Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 August 4

4 August 2019

 * Ixtoc I oil spill has the phrase "the authors saw" - so I checked with Earwigs tool. Will need investigation I can't do from my phone, and maybe jstor access. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC).


 * I agree that the phrase "the authors saw" is odd, but it didn't match any of the sources I checked (listed below) - I'll rephrase it, but I don't know if its a copyright error or just a mistake. The page wasn't tagged for copyright violations. I'll tag it myself to be on the safe side, but any copyright violation is small. Per earwigs:
 * 90.5% confidence in a violation from http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat53/sub335/item2411.html, but http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat53/sub335/item2411.html lists Wikipedia as the source for the relevant part, so no copyright violation here
 * 90.1% confidence in a violation from https://suzrocks.wordpress.com/2010/05/, but https://suzrocks.wordpress.com/2010/05/ says that "All information shared here is from wikipedia.org.", so no copyright violation
 * 78.4% confidence in a violation from https://www.jamblemag.com/green-economy/2010/01/, but https://www.jamblemag.com/green-economy/2010/01/ lists publication as January 9, 2018, and the edits since then (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ixtoc_I_oil_spill&type=revision&diff=909357825&oldid=810931890&diffmode=source) only contain 1 addition of prose, which doesn't match that source, no so copyright violation
 * 73.5% confidence in a violation from https://web.archive.org/web/20100510080322/http://www.incidentnews.gov/entry/508790, relating only to Ixtoc I oil spill. That section, however, cites that source repeatedly. It is also a US government source (department of commerce), so attribution (which is already there) is likely enough
 * 35.5% confidence in a violation from https://web.archive.org/web/20100724063119/http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/13/530250/after-big-1979-spill-a-stunning.html, relating to part of a paragraph that cites that source
 * 21.3% confidence in a violation from https://web.archive.org/web/20100620210259/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51843, relating to a single sentence that cites that source
 * Remaining violations are all below 5% confidence
 * I'm going to deal with those sections noted above ("the authors saw", and notes #5 and #6) as well as tag those sections with a copyvio template to be on the safe side. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Special:Diff/910029110 for the cleanup. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I have cleaned the article, just waiting for a copyright clerk or admin to verify and remove the tag --DannyS712 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)