Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 5 days. At this point, they may be processed by a
copyright problems board clerk. After 7 days, they may be closed by an administrator.
The rewrite is ready for insertion, unless anyone has any problems, in which case, feel free to edit. I think it's good enough for now.⸺(
Random)
staplers23:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Below are articles that have been listed here for 5 days or less. Anyone in the community may help clarify the copyright status on these. See
the section on responding for more information.
That was
User:Persmas24, who had previously added poor content (that I had removed on editorial grounds) at
Construction site safety, but that I now see was also a case of copyvio. I rev-del'ed both of those edits. This editor identifies as being a NIOSH-employed writer. Looking at this and the next entry (an editor who is Wikipedian-in-Residence at NIOSH) together, wonder if there there is something more centrally wrong there.
DMacks (
talk)
15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The researchgate source is CC-NC-ND. The relevant article content is (as Randomstaplers noted) the entirety of the "Hong Kong" section. It was added in
this edit by
User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), whom I notified. That edit was on 15 December 2018, so that would be a lot of rev-del. But at least that source appears contained to that section, so it would simply mean excising and RD, rather than having to roll the whole article back to prior to that time.
DMacks (
talk)
15:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The loginets content was added in
this edit on 21 October 2021 by
User:VeeraHuo, who was only briefly active and not recently. The edit added another sentence with a different cite, and that other sentence does not appear in either cite. Would be easy to excise. Is it worth rev-del'ing almost 3 years of edits for one sentence? Their
other contribution is substantial content cited to multiple and diverse refs. Spot-checking, the contribution does seem to be supported by but not copied from them. So that places me more firmly in the "simply remove the one sentence from
construction site safety" and take no further action based on that edit.
DMacks (
talk)
16:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've gone ahead and requested revdel on this article. It seems to be limited to one statement, so I'm pretty sure it's clean now, but feel free to double check.⸺
RandomStaplers00:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply