Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/Study Guide for CFA Exam Level III

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search

Study Guide for CFA Exam Level III[edit]

I would like this wikibook to be undeleted. Although I now see that it broke the Fair Use Guidelines, I can within 20 minutes remove the portions that broke Fair Use guidelines. Ninety-eight percent of the content did not violate those guidelines, so I believe that it was a bit premature to delete the entire wikibook. In order to get the wikibook in line with fair use, I will

a) delete a copied table--the table underneath which I ironically wrote was in line with Fair Use Guidelines (so I believed at the time) b) remove the "Learning Outcome Statements" and replace them with references to the online study guide on the CFA Institute website

Could this wikibook be undeleted so that I can have time to make these changes? Thank you. -VivekVish

The stated reason for deletion was that the book was in violation of copyright, although I am not specifically certain how the book broke copyright, nor how much of the book was in violation. I contacted User:Gentgeen, the admin who deleted the book originally, and asked him how much of the book was in violation of copyright, and if he thought the book could be made acceptable given a sincere desire to make it so. My vote on the matter will be determined almost entirely from what User:Gentgeen has to say about it. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I've gone through the pages using admin privileges, and there do appear to be some fair-use issues with tables (addressed above). I don't see any real reason not to undelete this content, as long as we delete selectively the copyright violations. The reason this book was deleted was because the OTRS group recieved a cease and desist letter asking for this content to be removed. I believe as a matter of policy, content like this should be marked as a {{copyvio}} and then deleted if no reasonable defense can be found. Current Wikibooks procedure of waiting seven days is not extraordinary, and should have been followed in this case, at least to allow the original contributor to defend why he added the content, or to remove the offending copyright violation. It can be removed from the history of the module by an admin that wants to take the time, to avoid any further issues of copyright violation, but non-violations permitted to remain. BTW, another reason this was deleted in this fashion is because the OTRS group spammed all of the Wikibooks admins to get this removed. Gentgeen was merely the first admin to respond. --Rob Horning 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. given this explanation, i agree that we should undelete this one, if only temporarily. If we do undelete this page, i would expect the known copyvio infringements to disappear ASAP. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't support undeleting the book. A request from the copyright holder was made for us to remove the content, and reported on the Staff Lounge. I then speedied it, to comply with the United States DMCA of 1998. It would put us and the Wikimedia Foundation at great liability to reinstate it. Gentgeen 05:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What I wonder is whether we could quickly edit it, upon undeletion, to make it not violate any other copyright? perhaps we could ask the copyright holder whether the book could be made acceptable? --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Simply for precedence reasons, we shouldn't be intimidated to automatically delete every potential copyright request at a drop of a hat. Not all of the content was in violation of a copyright, and the nature of what was in dispute certainly wasn't given to myself. I wonder if you somehow got more information about the request than I did. BTW, the DCMA does not apply here, as the request was simply a simple copyright violation, and applies more to the Sonny Bono Copyright Act instead. Instead, this should have had the {{copyvio}} put up immediately (indeed should have been done by the OTRS group and not even dealt directly with the admins), and been given a very short leash to justify why this should remain on Wikibooks. The way this was deleted certainly didn't follow Wikibooks:Deletion policy, at least to give the contributor a chance to defend why copyrighted content was included, and if permissions were granted. Wikibooks will not be in trouble if we don't delete the content immediately, but put it up for "investigation" first, as I'm suggesting should happen in this situation. And I found some specific copyright violations that assumed fair use but didn't meet our WB:FUP guidelines. It was this content specifically that was the basis for the complaint. --Rob Horning 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I recommend then that we undelete this book temporarily, under the auspices of "copyright review", or something similar. Give this a reasonable but strict time limit to remove information that might be in violation of a copyright. Should the offending components not be removed, or not in a timely manner, it should be summarily deleted again. Does this sound like a good solution? --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 21:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgive my impatience. How long will it take for this to get resolved? I have little more to add except to say that the copyright violations can be resolved very quickly and there is a good deal of useful uncopyrighted information there that I would like to add to. Thank you. VivekVish 13:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The curriculum for the test has been drastically changed. Everything that I put up is no longer relevant. Therefore, there is no need to undelete the wikibook. -VivekVish 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)