Talk:Anita Krohn Traaseth

Revdel

@DGG: Any reason you didn't revdel per RD1 when removed the copyvio? (t) Josve05a (c) 14:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy is that we do not do it unless there is a specific request. See WP:Copyright Problems, section 3.2 "Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can. The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}." (my emphasis)

There is what a first sight might appear to be a contradictory statement in WP:Revision deletion section 3 point 1, which says "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. " but the contradiction is resolved because the statement goes on to say , (my emphasis) "Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion."

What counts as a "blatant " copyright violation is obviously a matter of judgment. In most case the admin therefore has considerable room for judgement. Many cases are equivocal and could be reasonably decided either way. In this particular case, the section was the subject's blurb on amazon which they or their press agent or publisher wrote or authorized for the very purpose of using it for publicity. It is a copyright violation, and must be removed by our policy, but it is not particularly "blatant". I personally consider it so clearly non-blatent that I would be exceed the limits on rev del to use it here unless the copyright holder insists, and I think that any admin who does is misinterpreting. However, I do not challenge them any more than I challenge deletions or undeletions or other admin acts I disagree with, unless it's really clearly wrong. There are about 700 active admins, none with authority over each other as admins, and we need to accommodate each other. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Really late answer by me but the part of "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used." is a non-problem since according to both CC-BY-SA 3.0 and Wikipedias ToU (or is it ToS...?) attribution can be given through a link and there is no need to see "what parts" they wrote (revisions). (t) Josve05a (c) 22:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anita Krohn Traaseth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://odanettverk.no/nyheter/item/183-gratulerer-anita-krohn-traaseth-vinner-av-oda-prisen-2012
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703114307/https://www.simula.no/applications/si to https://www.simula.no/applications/si

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anita Krohn Traaseth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://odanettverk.no/nyheter/item/183-gratulerer-anita-krohn-traaseth-vinner-av-oda-prisen-2012
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703114307/https://www.simula.no/applications/si to https://www.simula.no/applications/si

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)