Talk:Rockwell Field

message: This article has been completely revised and greatly expanded Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: October 2013 update

message: This article contains extensive content copied from the National Register of Historic Places application. While this is a governmental form, the content is not filled out by staff of the NRHP, and they have confirmed to us via email that this material may be copyrighted. The question would be whether the person who filled out the form - Andrew Yatsko III - was a federal employee and did so as part of his official duties. If so, then this content is public domain (see WP:PD) and usable, with proper attribution. I don't find anything in that pdf that confirms that this material is related to the Air Force Historical Research Agency. However, I can find this about Andrew Yatsko III - he seems to have been a staff civil engineer or an archaeologist at the Naval Air Station in California. Can anybody shed any light on whether that means he is a contractor (who can own copyright) or a federal employee (who can't, when the work is part of his assigned duties)? Help much appreciated! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this is complicated further with content copied from . (I hit it with "much to the chagrin of the Navy".) Checking copyright status of that.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A retired San Diego attorney. Not public domain. One example of copying, with bolding to show where verbatim copying remains:
Source                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	Article
The year 1932 saw another major change. Almost no new facilities had been constructed since the end of World War I and “temporary” buildings were still in use. Now, the Great Depression was underway, resulting in even greater 121 Forgotten Air Pioneers cuts in military funding for both the Army and the Navy. Yet the attempt to  get the unemployed back to work led to expenditures for new public works projects, which, much to the chagrin of the Navy, resulted in $1.6 million being appropriated for new construction at Rockwell Field of buildings previously planned for 1928 but stymied by the Navy, including ten homes for officers, thirty homes for noncommissioned officers, new sewer, water, and gas systems, roads, walks and other modernizing improvements—hardly indicative of a prospective departure by the Army.	The year 1932 saw another major change. Almost no new facilities had been constructed since the end of World War I and the "temporary" wooden buildings were still in use. Now, the Great Depression was underway and an attempt to get the unemployed back to work led to expenditures for new public works projects, which, much to the chagrin of the Navy, resulted in $1.6 million being appropriated for new construction at Rockwell Field (Most of which today remains as part of a National Historic District).
Even if the other source proves to be PD, we have a copyright issue with taking from this one. I have reverted for now to the last presumed clean version prior to the edits by User:Bwmoll3, who was already subject to a WP:CCI, unfortunately, when he placed this content. I do apologize to this interested in the development of this article. If the first source proves to be PD, content from it can be reincorporated, although it needs acknowledgement to avoid Wikipedia:Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright question