Talk:Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 April 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Briansmith451 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (COI declared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training)

Contested deletion[edit]

It is not possible for this page to be a copyright violation of U.S. Federal code -- that text is in the public domain. Given that claim, I would like more time to look more closely at the other claims of copyright violation. I am concerned that the nomination has not been made with appropriate care. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the copyright violation claims:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/112/ is from the U.S. Code, which is in the public domain;
http://www.floridagangreduction.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/KGRG-7FVPNR/$file/GangReductionReportWEB.pdf includes phrases in common with this article such as "multijurisdictional counterdrug task force training mctft", "florida gang reduction strategy 2008 2012", "bureau of alcohol tobacco firearms" and "office of the attorney general". These are unambiguously not copyright violations.
http://mctft.counterdrugschools.com/ likewise has phrases in common with this article like "military services federal agencies state local lea combatant", "bureau of alcohol tobacco firearms atf" and "military training to ground component commanders". Also manifestly not a copyvio.

Based on that analysis, I'm removing the copyvio notice as completely ungrounded. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I removed a paragraph that I thought was allowable since it was in direct quotations and was quoting a US law. I don't understand the logic in not being able to quote an actual law but whatever...I removed it. There is no other copyright infringement. Someone is saying that I am infringing on my fifth reference, which is ridiculous since I used only two words from this source ("Nationally responsive"). Is that really infringement? As for the third infringement noted, that is my own organization's website and I have no idea what sentence is in question, but is probably due to the fact that I wrote both webpages and may have borrowed my own words somewhere.--Briansmith451 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and cleared out all of the copyright violations. There is currently not a CV issue here. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that so many government wiki pages, such as Center for Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance can get created with so few references, and the MCTFT is so highly criticized for its references? Just curious.Briansmith451 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF should explain that... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, good to know. Been wondering that for years.Briansmith451 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]