Talk:1918–1919 United Kingdom police strikes

Untitled

There are several reasons why I think this article is a copyright violation. It was written in a single edit. The poster made no changes to the article after posting. Finally, it has no context. It is like the text is part of a bigger document and was copied and pasted here. -- Kjkolb 09:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do about this? I didn't delete it as i couldn't find anything concrete to suggest it was a copyvio; at the very least, there is nothing currently on the web that this is copied from. But your suspicions do seem well-founded . . . --heah 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Previously, suspected copyright violations without sources were listed on copyright problems. They remained there for a few months and I think the most blatant ones may have been deleted eventually. Then, a new system was created (with good intentions) (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Without online source for more information, also, my view is on the bottom). Now we're supposed to put the notice above on the talk page of the article, but there is no information about what happens next. I speculated that the copyright violation templates would stay on the talk page indefinitely, because in most cases there is little chance that someone is going to be able to find a copyright violation whose source is not online or no longer online. This creates a problem in improving the article. Someone who knows that it is a probable copyright violation is much less likely to work on the article. Someone who doesn't know, since the notice is only one the talk page, may not have done so if he or she had known and probably won't be too happy about it if they find out or the page is deleted. Also, whether they know or not, the editors may be wasting their time if the article is eventually deleted. Finally, I think the new policy makes it appear that Wikipedia is willing to use copyright text, as long as its source cannot be found (only "appear", I know there is no support for using copyvios). I don't know what to do in this case. Thanks, Kjkolb 06:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No way is or was this copied from a published source. The original version to what's there now isn't much different except for wikification, and both have severe writing issues. "It was written in a single edit" means absolutely nothing. I've written articles in a single edit, which means writing them on Word and then posting them on Wikipedia. There's a reason the onus is on the accuser to prove there's a copyvio, which is because making such a accusation without evidence is the ultimate assumption of bad faith. bobanny 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Further Listening

{{Requested edit}}

I think this permanently available 30 minute radio show is a good summary of the events, but I have a conflict of interest (and am not sure how apt it is to link to radio shows) so am leaving the call to someone else. I'm suggesting that "Further Reading" is changed to "Further Reading and Listening" and this is added:

Presenter Michael Portillo; Producer Roger Mahoney (2011-11-20). "Police Strike". Things We Forgot To Remember. Season 7. Episode 2. BBC. BBC Radio 4. Retrieved 2012-06-25. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |began=, |city=, |transcripturl=, |ended=, and |seriesno= (help)