Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vincent Dicks

Instructions
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up.

If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Copyright violations. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal.

When every section is completed, please alter the listing for this CCI at CCI to include the tag "completed=yes". This will alert a clerk that the listing needs to be archived.

Text

 * Examine the article or the diffs linked below.
 * If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it.
 * If you remove text presumptively, place   on the article's talk page.
 * If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (or revert to a previous clean version), place   on the article's talk page. The url parameter may be optionally used to indicate source.
 * If there is insufficient creative content on the page for it to survive the removal of the text or it is impossible to extricate from subsequent improvements, replace it with, linking to the investigation subpage in the url parameter. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor. Your note on the CCI investigation page serves that purpose.
 * To tag an article created by the contributor for presumptive deletion, place  on the article's face and   on the article's talk page. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor.


 * After examining an article:
 * replace the diffs after the colon on the listing with indication of whether problem was found (add y) or not (add n). If the article is blanked and may be deleted, please indicate as much after the y.
 * Follow with your username and the time to indicate to others that the article has been evaluated and appropriately addressed. This is automatically generated by four tildes ( ~ )


 * If a section is complete, consider collapsing it by placing collapse top and collapse bottom beneath the section header and after the final listing.

Images

 * Examine the images below. For free images:
 * Does the image look non-free? Is it likely the uploader is the copyright holder?
 * Is the image properly licensed and sourced? Be aware of images that say "this image is licensed under X" without specifying who created it.
 * Do a reverse image search using TinEye. Check the license of the source page. Compare the last modified time with the (Commons) upload time.
 * Do a Google image search for phrases that describe the image's contents.
 * See Guide to image deletion on dealing with cases of possible image copyright infringement. There is no need to open a possibly unfree files listing. Administrators may delete images from multiple point infringers presumptively in accordance with Copyright violations. Evaluators who are not administrators may section images into a "deletion requested" section for administrator attention.


 * For non-free images, determine whether each image meets our non-free content criteria.
 * Note that Commons does not accept non-free content.
 * Annotate the listing with the action taken, e.g. if the image was tagged no source write "no source"; if the fair use claim is deemed ok you can write "OK fair use".

Contribution survey
 Vincent Dicks
 * Reported by Max Semenik (talk)
 * I've just deleted Simeon Rockefeller House and Van Salsbergen House as copyvios. Other page creations look suspicious, too but I can't find the exact sources. Max Semenik (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Max Semenik (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've actually finished this one; he had a very small pool of contributions, and I was able to scan back through the history. I did not find confirmed text matches to anything, but did remove some language from two place articles because it was not encyclopedic and because I could not exclude the possibility of copyright. I think it's quite likely that he assumed, as some do, that text related to National Historic Place applications is public domain, but, unfortunately, we have confirmed with that agency that it is not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've actually finished this one; he had a very small pool of contributions, and I was able to scan back through the history. I did not find confirmed text matches to anything, but did remove some language from two place articles because it was not encyclopedic and because I could not exclude the possibility of copyright. I think it's quite likely that he assumed, as some do, that text related to National Historic Place applications is public domain, but, unfortunately, we have confirmed with that agency that it is not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)