Talk:New England Law Boston

message: Given the Law School's current constant re-editing, I would like to endorse the current page, and request that it be locked, to be re-examined ONLY when new rankings, cost, and employment data are made generally available.
Please sign if you endorse:
Latenightpizza (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsement 

message: I am removing a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion regarding the dispute above. Third opinion requests are intended to cast a tie-breaking vote between two editors who have reached an impasse. There are more than two editors involved here. If you want to solicit consensus from a wider group, try WP:RFC. If there are behavioral issues in play here, you may need more formal dispute resolution.
That said, there is no problem with including a mention of how a school is ranked, in my opinion, provided the ranking publication meets criteria for reliability, verifiability, and notability. There you have it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much. As far as the ranking issue is concerned, I am satisfied with the result that has been reached. Neslgrad09 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion not possible

message: Can we please get this page locked and block the users who continually revert the page back to a bad non-wikified page. Dgreco (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a checkuser might be in order, as one administrator has already advised. Either way, there are some Wikiquette violations and incivility here that may need to be addressed, as well. --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Block/Lock

message: The text of the first few paras of the History section are almost verbatim copies of the text on https://www.nesl.edu/engaged/history.cfm. I've replaced these with the copyvio template and notified at WP:CP. As the copyvio notice says, please do not restore the blanked material until the issue is properly resolved. The notice suggests several ways to do this, among them rewriting the relevant parts to avoid copyright violation, documenting that the relevant text is not in fact a copyright violation, or obtaining proper license for use of the source material. If I can assist in any way, feel free to ping me here or on my Talk page, but as I have limited time for the `pedia just now please be prepared for it to take a while before I'm able to respond.
PS. It looks like the text in question was introduced in the first version of the article (by an IP editor) and has persisted across all following revisions. I've not checked very deeply but it looks like later additions paraphrase or otherwise avoid at least obvious copyright violations. Interested editors might still want to go over other parts of the page to check for copying from the main sources. Xover (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Presumed copyright violation in History section

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.nesl.edu/engaged/history.cfm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New England School of Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913143015/http://www.boston.com:80/business/ticker/2008/09/new_england_sch.html to http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2008/09/new_england_sch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified