Talk:Battle of Alamance

message: Large parts of this article seem to have been lifted from here  and here ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The second link can be used with atribution since it's no longer copyrighted. Neglected History of North Carolina by W.E. Fitch, 1905 (pp. 206-232). P. S. Burton  (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvio material has been deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, fantastic.  That guy used the Wikipedia text, not vice-versa.  And since you deleted everything, including the past versions, we have to re-start the article.  Thanks, guy.  5minutes (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you add the material as  in 2005? If not, you can't know the provenance of the text. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't remember what IP I was posting from in 2005, so I can't answer that question.  What I can answer (as an employee from 1993) is the fact that the text on that site is similar to (but not identical to) the text of the script used by staff at Alamance Battleground to describe the events there.  Either way, you jumped the gun.  You didn't flag the page, you simply jumped to a conclusion and deleted the text you thought was copyvio (without proof of violation, only conjecture) and then deleted all other logs so that it couldn't easily be recovered in case you were wrong.  5minutes (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was flagged and reported to the copyvio noticeboard as is proper procedure. Deleting the revision history is the correct way to deal with copyvios as the content is otherwise still visible in the page history. If you can provide actual evidence (rather than your claims) that the website copied from Wikipedia, then I can restore the deleted content. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "proper procedure" to delete an entire page and revision history without actually checking your own sources?  I love it - I have to provide proof, but you're allowed to act with impunity.  Fine.  I'll re-do the article - complete with the 4-5 years of work I'd put into it - from scratch.  You overreached, period.  5minutes (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, I've restored the page as much as possible to its prior glory.  From what I can tell, the so-called "copyvio" material removed by Parsecboy was material from a 1905 book, which is currently in the public domain.  Further investigation of the so-called 1st site flagged by Jim Sweeny and used by Parsecboy in his sweeping move to wipe out 5 years worth of my work shows that Much of the material at the referenced site was first created in 2008, long after the so-called "copyvios" of this page began, thus indicating that as I had said prior, Mr. Merrill used this page as a reference point.  Perhaps if Parsecboy had taken a second to do his research instead of jumping the gun on the deletion of both the page and of all prior logs, this episode could have been avoided.  The only real upside to this event was that I got to go through and fix some formatting issues. 5minutes (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wayback is, unfortunately, not conclusive for this, as it does not account for websites that change urls. However, we do use it as evidence, and it coordinates with signs of natural evolution in this article to suggest that copying is reversed. If you believe that content has been removed unjustly, it's far better to work within processes than to simply restore the content. We do try to investigate these matters as thoroughly as time and technology permit at the copyright problems board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for restoring the deletion log.  There does seem to be an error in your process if there is a 6-hour window between initial notice on this page and a deletion that ignored a user's statement that the material came from a public domain source.  5minutes (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy violation 

message: The summary at the top of the article says that seven Regulators were later executed, but the detailed list of Regulators says six. Which number is correct? --Kitsunegami (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 were executed at a later time (Benjamin Merrill, Robert Matear (Matter), James Pugh, Captain Messer, 2 Unknown men).  One was executed at the site of the battle (James Few) and is listed higher on the list.  This gives a total of 7 executions.  5minutes (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many were executed as traitors? 

message: I removed the following passage from the section "Memorial". It may well be correct but it's not encyclopedia style.
:   The Alamance Battleground site including the Allen House is not the actual site of the battle.Read about it further on their website if you must.  I have camped out on the original Battleground and it is closer to Snow Camp ,NC.  It's on part of a private farm so there is no public access. But you can see some of the still remaining battle trenches in the woods. It's along the banks of a creek back in the woods.   Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Memorial"