West Return Floodwall

Regarding the copyright infringement - There isn't one. I have permission from the source of the material to include all information in this article. Please stop adding this copyright warning as it is unfounded. Thank you.

See WP:DCM and WP:OTRS. Simply stating that you have permission is not sufficient.--Terrillja _talk 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source for the Copy-Paste that the article tag implies. The sources given have a much different tone than the prose in the article, and I haven't so far located a word-for-word copy in them. [Signature redacted]

Thank you, yes - Where is the source that I have copied from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleydennison (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a copy-paste, which would likely be a copyright violation. (Just as an FYI, copyrighted text can not be used verbatim on Wikipedia, even if there is permission from the holder. They would have to donate it as Terrillja linked above, which would basically release that material for anyone anywhere to use for any purpose, on Wikipedia or off). Summarizing copyrighted text is the required approach, as seems to be the case here. Correct me if I'm wrong Terrillja, please. Other than that, pruning of the non-neutral language should be done. Arakunem^Talk 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a blatant copy-paste, it would have been tagged with {{db-copyvio}}. I didn't add the tag, but I agree with the original tagger that as originally written, the article sounded like it had been copied from somewhere else, most likely a press release. Given the context that I now know about who the author is, it makes sense as a press release would be the standard style of writing for a PR rep. The tag does not state that it is an unequivocal copy & paste, rather that it appears to be a copy and paste, which it did. The response that the author had permission to use the text only supported my feeling that the text was copied. If it was copied, then the text would have to be donated, however as I have significantly rewritten the article at this time, there is likely not any copyrighted text still in it either way.--Terrillja _talk 20:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the last comment, and how much the article has changed - can we delete the copyright infringement warning? --Ashleydennison (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I think so based on discussion here and COIN, so I have removed it. Arakunem^Talk 14:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added inline citations so I removed that tag.

I removed the wikify tag since the article does link to other articles, has section headings and an intro paragraph. I'm not sure what else needs to be done, but let me know and I'll do it.

I also removed the cleanup tag since my article is not listed on the cleanup page and since I made sure it met wikify standards which seem to be basically the same things. If there are other errors, again please let me know and I will change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleydennison (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to get other wikipedians to link to my article so we can also remove that tag? My goal is to get all the tags off the beginning of this article - they're kinda ugly and distracting.

I'd also like the COI tag removed if possible - I thought we established earlier that the language has been changed enough that it no longer reads as a press release or a promotion of any company. It's just straight up information. --Ashleydennison —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I went ahead and removed the COI tag since this no longer appears on the COI discussion page and the matter seems to be closed. If anyone disagrees, please let me know. Thanks. Ashleydennison (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]