While the original 2006 article was a copyright violation, the current article is significantly cut down, is now mostly paraphrased, and the part that is a longer direct quote is in quotations with a reference. (These edits were made a couple of years ago.) I've worked on this article in the past, and if a specific section is problematic, I'm willing to rewrite it now to prevent deletion. LyrlTalkC23:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article relisted under today. In its present form, the article still contains several sentences copied verbatim from the source. All in all, what we have here is an unauthorized derivative work. Relisting on November 26 to allow for a rewrite from scratch in temp space. --MLauba (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Was pretty much cleaned up. I still feel a bit uneasy about the whole thing but it's unlikely to be actionable in its present state. --MLauba (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS Ticket received, article now licensed and compatible with CC-BY-SA. --MLauba (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Article relisted under today. In its present form, the article still contains several sentences copied verbatim from the source. All in all, what we have here is an unauthorized derivative work. Relisting on November 26 to allow for a rewrite from scratch in temp space. --MLauba (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)