Potential Copyright Issues related to text on the the Voynich manuscript page

Dear all- yesterday, I deleted a large section of material on the Voynich manuscript page which was comprised of three paragraphs and an image which were nothing but unsourced claims about alleged connections between Asiatic languages and the Voynich manuscript. The content had been on the website essentially unchallenged since 2004. I was told ([1]) that the material might actually be a copyright violation and was directed to inform you all of the problem.

I invite you to take a look at my triage work on that page ([2]). One user said, "I would guess that there are more copyright violations in the article."

Thanks for any input. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

See also

On Talk:National Climate Change Secretariat#Indicated copyright issue I stated my reasons for rejecting a copyvio revdel request on National Climate Change Secretariat. I invite review of this rejection. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-offending page tagged by EranBot; easy fix?

I had a draftspace page tagged by EranBot, but it's not a copyright violation (it's part of a slightly modified EB1911 page, just like thousands of other EN WP pages). But it didn't get added to today's list of detected problems, so I can't comment there.

Would it be acceptable for me to CopyPatrol the page and mark it No Action Needed, even though I'm the only author? David Brooks (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn: another CopyPatroller reviewed the report. I realize in general it's not a good idea for an editor to decide that their own edit is not a violation, even if clearly defensible.

On Talk:Circumstellar habitable zone (diff), a user has expressed concern that the second paragraph of Circumstellar habitable zone#Determination might be a copyright violation, copied from here (page 185). He/she has also suggested "all of other editors to refrain from additional editing." I'm not sure if it's a copyright violation; I'm not sure if it needs to be removed and/or revdeled. Could someone take a look and reply there? Thanks, (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Snowycats has requested a RD1 rev del on this page, but RD1 states "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used." In this case, all but the current version of the text include the copyright violation, which would remove attributions to numerous other contributors. The article was previously deleted, and then restored; I ponder whether deleting it again and starting afresh might be a better strategy? (Although thinking about it, that would remove attributions no less!) Harrias talk 09:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Attribution just requires that the names of the authors of the content be available, not that the text of each revision be available. As long as the revdel is done on the text and not the name of the editor who added the material there's no problem.

At Talk:Pinsk#CCI_review, I asked whether removing an old paragraph or two are sufficient grounds for del rev of ~15 years of article's history with ~250 edits by dozens of editors. I'd suggest commenting there not here to keep the discussion in one place. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, yes, this is the ground for revision-deletion (the names of contributors remain of course visible).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)