You tagged this and indicated you were bringing it to WP:CP [1]but it does not appear there and is still tagged. Was this ever discussed? The alleged source for the copyvio [2] is one section (pg. 20) of the lecture notes seemingly created in November 2020 that reproduces our hyperlinks and footnotes and uses wording that has been in the article since its 2007 creation (e.g. "known input and by an expected output, which is worked out before the test is executed" under "Formal Test Cases" [3]). There are some independent references in the section, but given no suspicious edit history on our end, this seems to be some lazy TA/prof plagiarizing Wikipedia then the other way around and should be tagged with {{Backwardscopy}}. Pinging Bruce1ee, who fixed some tag formatting. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No this was never discussed and It was listed. I should've investigated further to see if it was a backwards copy but I was in a rush, sorry. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 18:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's actually on the log page for the day. Sennecaster seems to have reached the same conclusion I did but did not carry out the backwardscopy tag and removal of the mainspace tag. If we're all agreed, then should we just do that then? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and reminder, thought I removed the blanking earlier and have now done so. I don't think it's worth tagging with a backwards tag since the 'work' in question looks like a private study guide for a university class and not something that was meant to be widely published, but if you disagree I can add it no problem. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do CP work, so I'll defer to you, but since it was already missed once, it might be marginally useful to do so. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]