Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 December 27

27 December 2017

 * Mauro Malavasi ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://jacquesfredpetrusmauromalavasi.blogspot.com/2009/10/jacques-fred-petrus-mauro-malavasi_17.html. Tagged by User:4meter4. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting support.svg Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Catherine of Braganza ([ history] · [ last edit] · Talk:Catherine of Braganza) from Herman, Eleanor (2005). Sex with Kings: 500 Years of Adultery, Power, Rivalry, and Revenge. 'The Contempt of the World': William Morrow Paperbacks. ISBN 0-06-058544-7. Tagged by nobody right now.
 * Please excuse if I can't format this right. Article is Catherine of Braganza and this paragraph, particularly the final two sentences, sounds very much like a quote from somewhere. However, it is sourced to a book that I do not know how to check online. Could the experts here please assess. This is the paragraph: 70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the first presentation to Charles' official mistress, Barbara Palmer, she fainted away upon realizing who had been brought before her and Charles's insistence on making her Catherine's Lady of the Bedchamber.[9] Initially, not realizing who was presented to her, she accepted Barbara graciously, but upon comprehension changed her bearing. She withdrew from the king's society, and in spite of Clarendon's awkward attempts to appeal to her, declared she would return to Portugal rather than consent to a base compliance. To overcome her resistance the king dismissed nearly the whole of her Portuguese retinue. She was helpless, and the violence of her grief and anger soon changed to passive resistance, and then to a complete forbearance and complaisance which gained the king's regard and favour. In the midst of Charles's debauched and licentious court, she lived neglected and retired.[10]
 * I can't substantiate this, . The bulk of the content is copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica; some of it was re-worded with in 2014, but the Sex with Kings ref was already in place then and I can't see any evidence of copying from there (not that Google gives a very broad view of that book). I think the archaic flavour comes largely from the EB. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking. I take it that it is ok to copy from the Brittanica? Would it be OK if I changed the reference to the Brittanica to avoid future confusion?70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , the 1911 edition of the EB is in the public domain; it's been used as the basis for many articles here. I've provided better attribution for the PD content in this article (it's now at the foot of the reference section), but if you want to add inline citations as well that can only improve the page. Of course – in my personal view – what would really help would be to rewrite the content in modern encyclopaedic English. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done (diff) and thank you again for your help.70.67.222.124 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)