Theresa Knott wrote:
This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to be on Wikipedia?"
This is precisely the problem. CoolCat will not identify himself or the publisher, so we have no way to establish that we have a reasonable belief that we have permission.
I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the material, we must presume the opposite. If CoolCat disagrees with that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.