Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 July 22/Articles

Articles


 * Penicillium roqueforti ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . McGeddon (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Public domain and already properly noted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Theodore Roosevelt annexes Puerto Rico Lighthouses ([ history] · [ last edit]) from [hardcopy source material]. If I've done this wrong please accept my apologies. I came across the article using "random article" and it hasn't been worked on in a very long time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This information is public domain both by date and by origin, as it is a US Federal Government document and its author is dead for more than 70 years. However, it has now been placed at Wikisource, and I have PRODded it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Towson University Athletic Hall of Fame ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Note that much of the black text is on a dark background, but it's there. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * South Petherton ([ history] · [ last edit]) from Todays section seems to have been largely copy & pasted from this source but some changes have been made & I'm not sure of appropriate action&mdash; Rod talk 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * New article now ready at Talk:South Petherton/Temp to be moved by an admin.&mdash; Rod talk 12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have merged the versions as the new version retained text from the infringement and infringement was non-transparent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor ([ history] · [ last edit]) from http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/misc/hallhon.htm. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a note for Phlegm Rooster asking why he has tagged this article as a possible copyright violation. The articles that are reported as sources were already listed as sources.  The article is largely a list of inductees into the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor.  Beyond the mere list on the two web sites noted, however, I have put much effort into building the article with additional useful information, including a summary of the person's major accomplishments, the position he/she played, and wikilinks to their individual articles.  These are significant enhancements beyond the source list.  Also, most of the introductory text is my own.  The only exception was two sentences that describe the purpose and criteria for induction.  Since the M Club site containing this information was cited a source, I believed this was a limited, fair use.  To avoid any possible issue, I reworded the first of these two sentences.  As for the second sentence, it describes the Club's criteria for induction and should probably be listed precisely.  Accordingly, I put that single sentence in quotations with a direct cite to the M Club site.  The M Club site was already listed as a general source.  This article has been used heavily by Wikipedia users (thousands of views according to grok stats) so I would appreciate having the article restored as soon as possible so that people can resume using it.  Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Phlegm Rooster has agreed in the linked discussion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phlegm_Rooster&oldid=227371436 ) that his concern has been addressed, though his tone (telling me that the tag will "be reported somewheres" in response to my question) and baseless accusations (that I "contaminated" wikipedia with "stolen text" leave something to be desired.Cbl62 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that Cbl62 introduced the blatant copyvio text in question, then edited the article after the tag had been applied instead of following the directions on the tag, then relentlessly pestered me on my talkpage to remove the tag, even though only an admin can do so. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the note in the tag, I did NOT remove it. After speaking to Phlegm Rooster and ascertaining that his concern was with two particular sentences, yes, I edited those sentences to address that concern -- as noted in my original comments above.  I also added a < / div> marker since the tag indicates such a marker is appropriate where only a small piece is challenged. Given that Phlegm's only concern was with 2 sentences, I would have thought that he should have used the < / div> marker rather than blanking an entire article reflecting days of work.  I have been making positive contributions to wikipedia for over a year and do not copy others' work without attribution.  To the extent these two sentences raised a concern, the issue has been addressed.  But Phlegm's adversarial tone is a concern.  As is the verbiage of his user page indicating that he considers it his purpose on wikipedia to see how many articles he can "manage" to get deleted.  Cbl62 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And as for "pestering" Phlegm, I simply asked him if he could remove the tag once his issue had been addressed OR tell me who to speak to. That prompted Phlegm's reply: "It gets reported somewheres, it will be dealt with by the appropriate parties." I then asked him to tell me where "somewheres" was.  The exchange is found in the above link and speaks for itsefl.Cbl62 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cbl62 doesn't read the tag, and doesn't read my comment above; I didn't say he removed the tag, I said he edited the article even though the tags says not to. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this has become personal with Phlegm Rooster, as I see that Phlegm has been trying to get numerous athletic hall of fame article deleted -- on varying grounds (principally notability). See LSU Athletic Hall of Fame challenged as non-notable, Towson Univ. Athletic Hall challenged as nonnotable and copyvio, Morgan State - notability attack, Ohio Athletics, Nassau County and Wrestilng Observer Hall.  In this case, he seized on a purported copyright issue.  Based on his pattern of attacking such articles, I don't think this is about copyright at all.  But the bottom line is that Phlegm raised a concern with 2 specific sentences in the article which closely followed 2 sentences on two other web sites.  These two sentences described the purpose and criteria for induction into the UM Hall.  In order to get the standards correct, I did closely track the institution's language in those 2 sentences and also cited the 2 sites as sources.  I believe this fell within fair use in describing the Hall's purpose and standards.  Nevertheless, when Phlegm raised the issue, I modified the introduction to avoid any possible issue -- rewriting one sentence and putting the other in quotes with a direct reference.  I also added the < /div> marker because, even though his only concern was 2 sentences, he had blanked the entire article (one that has received more than 6,000 vies in the last 6 months), preventing anyone from viewing it.  I have not removed the tag.  Phlegm said it should be removed the next day but it's still there.  The tag is no longer appopriate (and I question whether it ever was).  How do I get the tag removed?  Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I discovered a non-notable hall of fame and nominated it for deletion. Other editors claimed that because other articles of a similar type existed, the article up for debate should not be deleted. I then checked out those other articles, and discovered the copyvio. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have previously acknowledged the purported copyvio has been corrected and that the tag should be removed (though you said that had to be done by an admin), so why do you continue like this? Or is that you just want to increase your "count" of deleted articles.  Your talk page, nothing more than a tally of articles you have "managed" to delete, is suggestive of a view that you are engaged in a competition to see how many articles you can get deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll bet the admins would have removed the tag sooner if we hadn't stunk up this page arguing. As for a "count" of deleted articles, most of them were spam and/or blatant copyvio. Look at my contribs this morning; I uncovered an editor who had introduced loads of copyvio onto Wikipedia. Copyvio and plagiarism will get Wikipedia s-u-e-d. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I am all in favor of rooting out copyright violation, but the tone and content of your user page, and some of your comments to me, suggested a motive of "competition." In any event, what do you say we both stop, as you put it, "stinking up" this page and just let the process run its course? Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ←Copyvio did exist, but has been rectified. Note at talk page clarifying. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image talk:Alex Van Halen.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from [Unknown origin. (Multiple possibilities after google image search for Alex Van Halen)]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Orphaned talk page; tagged db-house. -- Robocoder ( t|c ) 06:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * S3M ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * HMS Nancy (1789) ([ history] · [ last edit]) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reporter appears to be making improvements to the article, so have left him/her a message on his/her Talk page asking for status update. -- Robocoder ( t|c )
 * Clean-up finished. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Penetrators ([ history] · [ last edit]) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)