Talk:Neochanna

Copyvio?
This page has had the copyvio tremplate applied but there does not appear to be a corresponding entry on the copyvio page and there is no discussion about what the copyvio seems to be, plus the list of species in the genus is included in the alleged copyvio -- come on, give us a break, the list of species in a genus is not copyrightable.

Unless these issues are addressed withing 24 hours I will revert the addition of the copyvio template. - Nick Thorne  talk  21:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that we have already addressed over 1,000 articles and have nearly 1,000 more to investigate, we have agreed to allow the bot to list them at CP, as the instructions on the cleanup subpage make clear. Please do not revert the template unless you have access to the book and are able to verify that there is no infringement present. The editor whose work we are analyzing has verifiably violated copyright from a number of books and websites and his work needs thorough investigation, as per discussions at WP:ANI and WP:AN. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and there is ample reason to be concerned here. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup and subpages for background. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the cited online sources, you will find significant copy violations from most of them. In addition, there are 70 words in copy violation, taken from the the first paragraph of NIWA Atlas of New Zealand Freshwater Fishes. This was not cited. The article just needs careful paraphrasing by someone who knows something about these fish (yourself? – please). Then you can remove the tag. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok guys, fair enough, I am currently over in Perth on work and will not ba able to access my reference library until next week. I will have a go using the online refs, but will have to wait until I get back to Melbourne before I will be able to do a proper re-write of this article.  Can we hold off on the deletion until then?  -  Nick Thorne  talk  04:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the copyvio articles created by GB have been deleted, so there is no hurry. Many articles have been reduced to a single sentence ("Blah blah is a blah in family blahblahdae..."), but even then the article history remains. – Sadalmelik ☎ 10:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should put a header on the project subpage making clear that these articles aren't going to be deleted, but cleaned? I can understand the alarm. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)