Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 19

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

 * Deutsche Post ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.vanderlande.com/en/News-Press/Newsitem/Deutsche-Post-DHL-chooses-Vanderlande-industries-sorting-solutions-for-its-new-automated-delivery-sites-in-Germany.htm. Trey Maturin (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Out of date clock icon.svg|20px]] User was not notified, relisting under today's entry. --Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * United States Air Force Plant 6 ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/afp-6.htm. Listing here from SCV. Content may turn out to be PD, but was clearly copy-pasted from the web source (NB the non-sentence ". to modify the B-29."). See also Contributor copyright investigations/20130819. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ( moved here from my talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC) ) I was under the belief that what I have in my sandbox is not an article.  I copied that information from global security as part of the development of the actual article.   When I first moved the article out into article space at  21:02, 10 June 2014‎ I saw the bot had flagged the information in the "Current uses" section.   I had forgotten to re-write that information and it was removed from the article at 21:04, 10 June 2014‎.
 * The information was re-written and restored to the article at 21:39, 10 June 2014‎.  The section I restored to the article is written differently (and shorter) than the globalsecurtiy.org page (which is referenced in the section).
 * By correcting by oversight (almost immediately), I thought this matter was resolved.  I have gone back and revisited the article and again reviewed and edited the section.Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be,, it may be; and it may be, as I've mentioned above, that the content will anyway be found to be PD. What really bothers me, though, is that an editor with a massive open CCI (4989 articles, it seems to be) would even for a moment think of copying anything else into Wikipedia. I just can't get my head round that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , there is no exception that permits you to copy content into user space - all of Wikipedia is governed by our copyright policy and our terms of use. Every time you hit save, you are agreeing that the material you are adding is compatible with our licensing. Have you copied any other content into sandboxes? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Normally I use a notepad on my desktop when I'm gather information.   The only reason I put it into the sandbox was because I was distracted and needed to boot so I just copied it into the sandbox to save it so I wouldn't lose it.  Then I went off to do some other things and just left it there to work on later.   If you look at my main sandbox you'll see it's divided up where there are several articles that get worked on  when I have time or get distracted by something else, they sit in there for a while before they get moved out into article space.    If you look at the date/times, you'll see that it was a while till I got back to working on that article in the sandbox.  I was unaware of the restrictions placed on the sandbox and that's why it was there.  Apologies  Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Update. Desperate Journey, listed below in Copyright problems/2014 July 10, is another blatant copyvio by this editor. I requested a block and, on the advice of, also at ANI; the editor's comment was "Please close and delete all my accounts", which prompted the obvious question. I'm concerned that there may be (a lot?) more articles to be added to the CCI. What's the next step here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I acted precipitously on that one. :/ The copyvio at Desperate Journey was placed in June 2013, several months before the CCI was opened. We usually do not block for issues discovered that predate. The thing to do if it had been placed subsequent would be to update the CCI. I've been dragging my heels on this one because a review needs to be made of other edits subsequent to the CCI to see if there are other issues. A block may be necessary and some might well block him for the single instance above. I myself would prefer to see if there is a pattern, even an infrequent one, before taking that action. I'll bite the bullet and run the software. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. Somebody had already recently run it. I've confirmed fresh issues since the CCI - see Talk:Rockwell_Field. One of those is ambiguous in terms of its public domain status, although it's clearly an issue of Plagiarism, but the other one is a clear copy-paste problem. I will block again, leave a note at ANI, and repopulate the CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated the archive - go me. :) (Didn't notice it was archived.) Anyway, I'm out of time, but have expanded the CCI accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of that, ; I should of course have noticed that the Desperate Journey problem pre-dated the CCI, sorry about that. I'm left worrying about that "all my accounts" comment. Can we ask for a check-user for sleepers based on that alone, do you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have noticed that, too, but I didn't. :/ In any event, if it had turned out that the article above was the only issue it would have stood with the apology. Sadly, that's not how it turned out. :( Anyway, let's see if I can get this day out of here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Justlettersandnumbers. I have no idea re: the checkuser. I'll see what I can find out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm told it may be a valid reason to request. Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)