Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Smartk1987

Plot synopses
In reviewing the material, there appears to me to be a pattern.

For general articles, the copying is quite obvious, and I suspect arises from a lack of understanding of our policies. May of the additions include links to the source of the material, and where there is no link provided, finding the source has generally been straightforward.

For plot synopsis additions, many of the additions are signed. And I have not been able to find any evidence that the material has been copied. I have found the material copied and posted in blogs and web forms, but dated after the addition of material to Wikipedia, and the other content on those sites leads me to believe that those sites copy indiscriminately.

The wording, grammar, and level of proficiency with English difference between the general article versus the plot synopses leads me to believe that the plot material is original creative content by the editor and aren't copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From my review yesterday I'm inclined to agree - I was unable to find any copyvios with the movie plots but didn't mark most of them as clean as I wasn't sure I hadn't missed a source (which happens more often with Indian websites for whatever reason). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I didn't even know about this one; I've been distracted for the last couple of days. :) That sounds quite plausible to me. It's always a good idea to look at context clues in these cases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed and re-confirmed the remainder as plot synopses and they are clear. So this one is done! -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Like lightning! :D I will archive accordingly. Go you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)