Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 June 17

17 June 2009

 * Network of Excellence ([ history] · [ last edit]) from http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/euratom/documents/pdf/euratom_inbrief_2003_en.pdf. This appears to more be plaigarism than out-and-out copyright theft. The 2003 EURATOM document has been lightly paraphrased to create this entry - 'three' changed to '3', 'Member states and Associated states' to just 'Associated states', but odd capitalisations are preserved between the two versions. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 13:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are part of this organization so we use the content of our website, what else do we need to do for not being removed ... Zacharewicz (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Copied from article's talk page. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 13:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This message about copyrigth violation as it is now is non-relevent. NoE is a term that was invented by the European commission and not the reference that was indicated (at Eurosfaire) that just copy the description. Besides, the description is really short, and therefore I do not understand what is this story about copyright violation!. It could be good that people that put such notices have a basic knowledge about the domain they are talking about. Please remove this notice. Best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really copyvio -- the one sentence that's blatant could be handled by quoting and citing it. The rest looks reasonably paraphrased to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan, Thank you for the changes. I do not believe that what was a copyright violation, and this should have been addressed more smoothly. I do not believe NoE deserved to spend attention in debating (there is nothing at stake here), and should just be there to inform people (NoE is a term that come in European research programme, and it is just useful to have people understand about it without spending too much time navigating to other pages). Bye.--Nabeth (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was addressed exactly according to policy. If you have an argument with policy, take it up with WP:COPYRIGHT. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This was addressed according to your interpretation of the policy. In WP:COPYRIGHT it is indicated that: "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit". To my opinion this was not the case here (but I do not assume myself I have the true), in since the plagiarism was not totally established here (except the extraction of a couple of line of a public -and probably official- document), this issue should have been discussed in the talk page. --Nabeth (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that you started the cut-and-paste article and have a major conflict of interest in the subject anyway, you're probably not the one to judge as to whether policy was correctly implemented. And policy was correctly implemented. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 10:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's stop now this discussion that is going nowhere, and that is generating frustration and that consuming effort that should be better allocated at more productive activities. Concerning the conflict of interest, I do not understand what you are atlking about. Best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

✅ The initial placement of the copyright violation notice by User:Redvers was correct. For example, this portion of the article:
 * They aim to overcome the fragmentation of European research by:
 * gathering the critical mass of resources
 * gathering the expertise needed to provide European leadership
 * NoE also have to spread excellence beyond the boundaries of its partnership

is a direct copy from this website without attribution. As currently rewritten, the issues of copyright violations have been resolved. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this site is an official site from the European commission. NoE is a term (and what is present in Wikipedia) that was invented by the european commission for representing a special instrument. Therefore using exactly the same formulation appears to be legitimate (like quoting an official document). On the other hand, I totally agree that it should have been better referenced and put inside quotes to remove any confusion. Just correcting this would have been more appropriate and more effective (less time would have been lost in discussions) than putting the copyright violation that prevented people to access the content. No need to make a fuss of all this! Better use our time (of all of us) for something else (production of content, identifying content that have more serious problems, etc.). And getting frustrated for nothing (I like to associate Wikipedia with something 'fun', even if it is serious, rather than a big buraucracy which I would not like to see it to become). That's all :-). --Nabeth (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

✅*:Section blanked. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC) ✅*:Indef blocked user was writing about his business on his own talk page. Reverted, and reblocked with edit own talk page disabled. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dale Carnegie ([ history] · [ last edit]) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:Rimrock Foundation ([ history] · [ last edit]) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * History has also been cleaned of copyright violation. — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)