Hi,
I was kind of wondering why you're using "copyright violation" as the revdeletion summary for the recent spam, since it doesn't appear to be a copyright vio so much as regular spam.
Cheers, Brian
Hi,
I was kind of wondering why you're using "copyright violation" as the revdeletion summary for the recent spam, since it doesn't appear to be a copyright vio so much as regular spam.
Cheers, Brian
The summaries contain excerpts of the same copyrighted content
Sorry, misunderstood; I was also revdeling the edit summaries. The content appears to be copyrighted, based on earwigs analysis; after a few checks comparing the edits to the source, I just assumed that all of the spam was similarly copyright violating. I checked a few later to double check, and earwigs confirmed that it was copyrighted
Technically its PD as its an excerpt from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Tono-Bungay.djvu/491 which is out of copyright.
Ahh, I didn't see that. Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry, this was my first major anti-vandalism operation as an admin, and I didn't take the time to research further. Should I undelete the edits? Thanks again
I'd just keep it the way it is - its not worth worrying about - its just spam after all. :)