Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 August 20

19 August 2014

 * Compulsory Health Insurance (Russia) ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) . Superzohar CCI. Foundational. Looks to be a machine translation, and not from Russian Wikipedia, and at high risk of being a copyvio. Mkativerata (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Greater Grimsby ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.greatergrimsby.net. Copypaste. Note to editors - I would not recommend attempting a rewrite without consulting other sources first - it seems likely/possible the the article (title) may be a neologism - eg Avoid_neologisms though the content and concept may be valid. I have left a note on this aspect at Grimsby. Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record - I would probably be putting this article up for deletion otherwise - so if I have got the proceedure wrong please let me know.Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has been deleted, as I found duplicated fragments from all over the page on the website, but please be sure when listing in future to follow the step of notifying the contributor who placed the content. :) Typically, we will not process requests where the contributor has not been notified (the exceptions being mostly for IPs and WP:CCIs, although there are occasions when it is hard to determine from the article's history where the content came in). Given that he has not edited for some years, though, and is unlikely to have addressed the issue, I have given him information for how to do so retroactively. If he does, the content will be restored, so you may wish to watchlist the title in case it is recreated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) . Superzohar CCI. Foundational. The way it is written, it is surely a copy-paste from a (offline or no longer available) source. The source may be this, which was later introduced to the article as a citation. There's no evidence it would be public domain (and even if it were, its copy-pasting has made for a very troublesome article...). Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ostankino Technical Center ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) . Superzohar CCI. Foundational. Looks to be a machine translation and not of Russian Wikipedia (or, apparently, the source cited, although I can't navigate that website). Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's more likely a human "dictionary" translation, not machine. I believe that in russia copyright laws allow freedom of translation when a translated version does not exist. (if that applies here)
 * The history section of that website is here http://ostankino.ru/istoriya-telecentra - it's not a copy from that - I really think its a good faith summary, and not a copyvio, written by someone with a obvious non-native grasp of english.Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks heaps for finding that. When I run the paragraph starting "До-останкинский период в развитии телевидения" through a machine, I'm getting a pretty close -- nearly identical (just a few sentences omitted) -- match for the 'Prior to the center' paragraph of the WP article. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cleaned. Thanks, Prof.Haddock. :) It's unfortunate, but good faith efforts don't always lead to text we can retain. :/ Looking at a different paragraph than the one Mkativerata just to see if there is a pattern beyond the one paragraph of similarity, I find the following, for example:


 * Bolding has been added to precisely duplicated content to show where this has clearly been copy-pasted. That's the entire paragraph, and our article follows lock-step on the structure and most of the language of the original machine translation. While it's possible that the user did some minimal modification, I think it's far more likely that the changes reflect improvements in Google's translation software. The new translation's material on the 110-meter tower is marginally better than the article's. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)