Talk:Cone Mills Corporation

Ceasar vs. Caesar

While it is not the typical spelling, the correct spelling is Ceasar Cone. See the spelling in the following sources:

http://www.lib.unc.edu/mss/inv/c/Cone_Mills_Corporation.html

http://www.proximityhotel.com/history.htm

http://www.virtualblueridge.com/parkway_tour/parks/293_0/

ephemerama

Defunct Status

It may be that it is a different company in the same mill using a similar name, "Cone Denim Mills", instead of "Cone Mills".

http://www.conedenim.com/white-oak.html

AsherMaximum — Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fundinguniverse.com

Indy beetle I'm not sure what to make of this RSN thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @SandyGeorgia: Yeah I'm suspicious, Doug always seemed to take the "path of least resistance" when it came to finding sources, hence dubious the blogs and shady websites. I've already found evidence that some of what Doug attributed to the fundinguniverse website was actually close paraphrasing from this UNC Libraries collection page (cited elsewhere in the article but not where it should be, apparently!). See these edits of mine, for example: [1] [2]. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am finding that is one of the most frustrating aspects of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315. Having read through and corrected the 30 articles here, I found that citations are not always attached to the content they pretend to verify, and that what may look like it is not copyvio is later found to have come from a different source. It's like he put up text, a lot copy-pasted or barely paraphrased, and then stuck whichever citation on it was closest at hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SandyGeorgia: Ok, in light of this crap again, the dubiousness of the fundinguniverse source (and other blogs), and my inability to verify the Noblitt source how about a new strategy: I salvage all of the information I know not to be misleadingly sourced/potential copyvio onto a draft page or userpage, we nuke the article history, then put what survives back. Sound good? It just gets more frustrating the more I look at this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And fair warning, Moses H. Cone probably has similar problems. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a GA, and the January 2023 AN discussion closed with consensus that gives you full authorization to simply WP:PDEL. I wouldn't even try to rebuild (unless you personally intend to take the article to GAN or FAC). I've seen enough of his work to know now that we have years of work ahead of us, we have to prioritize resources, and PDel is the best option. Unless it is of personal interest to you, nuke away, and someone else can rebuild. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also would be reluctant to save anything of his anywhere on Wikipedia, as it could contain copyright violations you haven't yet detected. If you intend to work on this later, I'd save it offline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Moses H. Cone can be stubbed after WP:DCGAR is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SandyGeorgia: I have created this: User:Indy beetle/sandbox/Cone Mills Corporation. I can certify to you and others that everything in that draft is either something I wrote from scratch or personally checked with the sources and found no copyright problems. Do you know how to go about getting the current Cone Mills article REVDELED or otherwise deleted, or which process would be better? I'm not super familiar with copyright cleanup. Should I go ahead and post my version here and have an admin REVDEL the entire rest of the article's history? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The CCI admins are SO swamped that it's hard to get their attention. And they usually say it's not worth it to revdel something this far back and with this many revisions. I recommend you simply replace the entire page with your content, and then mark it reviewed at the CCI. THe other option is to blank the page, put a G12 on it if you think you can meet those criteria, and then start over .. but I've never done that, so really don't know how it works. I have been simply rewriting over the old stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]