Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 14

Gelotology
This article has a sizable section of promotional language. On September 17, User:98.163.220.147 (talk) wrote in the article, "WikiEditors: this article's text was apparently borrowed from a company brochure." He/she might simply be basing that statement on the promotional language, but for all I know it could be a real copyright problem. A. Parrot (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

CSBot
So... I've been taking a look at CSBot results for a while, and it seems fairly evident that the rate of false positives goes up when articles are really short (which makes sense, when you think about it &mdash; it's much easier to have 80% apparent match over two dozen words than it is over two hundred). I was considering raising the bar for how short an article it's willing to tag; but I want some opinions. Are there enough copyvios in very short articles to justify the trouble of the false positives? Should the bar be raise just a bit, quite a bit, or not at all? &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have stats somewhere on the percentage of false positives there are on short articles compared to longer ones? §hep  Talk  00:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's mostly subjective eyeball&mdash; it's not easy to instrument. I agree some metrics would help make the decision, though.  Given that the subpages for CSBot reports are fairly systematically handled, I should be able to script some analysis of that and come back with some numbers.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just from my own impression I'm inclined to agree that setting a minimum size might be a good idea. I know I have tagged some really short articles as copyvio, but not many. I think some hard numbers would be nice to work with so we could figure out the right ratio of false-positives to false-negatives (maximize the Matthews correlation coefficient maybe?), but you'd need admin privileges to run the script to see what size deleted articles were when they were tagged (so rule me out for helping with that part of data gathering). I'd be willing to help with what parts I can to generate some hard numbers though. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If some minimum length standard is added, perhaps it could also be set to ignore short webpages to avoid false positives such as this one, where the only text provided by the webpage is the title. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of an article that correctly got tagged as a copyvio at only 182 bytes. Just pointing it out here to remind us that reducing small false positives will also be increasing small false negatives. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

UK election maps
No idea where to bring this up but a number of general election maps for the UK for 2001 and earlier have been added recently. The 2001 map is copied from the BBC, File:UK Election Map 2001.png and while earlier maps uploaded by the same user have been taken from the vision of Britain website at. The 1955 map is from somewhere else. 82.132.138.137 (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC).


 * I nominated the first file you mentioned for deletion. Will nominate the others pending the deletion of this one. Marcus   Qwertyus   22:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Jansport87
I have come to notice that many of User:Jansport87's 158 articles may be copyright violations. The stubby articles do not have problems but some like Joshua Farrell violates this and Dan Troy violates this. Jansport has made only 1 contribution to a talk page out of 2003 edits; never responded to a talk page post and never left an edit summary (I think). so it may be that he/she doesn't speak English well. Marcus  Qwertyus   22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and open a WP:CCI investigation here after skimming their large contributions and finding five articles that are almost entirely cut and pasted. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm new this. Marcus  Qwertyus   23:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It's now opened at Contributor copyright investigations/Jansport87 if you feel like pitching in and helping out with further investigation and cleanup - even just double-checking their short contributions to be sure they aren't problems would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

question about government source
I came across Union Pacific 737 today and it is ovioulsy cut and pasted from here. It seemed like an obvious case of plagerism to me, but I am told that since it is from a government source it is in public domain. I've been advised to check it out on this page. Here is the cover page to the source. Thanks. --Ishtar456 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is helpful to look at the linked file page. The licensing for the image is   A photograph from 1890 is presumptively in the public domain.  At least for this image, the question of it appearing in a United States government web site does not need to be examined. patsw (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

but my question was not about the photo, it was about the text having been cut and pasted from the source.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government for an explanation. It doesn't appear to me that the content is an exception.  Plagiarism occurs when one does not give full attribution to the source and claims original authorship.  This does not seem to be the case here as this article appears to have used the NPS template correctly. patsw (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:CMMLowes48
CMMLowes48 is copying pages directly from another wiki. I'm not sure what their copyright policy is. I couldn't find any information in a quick search but surely he/she needs to acknowledge where the information is coming from. Two examples  and. Is this a blockable offense or is it different because the information is coming from another wiki? -- D•g Talk to me/What I've done 23:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The site's disclaimer states:

"Photos on the Wiki are property of their respective owner(s). Permission is NOT granted for any commercial or non-commercial use. Please contact the owner or copyright holder to obtain permission to use any images on this site. If you find your work published on the Wiki and would like to have it removed, or have a copyright statement added, please contact admin@cptdb.ca"
 * I do not see any credible assertion that this site's licensing is compatible with Wikipedia. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When a website provides no specific copyright license, we must assume that all its text is copyrighted and incompatible with us. All of CMMLowes48's page creations have now been deleted. That wiki does specifically deny the use of photos -- so I have additionally tagged all the editor's photo uploads at Commons as copyright violations.
 * As far as blocking the user, we'll hope that they now understand WP copyright policy through the various messages left on their talk page. New editors often fail to understand that all Wikis are not equal -- and their licenses are usually incompatible for our use. Thanks for quickly noticing this problem. I'll also keep a watch on their edits to make certain there is no repeat offense. — Cactus Writer (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help -- D•g Talk to me/What I've done 17:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio? (William Nutt)
William Nutt appears to be a C&P from here, but the article quoted at the external link is most likely in the public domain, given the publication date cited. Is this still a copyvio? Avocado (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The second half of the article (from "Colonel William Nutt was born ...") is definitely public domain, as it's copied on Google Books and at the Internet Archive. I haven't found an original published source for the first half so far, so that's still ambiguous. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Works published in the United States prior to 1923 are in the public domain. The details are in United States copyright law. patsw (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so as long as the original source was PD it doesn't matter what the proximal source is? The first half is suggestive of a periodical (newspaper most likely), given the "Vol XXII, No. 36, Natick, Mass., September 1, 1909."  The date also suggests PD, but as you said, we can't find the original source.  Do you recommend I leave that half up?  Also, how does one cite an article copied nearly directly from a PD source?
 * Thanks. -- Avocado (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, if the original source is public domain then so long as the intermediary is a faithful reproduction of it then it doesn't matter where you directly got it from. There's a similar but more in-depth explanation regarding images at commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. I would say leave the whole article up and cite the source they gave. As far as citing articles copied (entirely or closely) from other sources, there's a whole Category:Attribution templates, and in this case you're looking for PD-old-text. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio for 94.9.169.67
The ip appears to have copied some text from here...they also appear to have other copyvio's...Smallman12q (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to our attentio. I have reviewed their contributions and removed the copyright violations. I'm afraid I also removed a good portion of your recent edit to Brian Lenihan, Jnr, as once copyvio has entered the article incremental changes to the work only creates a derivative work which is still a copyright violation; it must be completely rewritten from scratch to remove the problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You sure about Lenihan...I thought I'd rewritten that section..Smallman12q (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement of Work content unreferenced from Worldbank book?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Statement_of_work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.144.212 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Metalocalypse episodes
I'm having issues with this page. It seems that much of it can be found on other websites. While it is not always clear which came first, in some cases it is so I have been removing text that is a copyright violation but have met some resistance in the form anons and SPAs reposting the text as well as another editor who basically wants to look the other way. I'm not really sure what to do here and would like to request help if anyone here is willing. Thanks for your time. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations or legitimate quotations?
Hi. The article 99ers contains a large amount of content copied from news sources, correctly attributed and treated as quotations. Could an editor familiar with copyright law and policy check to make sure this is OK? Concerns have been raised that the amount of text is such that copyright may be violated, regardless of attribution. Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and have added a tag. I've also weighed in at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I think the issue has been resolved. ClovisPt (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Chlamydophila pneumoniae
The majority of the subsection Chlamydophila pneumoniae and lung cancer has been copied and pasted directly from the full text of the article "Bacteria and cancer: cause, coincidence or cure? A review." from J Transl Med. 2006 Mar 28;4:14.

The original article is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/, but the article hasn't been cited by the paster as seems to be required by the licence.

Not sure what to do - should the text be removed and an external link added to the article, should somebody rewrite and reference, or can the pasted text remain but with the addition of a citation? --130.88.0.206 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks so much for following up on this. :) Since the original article is licensed under CC-By, we can use it so long as attribution is supplied, even belatedly. Since the source is licensed under CC but not GFDL, it's a good idea to use Template:CCBYSASource. (I find it here). I can do that, but will give you an opportunity to address it first, if you'd like. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I've added the CCBYSASource template to the section heading, and put a proper journal reference at the end of the last paragraph from the paper cos it made me feel better. Hope that's ok. --130.88.0.160 (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Africa_Progress_Panel
I'm concerned that this page is a copyright violation of the website linked under it's External Links section, in particular the About page - http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/en/about/

I initially tagged it as needing wikifying, but have also left a notice on the article's talk page and also the talk pafe of the recent IP Editor who was doing a lot of work on it. CaptRik (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add, it does look like something that may be worthy of a real article. I may look into it if I can find the time. CaptRik (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for large tables of data
There are a couple large tables of data presumably copied directly out of the books from which they are sourced. These tables contain four measures synthesized by the authors for over 180 countries. The tables can be found at IQ and Global Inequality and IQ and the Wealth of Nations. It's not clear to me how copyright for tabular data is handled by wikipedia. Any guidance would be appreciated. If this is copyrighted material, I think the authors will likely be willing to give permission, but before writing them I would like some input on whether or not this qualifies as a violation. aprock (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Raw data cannot be copyrighted. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html Miradre (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The data is not raw data. aprock (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted you are allowed to extract the data from a telephone directory and produce your own. Same thing here. Wikipedia has many such tables.Miradre (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked a phone book, synthesized IQ estimates were not included. aprock (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the way they are expressed can be copyrighted. If authors perform a calculation, the result is not copyrighted, only the way they expressed the result. Furthermore, if there is only one reasonable way to express the result (as in a phone book) then there is no copyright protection. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rajsamand Lake
The article Rajsamand Lake contains some text that looks suspiciously like it was copied. I just deleted a couple of spots where it said See and then an all caps word, which is not how we do links. There is also a part that says 'shown here'. Google found some very similar entries, but I can't tell for sure if they are copies of copied. RJFJR (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good spotting! You are correct -- it is a copyright violation of The Mewar Encyclopedia. The first copyvio appears to be in March 2007 with this edit which was copied from this page (this is the archived version from February 2007). The current article is copied from this page (as it appeared in 2007). I've templated the page for revision. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Anne Dormer, Lady Hungerford
Until I edited it a couple of days ago the article Anne Dormer, Lady Hungerford had no sources. I altered it slightly to fit a source that I had and to put in section heads. Some additional sources were added today 03:15, 17 October 2010 by user:Lady Meg

The trouble is that one of the sources: Anne Dormer Notes would appear to be very similar to our page down to whole sentences being the same. So it would appear that our page is a copyright violation of their page. I think that the copyright violation is that way because the very first version of our page is very similar to theirs eg ours: "In Aug 1571 the Duchess of Feria wrote to ask that the license be extended from six months to two years, partly to allow Lady Hungerford to keep a safe distance from her husband. Three years later Lady Hungerford was still abroad living with the Roman Catholics at Louvain, and enjoying a Spanish pension,"

Theirs: "In Aug 1571 the Duchess of Feria wrote to ask that the license be extended from six months to two years, partly to allow Lady Hungerford to keep a safe distance from her husband. Anne took over her grandmother's household in Louvain after Lady Dormer's death and remained there. In 1573, she was granted a pension of 1,100 livres a year by the King of Spain and in 1583 he granted her a further pension of fifty escudos a month."

I would like someone else to take a look and action a removal of the contaminated text. Also I guess that if it is we will have to look at the other edits of Hilaryellis who created 4 other pages. -- PBS (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that Internet archive dates the current version of the source to 2008, before our article was created. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both seem to have been copied from a book. It's blanked, with a link to the book in place. I've done a spotcheck of her other articles, but haven't recognized copying yet. I'll take a look again when it comes due at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Porphyra haitanensis
I suspect this article Porphyra haitanensis of being a copyright violation, or the version before I removed most comment. I am editing, sorting, categorizing, correcting, stub-catting, and verifying taxonomy on wikipedia algae articles which are a mess, and I don't have time for much else. Is it possible someone could do whatever is proper for copyviolation in the history of this article? Thanks for the help. --KMLP (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless we have a source or a known multiple-point infringer, I'm afraid removing the history is not possible without community discussion under our current policies. But I've hit the jackpot: "Porphyra is not only delicious but also rich in high levels of protein, vitamins and dietary" matches this 2006 article. (More text is duplicated.) "Seaweeds contain large amounts of cell wall structural polysaccharides and storage polysaccharides, rich mineral elements, macro-elements and trace elements." is copied from . The sources were cited, but that doesn't make it okay to copy the text. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a student work. But given the vast number of inaccessible sources and the verification of copying from at least two of them, I will delete the history of the article and caution the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Directing a person to a specific torrent site for specific shows
I think this is probably the best place to ask given the odd nature of the question. What do people think of which is basically directing someone to a specific torrent site for downloading specific shows? It seems it may risk contributory infrigement because even though it's not a direct link (well there's no link at all), it's rather close. Any comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk would be appreciated. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I concur with Verno, who has already weighed in there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Endocrine system
A large amount of text has just been added to Endocrine system, apparently copy/pasted from http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/endocrine.html which is copyrighted, all rights reserved. I thought this should be reported rather than just reverted. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the site has a clear copyright notice and there was no indication of permission I have reverted it. It shouldn't be restored unless verifiable permission to use it under CC-BY-SA has been granted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you knew just what messages to use. --Hordaland (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Level of attribution
In the article Augusta Barter, there is a note at the bottom that states "Some excerpts from the book Surviving on the Headland by Donald Barter". There are no inline citations and no indication of which passages have been used. I assume that simply stating where the information was obtained is not sufficient to justify the non-annotated inclusion of the material? --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct; I've blanked the article and notified the contributor so that the matter can be addressed. Thanks for following through with your concerns! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the US copyright exclusion on legal documents extend to the EU?
Okay, here's one on which I need feedback. Please contribute it to the question at the Copyrights policy talk page. Directive 2001/116/EC is tagged as a copyright violation of. The originating body claims copyright here. U.S. law doesn't recognize copyright in legal code: "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."(206.01, "Edicts of Government") Does this apply to legislation of the European Union? I was thinking so, but I am seriously second-guessing myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the European Union meets the strict legal definition of a "foreign government" (for example, as defined here.) It usually means a sovereign state, which the EU is not. The EU is a form of intergovernmental organization, like the African Union, OAS or UN. So how does the US copyright law handle directives passed by those organizations? — Cactus Writer (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh. I wish I'd seen this sooner! I just restored the article based on the feedback at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. This is the question that made me second-guess myself to begin with. :/ We have traditionally treated text of the United Nations distinctly from the "edicts of government", so now I'm back to not knowing if I should have restored it or not. Would you mind moseying over to the Copyrights policy talk page and joining the conversation there? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My reading of the U.S. Copyright Office policy is that it is using "government" in a general sense, not in any particular constitutional sense. Notice that it includes judicial opinions as "edicts of government", for example. As EU laws create rights and obligations for individuals within the EU, they seem to fit within the type of documents which cannot be protected by copyright in the U.S. by public policy (the need for individuals to have free access to the laws that govern them). Physchim62 (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point. I'll respond at the other talk page to keep the conversation in one place. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Freda Jackson
Someone on the Freda Jackson article has put what looks like most of the obituary text of her husband, Henry Bird, that appeared in the Guardian. Her husband might well merit an article given the obituary and the fact his work has had a recent public exhibition, "The Exceptional Henry Bird' ".--LittleHow (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've removed all of the copyvio text and warned the IP who added it. The obit could of course be used as a source, but obviously not copied and pasted into an article like that. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Download of pdf of book
Just need advice. Someone has posted a link to a Romanian site which is a direct download of a pdf version of a book in copyright. The page is Bastet and the book is the Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses by George Hart. Should I delete this link? Thanks.Apepch7 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you; it's a WP:LINKVIO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User is uploading photos and falsely asserting copyright claims
User Asadsindher been uploading photos that are obviously not his/hers. This photo belongs to Life.com and the actual author is Ethan Miller. This photo is from a blog article that was published before Asadsindher's supposed taking of said photo. User has two more photos that were obviously taken by professional photographers. The Brock Lesnar photo is more than likely UFC copyrighted. BrendanFrye (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've deleted the blatant copyvios and left a warning for the user. Let's hope that they start paying attention to the warnings. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

More copyvio work/automation?
First the background: This weekend at my request Rich Farmbrough broke Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections up into monthly subcategories. Now that they've all been placed in the correct month (as far as I can tell), it looks like for at least the last six months there has been about one new article a day tagged with Copypaste.

Now leading up to the automation part: One of DumbBOT's tasks which has been broken for a long while now that I haven't yet implemented in VWBot is listing all new entries in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided at the daily CP. I intend to automate this, since VWBot's already approved to back up all of DumbBOT's copyvio work and these should be no more difficult daily work than blanked pages since they'll have sources provided, but before I did that I was wondering about expanding the task.

What do the rest of you who work here think of listing every new copypaste tagging here instead of just those with url's provided? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea, since many of these tags are actually put on articles that are blatant copyright violations. If there is no duplication detected, these can instead be converted to "suspected copyvio" tags on the article talk. Or maybe we can create a new template that says, "This article was tagged as a copypaste of another source, but no source was provided. Please provide a source or blahblah...." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * BRFA filed on the support of a single opinion. Feel free to comment there. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not copyvio, but is this plagiarism acceptable?
The article Mariette DiChristina is a straight copy of the Scientific American "media kit" biog at http://www.scientificamerican.com/mediakit/editorial/bios.cfm. It's got an OTRS ticket, but didn't have a reference to this source until I added one just now. Should there be such a ref? Is plagiarism like this acceptable in WP even if it isn't copyvio? PamD (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked the editor who created the article, and this is his/her only contribution, so it's not part of a pattern, so far at least! PamD (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Sometimes it's not an issue (when the text contributor here is the same author as the external source), but generally we should attribute copies on article faces in accordance with Plagiarism. One problem is that OTRS agents are not permitted to reveal such things as when the author is the same author as the external source per WP:OUTING and our confidentiality agreements. :) (Sometimes, they reveal it themselves). Another problem is that the guidelines given to OTRS volunteers do not emphasize this aspect. In fact, the language we're given is pretty much completely outdated; it's been unchanged since January 2009 and still presumes GFDL as our license! I usually use CCBYSASource in such situations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As the one who handled the OTRS ticket, I should explain that I don't add attribution to the article itself since I view the OTRS tag on the talk page as equivalent to copied which is acceptable per WP:COPYWITHIN. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't really inadequate attribution per copyright policy (although if not noted on the article's face we should make sure the "edit history" notes the copying, and I say this as a general note, not in response to this article or in presumption that you aren't doing so). If the source is external, noting direct copying from it is required under Plagiarism. It's not plagiarism, of course, if placed here by the original creator. And it's not plagiarism if copied from one Wikipedia article to another because we do not self-credit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seven Kingdoms (band)
I am not certain about the copyright rules here so maybe an editor with more experience in these matters could have a look at this article. It contains youtube videos and copy and paste of reviews on the albums released by this band, I have removed them but I have been reverted. I am using WP:ELNEVER for my rational for the removal of the videos and as the text is just a copy and paste I'm sure that is also a breach of copyvio, am I right? Thanks Mo ainm ~Talk  13:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. That's a problem, yes. :) The Youtube videos have actually been uploaded onto Wikipedia, so WP:ELNEVER is not exactly the right way to go. If the videos are copyright violations, we need to have them deleted. The contributor is in the process of trying to verify permission for those. I think that he may not have been aware that the permission he is working to acquire will not permit him to copy the massive quotations from reviews, since the band does not own the copyright to these reviews. I have removed them and explained the problem to the contributor. Hopefully that'll take care of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * T%hats great thanks for the feedback. Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Twilight zone episodes
It seems to me that every single article in Category:The Twilight Zone episodes contains copyright violations. Each article includes opening and closing narrations as well as the "next episode" narrations. In articles such as It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone) (noted as one of the three best Twilight Zone episodes), the narrations constitute more than a third of the article. In what way are these not violations? Pardon me if this issue has been discussed before (or should be discussed elsewhere.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's been discussed before, but in my opinion It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone) (at least, the only one I've looked at yet) is a violation of WP:NFC. We're only permitted brief quotations, and not decoratively. I see in that article at least that the extensive quotations have been removed before. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the extensive quotes from that article. The project's guidelines actually require these quotations; I have therefor left them a courtesy notice about this discussion. I see from their talk page that the issue has been noted to them before. I'll also leave a notice about this matter at WT:NFC. I believe that these lengthy quotes (almost 3000 bytes worth in the article I edited, 524 words) should probably all be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm moving this down. This really needs additional attention. These 524 words have been restored to the article several times. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll put it on my watchlist. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We really need some additional conversation, though, on how to handle the fact that the Twilight Zone style guides actually promotes this behavior. Contributors who add this massive chunk of non-free text are trying to conform to the styleguide without realizing the disconnect with non-free content policy. The contributors of TZ were notified of this discussion, but have not chosen to participate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where's the Twilight Zone style guide? I imagine if it's boldly edited to conform with policy they'll either join the conversation or eventually adjust their behavior. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject The_Twilight Zone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason I was having trouble finding that, thanks. Okay, boldly edited - now I expect some upset people to come knocking. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm half way through the category now. all done --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As the original creator of the not-quote-dead-in-the-water WikiProject The Twilight Zone, I wasn't made aware of this discussion until I received a bot notification of the orphaning of File:Livingdollclosing.ogg. I won't disagree with what the community thinks the result should be, but WP:NFC says "[b]rief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." I was under the impression that the opening and closing narrations of each episode, which usually amount to much less than 1/20 of the entire episode, clearly established the context of the episode synopsis. The fact that in some cases, the quotations make up a large chunk of the article is a strong argument for expanding the article, not deleting the quotations.
 * In some cases (e.g., It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone)), it may be that the quotations are lengthy. In other cases (e.g., A Game of Pool (1961)), the quotations are succinct. Is a short set of quotations, like those for "Pool", really in violation of fair use? travisl (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Violation of fair use, maybe not. The catch is that our non-free content guidelines are explicitly more strict than fair use demands. As I understand it the "context" referred to in that part of the guideline would be so that some other action or fact in the article makes sense or is explained by the quote. In this case the quotes don't establish any real context that isn't explained in the plot summary itself. That's my take at least. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you weren't aware of this conversation. Notification was supplied over a month ago at the doing-a-very-good-impression-of-dead talkpage. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that these are copyvios - as VW says, WP:NFC is stricter on this point than US copyright law. Turning to NFC, for a quote to demonstrably explain the context of something, it really has to be incorporated into a passage of prose. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup - I see it now, Moonriddengirl. I must've overlooked it in my watchlist when it popped up last month. VernoWhitney, if this is indeed the case, was the granting of Good Article status to the September 4, 2007 version of "Time Enough at Last" a mistake, or has the policy changed in the last three years? (I'm merely asking so that I'll know in the future -- it seems clear to me that the community believes this is a WP:NFC violation.) travisl (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never done anything with GA's so I really couldn't say. Good article criteria oddly (sadly?) doesn't mention anything about copyright or non-free content besides images, so maybe extensive quotations just haven't come up before. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

John A. Prior Health Sciences Library
On this article, DGG added the copypaste tag. I had a look and it appears to copied from http://hsl.osu.edu/2853.cfm according to one of my Google searches. The problem is, I can't access the source because this is a dead link. However, I can still view it using the Cached link. Also, there isn't a copyright tag on that source. So, the question is, should I still remove the copyrighted text? Minima c  ( talk ) 17:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Material is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is published, it doesn't need a copyright notice. Unless it is verifiably in the public domain or released under a free license it needs to be removed as a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then, via the Cache link I'll have a look. Minima  c  ( talk ) 08:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness! It worked out very well. This was how much I managed to remove. Minima  c  ( talk ) 18:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio from a blacklisted source
Hi, I've had a query on my talkpage as to whether when we blacklist a source to prevent it being linked to or cited does that mean we can't cope when someone copypastes from it? On the off chance that this might possibly have come up before I thought I'd raise it here.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. :) We just disguise the link. (Hmm. I don't know if there's any way to make specific exceptions in copyvio templates for blacklisted links.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for the advice, but exempting the templates would be cool.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into blacklisting before so I really have no idea if it's doable, but if copyvio templates could be exempted the CorenSearchBot templates would also be good ones to do - now that I'm running a knock-off copy I've been finding one or two articles copied from blacklisted sites a month that I track down through checking my error logs. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hi, I've been deleting text from articles on Jatt history etc. on the grounds that is is copyright violation. Just about any text you paste into google from these articles seems to be taken verbatim from various books. I just did the subst:copyvio on the whole Jat history (1669–1858) article, and I would very much like people here to review this action. Thanks (: BE——Critical __Talk 02:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When checking out a suspected copyvio, I like to look at the edit history in particular and see how the text was developed, and if it appears as something with a few words and sentences at a time added or if it sprang forth as a completed literary work all at once. In this case the first edit of this particular article is huge (40k of text) and appears to be too polished to have been something built up and created by the supposed contributor.  It is possible that it was created somewhere else and simply copied & pasted into there, but not likely.


 * One problem with the books that I am seeing, however, is the relatively new phenomena of Wikipedia content resellers that are flooding book resellers such as Amazon.com and yes, Barns & Noble. I can't tell you which is first with this chicken or egg syndrome, and for a three year old article it is at least possible that the text for these books that you are asserting is proof of a copyvio is in fact content derived from this article.  A google search may not be the best tool here to prove a copyvio, while that test is much better suited for newly added content that hasn't been through such a meat grinder.  Due to the age of the edits on this article, I'm not completely convinced that it is a copyvio unless you can point to a printed book that clearly was created without content from Wikipedia.  --Robert Horning (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The book is copyright 1989, and the article was started 2 June 2007. It may have been copied from Jatland wiki. That article was started in May 2007 and the first version contained text from the same book. BE——Critical __Talk 03:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the information I was looking for... thanks! --Robert Horning (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio tool proposal
...at Proposed tools/Cvcheck. Please comment. Novickas (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Attribution of intra-WP copying
Comments are vividly requested at the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia. The topic is somewhat esoteric, and probably not a serious practical issue, but it is proving quite difficult to resolve as good faith views come from quite opposed positions. Maybe YOUR contribution could be the click... Physchim62 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia
So while reviewing SCV I see that Four Price was copied from http://www.conservapedia.com/Four_Price. Their Copyright notice states that "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution" which looks good so far, but it goes on to say "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees or stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site" (emphasis added). I can't seem to find the policy page at the moment (and I don't remember if it was here or at commons), but just to double-check, isn't any chance of revocation a problem? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I ask you: do we need this headache? Do we really? :) I'm going to go ahead and clear it for now, but I will follow up with our legal department. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've sent an e-mail to find out who I should ask, under the current flux of legal guidance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We've had previous analysis of Conservapedia, the result was that their license is incompatible. See WP:CCPS. MLauba (Talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you remember that. :/ FWIW, I'm in contact with one of our Associate Counsels on the question, who may be able to give us an official word. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, we have guidance. The revocable license is a no-go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Winston's Hiccup.
There appears to be serious copyright violations going on in either Wikipedia's article of Winston's hiccup or in the book, "A Rough Guide to Jordan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.73.194 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I've blanked the section and listed the article at the copyright problems board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitol Reef National Park
This is more concern about plagiarism than copyright violation, but here goes:

Much of the history section of Capitol Reef National Park was taken directly from oficial National Park Service websites (it may have been one page when the edits were made in 13 July 2005, but are two now). As NPS sites, the text is public domain, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the present setup. I had put the copied text in quotation marks a while back, but another editor disliked that option. I have put an appropriate template on the talk page, and I'm wondering what if anything further should be done. J. Spencer (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry for the dleay in response; things have been a little crazy around here.:) According to Plagiarism,verbatim duplication of text requires specific attribution on the face of the article. I'll add the appropriate template. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! J. Spencer (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dermatitis.jpg
This image is my work, uploaded and released under GFDL by myself in 2004. Some time between then and now, the attribution has been removed. No attribution = no license to use it. I'd not mind, but it's a picture of my own hand, and I was more than a little surprised to see it on a printed wall-chart in my local hospital the other day. Can someone kindly check and reinstate the original attribution please? - TB (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; that seems to have been a bit of oversight on the part of the deleting administrator. The bot that reviewed the duplicate correctly noted that you had not been given credit, but the image was deleted anyway. I don't myself do image transfers, so I'm not entirely sure how to repair this, but I'll talk to a commons admin about it. Meanwhile, I've restored your version on En:Wiki, since it should not have been deleted in the first place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. I have to confess, the whole business of commons bewilders me;  doubly-so when bot-moves and licensing changes are added to the mix.  Hopefully it's an isolated slip-up rather than the top of an iceberg.  - TB (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Topbanana, I took care of this. While I have your attention, are you able and willing to supply a higher resolution version of the same image? This would be useful for (among other things) print versions and derivative works. If you can't that's fine. Thanks. :-) Dcoetzee 11:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The original upload would, I suspect, have been a 640x480 - not great, but such was the state of basic digital cameras in 2004. Both the camera it was taken with and PC used to upload it are long gone I'm afraid, I've no local copy to re-send.  Sorry. - TB (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin - Platteville
Most of the history section of the article for the University of Wisconsin–Platteville seems to be taken word for word from UW-Platteville's history page, available at. I don't know if this kind of wholesale duplication is allowed or not. 99.139.200.46 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. Thanks for bringing this up. I've located what seems to be the point of the problem, cautioned the contributor who copied it and rewrote the content which he had added. Unless other users have also copied, that should be the extent of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

M79 grenade launcher
Whole sections of M79 grenade launcher appear to be copy-pasted from this webpage. I had gone to improve the citations in the massive backlog of "MilHist articles with citation problems", and I found that sections "Design" and onward on M79 grenade launcher appear to be a copyvio of that webpage. How do I know whether they copied Wikipedia or whether the Wikipedia article is a copyvio? If it is, what should I do about it? Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your attention to this. :) What I do in this situation is try, first, to determine the age of the external website. If Wayback confirms that they had the content before we did, there's no more question. If they don't, that doesn't necessarily solve it, since Wayback can't know if the information was moved from another domain or a subpage within the domain. Then I'll generally check Mirrors and forks to see if the website has a history of copying our content. If they don't and Wayback didn't prove anything, the next thing to do is to evaluate the history of the text. Was it entered in one chunk or incrementally? If incrementally, by one contributor or several? If entered in one chunk, the odds of our copyvio go up, obviously. What I do when that happens is, diff by diff, evaluate subsequent development of the article. If text changes take the article away from the source, that would make copyvio more likely. If they bring it closer to the source, it's more likely that they copied from us. If it was pasted in one chunk and has remained unchanged since then, the next thing I do is compare the reliability of the contributor and the reliability of the external site. Does the external site have copies of other Wikipedia content on other subpages? Has the contributor copied content before? If we can't determine finally which came first (or if it seems probable that they did), we presume they did and list the article for evaluation by replacing the content with copyvio. We notify the contributor to give him time to verify permission or to rewrite the content. (An exception: if the article qualifies for WP:CSD, you might tag it for speedy deletion. If the content is not extensive, you might just remove it or rewrite it yourself.) If you have really good reason to believe that they copied it from us and if there's no mention of us on their page, you might tag the talk page of the article backwardscopyvio so that future reviewers don't have to go through all the work you've just done. :) Unless I think it's completely obvious, I usually add a section explaining why I conclude that the copying is reverse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I confirmed that gunnersden.com copied the Wikipedia article. This is the revision of M79 grenade launcher which has all the material in February 2007 (in slightly different format though). In October 2007, gunnersden showed up with an exact copy as shown here: after copy. The previous edition which did not have it is in Feruary 2007: before copy. Sometime between the two the wikipedia article was copyedited and the prose improved, and that edition is what got copied. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you so much for noting the concern, following up on it, and resolving it! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio at The 3 Rooms of Melancholia
I posted my initial concern about the above article's possible copyvio issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film last week but no one has been able to provide additional input. I think the thread as I initially posted it at WT:FILM is explanatory enough so I will copy it, near-verbatim:

I suspect that material recently added to the above article is a cut-and-paste copy from another source but Google searches of selected sentences have not returned positive matches. User created their account on November 17 and, within about 30 minutes, made four edits to the article (no other edits before or after). Three edits were minor formatting changes but this edit added a large amount of text. What makes me suspicious of copyright violation/cut-and-paste transfer is:
 * (1) - the large edit was made within one minute of the previous edit, making it unlikely that this was typed up in that amount of time and
 * (2) - the text contains, what appear to be, numbered footnotes at the end of some sentences. Examples: "The film grew from a project series initially based on the Ten Commandments which got cut short.13" and "The conflict remained unresolved and Honkasalo never saw the American producer again.16"

I posted a question on the user talk page of the editor who added the material asking what source they might have used. I haven't received a response and the editor has not made any edits since. I'm hesitant to remove the material when I have no solid proof that it's a copyvio (especially when this article could benefit from additional production information) but I have a hard time believing that that much text was typed that quickly by a new editor who, somehow, added numbers to sentences that look like numbered footnotes. Additional eyes and second and third opinions would be much appreciated.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your instincts are right on. It's possible that this is a student paper or similar construction pasted by its author, but it is far too lose with borrowing text from previously published sources. For a few examples, the edit included this text:
 * "The Russian army captured and obliterated Grozny in 2000, retaking direct control of Chechnya. The two wars resulted in tens of thousands of casualties and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, as shown in the documentary’s footage of camps in Ingushetia."
 * "The Russian army captured the Chechen capital, Grozny, in 2000, after all but obliterating it, and retook direct control of Chechnya. The two wars resulted in tens of thousands of casualties and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians." (New York Times, October 2010)


 * "A separatist movement--fueled by racism, jihad, and revenge--has evolved over the last decade into an Islamist insurgency responsible for almost daily attacks against law enforcement and government officials in the region."
 * "A fierce separatist movement has evolved over the last decade into an Islamist insurgency responsible for almost daily attacks against law enforcement and government officials in the region. " (New York Times, October 2010)


 * "An American producer approached Iikka Vehkalahti of the Finnish public broadcasting company YLE to suggest a suitable director for this project. Vehkalahti asked Pirjo Honkasalo to direct one part of the series. She chose the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour," sowing the seeds for The 3 Rooms of Melancholia."
 * "An American producer...approached Iikka Vehkalahti of the Finnish public broadcasting company YLE to suggest a suitable director. Vehkalahti asked Pirjo Honkasalo to direct one part of the series. She chose the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", and The 3 Rooms of Melancholia was born."(Production History)


 * "A filmmaker of the European auteur tradition..she believed a film director cannot give up control over work for which she is artistically and morally responsible. She also wouldn’t allow a third party to take over her right to make the final judgement calls on how to use footage of the lives of people living in a war zone."
 * "A staunch believer in the European "auteur" tradition, she felt that a film director must not relinquish control over a work for which she is artistically and morally responsible. Nor would she allow any third party to pre-empt her right to make the final judgement calls on how to use footage of the lives of people living in a war zone."(Production History)


 * "the directors of the cadet school made it impossible to continue filming. They became increasingly nervous and suspicious, fearing bad repercussions. Kristiina Pervilä, the Finnish producer, contacted influential people in cultural, civil servant, military, and political circles, attempting to get hold of the constantly growing number of new, additional official filming permits. They managed to continue shooting, but the details had to stay confidential to avoid putting anyone at risk."
 * "The directors of the cadet school began to make it impossible to continue filming. They became increasingly nervous and suspicious, fearing bad repercussions....Kristiina Pervilä, the Finnish producer, battled for the ever-increasing number of new, additional official filming permits, calling on influential contacts in the cultural sphere, in the military, in political circles - including the Duma (the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament) - and among civil servants responsible for the issuance of accreditation credentials to journalists in the Caucasus region. They did manage to continue shooting the film, but the details must remain confidential to avoid putting anyone at risk."(Production History)


 * While the content is good, it needs to be handled in accordance with Wikipedia's standards for use of non-free source material: with limited direct quotations and otherwise complete paraphrase. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch for your efforts on this one. It's much appreciated. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dolphinc.jpg
This sure seems like copyvio to me. The poster claims it as a "scan and modify," and the extent of the modification is a circle around the location in question. I've unfortunately seen the "copy it and change the image slightly and it's OK" attitude elsewhere, so I figure I should check first to make sure I'm on solid ground tagging items like this for deletion. Donlammers (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a good icon for a dropping jaw? Yes, that's a clear derivative work. For something that blatant, I would go with WP:CSD (and did; it's gone). I myself will often add a note of explanation below the tag. It may be non-standard, but I don't care. It works. :) For less clear-cut situations, I'd consider WP:PUF. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will be a bit more bold in the future. I will also catch something blatant like this when it happens now, but I've only been watching these for about 6 months since I put all zoo articles on my watch list, and had never actually been to this article. Donlammers (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I really appreciate your bringing it up. :) It led me to some other images by the contributor about which I'm also concerned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Army Community Relations
This article appears to be a copyright violation of. Handschuh-talk to me 14:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting your concerns! Unless specified otherwise, pages hosted by the US Federal Government, including its miliary branches, is public domain. But the article was a problem under Plagiarism, as it did not properly indicate that content was copied. I've added the template necessary to the article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mofet Institute
Most of the text for Mofet Institute appears to be from http://www.mofet.macam.ac.il/english/about/Pages/default.aspx 96.53.54.146 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So it does. I've reverted to the last presumed clean. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

General Motors
I am posting here as well as on the discussion page--please contribute to the discussion there. Help us handle this situation. The most recent version I could find that is clearly free of a systematic sequence of copyright violations and major destructive edits is 11:38, 13 November 2010. These edits were responsible for rewriting the article as a non-NPOV advertisement and eliminated substantial content. Reverting to 11:38, 13 November 2010 will destroy all constructive edits from the last two weeks. I personally feel that this is the most expedient way of eliminating the copyright violation and restoring the article. I and others can then proceed to merge more recent constructive edits with the copyvio-free source.byronshock (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio by author of own material?
This is a heads up for the experts who lurk here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See also: Contributions by Lecutas and Lecutas's addition to Copyright problems/2010 June 8 -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Exploits Valley Salmon Festival
Exploits Valley Salmon Festival seems to be a very close paraphrase of. Does this fall into speedy deletion territory? shoy (reactions) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Aquarium & Seattle Marine Aquarium image
I think this image has been deleted once. If you look at the version of Seattle Aquarium here (dated 2010-11-14T14:18:02) you can see the picture. However, if you look at the image the date shows 2010-11-28T18:40:11. There was a point in time a few days ago (if I'm not going batty) when this image did not show in the article. I believe that it was deleted and simply added back, but I can't prove that. This makes me somewhat suspicious of, uploaded about the same time by the same user. Note that the photo would have needed to be taken prior to 1977 (when the aquarium was closed). This is obviously not impossible (I was taking photos back then), just suspicious. Donlammers (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've listed File:Seattle marine.jpg for review at today's WP:PUF. I agree that it seems unlikely to have been taken by this contributor, particularly given the clear violation at File:Namu01.JPG. You're right that it was deleted, but then reuploaded. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to copy & paste my own article
I would llike to start a new article entitled "Alexander Findlay Macdonald 1825-1903" a man notable for settling the Intermountain west, Arizona and northern Mexico. I own a web site, www.afmacdonald.org, with a short biography of this man and I would like to copy & paste it into the Wikipedia article. I am the author of the original biographical sketch as stated on my website. Can I have permission to copy & paste text & photos into Wikipedia? --Taylor Macdonald —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintailparish (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to copy/paste your existing material you need to follow the steps listed at Donating copyrighted materials. Please remember that any article will also need reliable sources to pass muster. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Colin Hansen (BC politician)
Hey folks. Could someone take a look at the above page re: this BC government copyrighted page:, which seems to be the direct source of the majority of the text? Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, thats a copyvio and the same user has done copyvios on Moira Stilwell and Ralph Sultan as well. Yoenit (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a leadership convention coming up, and both Hansen and Stilwell are candidates, so these pages might see a bit of activity in the next while. The Interior (Talk) 22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenville Technical College plagiarism
The website for Greenville Technical College is a near plagiarism of this page and this page from the official website. The text was added by an editor named "Mannrmm" who disappeared after 2009. What should be done? Inkan1969 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blanked it with {{subst:copyvio}} and listed it at Copyright problems/2010 December 6 so an admin will take a look at it and see what can salvaged from it in about a week. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Griffith Society
Regarding this article, I am fairly sure that the lede/first paragraph has been lifted entirely from a document authored or edited by John Stone in 1992/93. Stone was a founding member of the society. I would appreciate some advice on what to do about this. Thanks, Lovetinkle (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the offending material. While brief quotes are allowed, parroting the mission of the organization (even if it had been quoted) doesn't much benefit the article. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help with this. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Debridement Article
The intro to the article Debridement appears to be a word-for-word copy from the website http://nursing-resource.com/debridement/ ; even though the source is cited at the bottom of the page (not in the intro where this occurs), if I understand wikipedia policy correctly then copy-and-pasting as in this example is not allowed.

I have not made any changes as I am not sure what the exact policy is and how to correctly address the problem. Instead I have come here, so that those with some experience dealing with these issues can help.

Thanks!

Spiral5800 (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They copied from us. We already had that introduction on 20 november 2009 . I see Moonriddengirl already fixed the article talkpage and this is probably gonna edit conflict her. Yoenit (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only do they take our text and images without attribution, but somebody is substituting them for actual references! Check it out: . I don't know if the original reference is a good one, but I know that theirs is not. :/ Thanks, Spiral5800, for bringing this up. This looks like a widespread issue! These are the kinds of things that wind up consuming my day. :) I've got some mopping to do! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad that I did not make any changes to the article; it had not occurred to me that the nursing.resource.com folks had copied from Wikipedia, and assumed it was the other way around - especially since the nursing.resource.com page was listed as a source. Thanks for mopping this up, Moonriddengirl.  I hope I didn't complicate things for you or otherwise unnecessarily burden you.  Again, I appreciate your attention to this and for your consideration.  If you ask me, Wikipedia could use more contributers like you!  Also, thanks Yoenit for making me aware of where to look in the future if I come across any examples of this again.  Spiral5800 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Listing pages tagged with copypaste
So when I proposed VWBot task for listing all of these new taggings I was under the impression that it would only be an average of one new article a day being added to the current workload here. As it turns out (for whatever reason) it's averaging more like 3 a day, most of which don't have sources listed unlike the blankings and close paraphrases, which makes them rather more difficult and time-consuming to handle. Since part of my motivation for automating the listing was so that the tagger would still be available to indicate why they tagged it, would there be support for having a bot leave a message for taggers who don't indicate the source (similar to but only once a day like most of my other bot-tasks) and encourage them to:
 * 1) adjust the template to indicate a source;
 * 2) convert it to cv-unsure on the article's talk page; or
 * 3) expand on their reasoning on the daily CP page?

Other ideas/suggestions/adjustments/comments welcome; I'm just trying to think of how to make this increased workload easier to handle. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As the person who handles much of the workload, I think that would be a great idea. :) Especially 1 and 3. I have mixed feelings about 2, since I've several times found sources even though one was not identified. If they don't know but just have a gut feeling, it may be worthwhile having somebody else take a look. I've been converting them to cv-unsure if I can't find the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it be a good idea to include close paraphrase and {{subst:copyvio}} in this task too? I know they don't have the problem as often for whatever reason, but I think it could still be useful on occasion. The bot could leave a message saying that they don't appear to have indicated a source in the template but they're free to ignore the message if they've already indicated the source in some other way the bot didn't recognize (edit summary or on the talk page, etc.) otherwise ask them to do one of steps 1 or 3 from my list above. I figure this task can run after all of the tags are auto-listed, so it could direct them to the particular CP subpage to leave a comment at. Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think that this could be a good idea, particularly if you acknowledge that there may be some nonstandard indication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy Opal
The article Galaxy Opal seems to be copy-pasted, although I have been unable to find the source. It also contains numerous unfree images. Sppedy deletion candidate? --MoRsE (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unless we can verify a source. :) The images are a problem, and I've tagged them accordingly on Commons. I've also truncated the article, since most of it was promotional, and removed the "reference" section since it was all photobucket: both a problem for reliability and copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pawnee Indian Museum State Historic Site
In Pawnee Indian Museum State Historic Site, all but a brief first paragraph appears to be lifted verbatim from this Kansas Historical Society page. There is a copyright-2010 notice at the bottom of the KHS page. There is a citation at the end of the six copied paragraphs, but this doesn't strike me as sufficient to avoid copyright violation. Ammodramus (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've deleted the copied content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

GENODONTICS
Genodontics is a term coined for the first time by the author K.PANDI SUBA to implicate the importance of genetics in dentistry. The term can be applied herewith for all research studies, tests and diagnosis in the field of dentistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.182.95 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you posting this here? Genodontics was deleted, but not due to copyright problems. Yoenit (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of confidence tricks
List_of_confidence_tricks shares a lot of text with SCAMS - and how to protect yourself from them. The same text is seen on lots of websites, though: What's the original source? --Slashme (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Fortunately, it's easier to resolve than some, since Lulu is a self-publishing book company and since the author at least does acknowledge Wikipedia as a source, on page 189. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work, thanks! --Slashme (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. :) I appreciate your being conscious of copyright concerns! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential copyvio: Detroit Seminoles v Florida State Seminols
Please review the images at File:DetroitSeminoles.png and compare to File:FloridaStateSeminoles.png They are slightly different, but I think that the Detroit page is a copyvio. I'm no expert on this subject, so I wanted to bring it here for your review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a weird one! If one of them is a copyvio, though, it's really between the two of them. In both cases, we are asserting "fair use". That Detroit Seminoles uses the logo is evidenced by their MySpace page: . That Florida State Seminoles does is evidence by their website: . Perhaps the image has lapsed into public domain? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What is 10%
At List of Primeval episodes an editor has included episode summaries are substantially lifted from a press release. He claims that "A few words do not constitute a copyright violation. The usual rule of thumb is at least 10% of the original "work"." While he hasn't included anywhere near 10% of the original work in the episode summaries, more than 80% of the episode summaries consists of unaltered text lifted straight from the press release. I've seen numerous such summaries removed as copyvios in the past, but where do we draw the line on something like this? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I dispute " lifted" as the word is prejudicial and implies theft. And your "80%" figure is false, it was in my original version and it certainly is now as I have munged the text, not because it needed it, but to keep you off my back. And the text we're talking about was a total of FOUR SENTENCES, (out of a press release 1960 words long) of which one, and only one sentence, was verbatim from the source. (It's not in the current version.) Not even the most rabid copyright protectionist would claim that was a copyright violation. Maybe you could have rewritten it yourself to remove the problem if you thought it was an issue, rather than simply trashing it? And if you want an authority other than Jimbo, how about Chicago University Press, who have considered this issue:

"A new work will be considered to be within the bounds of fair use if:  1) It reproduces not more than 5,000 words, in the aggregate, from a given Source Work; 2) It reproduces not more than 5 percent, in the aggregate, of the Source Work, and no complete poems or other self-contained literary works; 3) It reproduces, in one place, not more than 300 consecutive words from the Source Work; and Material reproduced from the Source Work makes up not more than 5 percent of the new work"

- [http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/permissions.html


 * I see they use "5%" rather than 10%, well, their thumb is shorter than others'. (Of course, I suppose you'll delete this as a violation of their copyright.) Having worked in publishing myself for the last 20 years, I find the idea of objecting to quoting ONE SENTENCE to be extreme. Barsoomian (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello to both of you. :)There are some cases where content is clearly misappropriated in bad faith, but most of the time what we run into with "close paraphrasing" concerns is simply the application of different standards, in good faith. I think what we need to focus on here is the underlying principle of how non-free content is handled on Wikipedia: "where we draw the line".


 * First, there is no 10% rule under the U.S. law that governs Wikipedia. See, which clearly states that "There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances." Evaluating all the circumstances of fair use can be complex, obviously. Wikipedia has its own specific rules to make sure that our content not only meets fair use, but comfortably meets fair use. Since copyright infringement can only be determined (or ruled out) by a court of law, we don't push boundaries there. Accordingly, our policies require that when we copy any creative content from a non-free source, we follow the protocol spelled out in non-free content policy and guideline. Press releases are also governed by this (cf. our copyright FAQ). All creative content imported from previously published sources must be clearly marked as quotation and used transformatively.


 * Chicago UP's rules with regard to what they permit others to use of their publications really have no bearing here, but if they did we would have to note that they clearly state that "these guidelines deal with only the following traditional forms of scholarly use in publications" (emphasis added) and that each of the three cases they set out involve quotation, not incorporation of their content into a derivative work. They, too, require transformative use and, evidently, clear annotation of copying.


 * I haven't looked at the text in question here; content copied may very well be de minimis, but it's still a good idea to mark it as a quote or rewrite it from scratch. This is consistent with our policies, and also sets a good, clear standard for those cases where the content might not be clearly de minimis. When non-free text is used transparently, we and our reusers can easily verify the content and the context of its use, and we are more easily able to trust that there is not more substantial taking that has not been identified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the the "10% rule" was a law, it's the rule of thumb used by most publishers. As you said it "depends on all the circumstances". These circumstances were ONE SINGLE SENTENCE from the source and there was a ref link to the original source to verify it. If you still think that's a problem, the appropriate action would be to flag it or rewrite it yourself, not simply delete it, as there is no objection or threat -- and never will be -- from anyone to make it a matter of urgency. And further, this was the first version of an new section, created a few hours earlier. The priority was to get the facts down and cited; I'd have no complaint if others polished it up, and AussieLegend did  good work in formatting it earlier, but do object to it being erased for such trivial and easily remedied concerns.  Barsoomian (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's get the facts right. There were three sentences, not one. One of the sentences was straight from the press release, another had only the last two words changed and another was more than 50% unaltered text. You're correct that the ""80%" figure is false", it was actually 81.1% but I didn't want to seem pedantic. As to your concern about "lifted", OK, how about "copied"? The point that Moonriddengirl made is a good one, it's best to rewrite from scratch. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One complete sentence. You seem to be working on the "copied homework" principle. Or whether you can jigsaw the pieces around. Let me refer you to the above CUP quote: their rule is "300 CONSECUTIVE words". They're real publishers, they have a clue how this works in the real world. Where are you getting your rules from? And I have no idea how you calculate "81%". And I don't care, it's your own measure and quite meaningless. And that source is the one and only AUTHORITATIVE source anyone has found -- it took me a while to dig it up. Any article that uses it is going to be tainted by your rule. Anything that isn't closely based on it will be impossible. So tell you what: I  give up. After editing that article for two years now. Keeping the idiots at bay with their made up stories. Now you insulting me, accusing me of plaigiarism or theft. You want to make the rules, you can do it all. I'm deleting my content, unwatching the article and leaving it to you. Do as you wish.Barsoomian (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As has already been stated, the CUP reference is really irrelevant to Wikipedia. However, regarding their "300 CONSECUTIVE words", as was stated here, and I have no reason to question the accuracy of the statement, in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 300 words out of 200,000 were found to be substantial given their content. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What's your point -- CUP said "300 consecutive words". My summaries totalled about 93, about a dozen consecutive (feel free to count them yourself and correct me). The Ford case was about an unreleased book, obtained illegally, has no relation to quotes from a press release. And you are citing some random TALK page by a bunch of self-appointed bureaucrats as a justification, and complain that the stated policy of real publishers is "irrelevant"? Pretty much conceding that there is no stated Wikipedia policy you are upholding, it's just what you and some likeminded buddies think it should be. Anyway, so far you've made me waste hours defending a 4 sentence edit, ten times as much as any vandal has cost me. You've preferred to delete verified, relevant and reliable information and to sneer at me (you created a page just to work out my "plagiarism index"!) rather than fix whatever issue it is that bugs you. It can only get worse from here on. So, really now, I'm out of here and out of the article in question. I'm sure it's in good hands. Barsoomian (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note that it makes it very hard to reply to you when say you're out of here, but then, over the course of then next two hours you come back three goddammit four times, making significant changes to the original content. Honestly, if you'd made that much effort writing the summaries in your own words, we wouldn't be here. As for the troll comparison, the sneering remark, and the general tone, I'd ask you to please assume good faith about the people with whom you're conversing. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Assume good faith"? Okay, since you ask, I'll give it a try, maybe you could consider doing so as well. So I looked again, with an open mind, at the citation you gave:   here that you said supported your interpretation and actions. And I find that it concerns someone who copied 13 paragraphs of continuous text. And the conclusion was "'extensive' quotation, which is forbidden by WP:NFC. These episode summaries should be written in original language with brief quotations as necessary in accordance with that guideline. --Moonriddengirl ". Quite reasonable, and had I copied 13 paragraphs, or 10, or 5, perhaps maybe there would be similar cause for concern. I also note that the proposed remedy was "rewriting" with "brief quotations". (Which is what I had already done in my first version.) Not simply and high-handedly deleting it as you did. So, with all the good will in the world, I still think you were wrong in principle, and certainly too quick on the trigger. In the normal order of events, the first draft text would be revised several times over the next days and weeks. I had already stripped much of the original puffery from the text, I or someone else would have refined it. (And in the process, removed any hint of plagiarism, and whatever it is your percentage measures would go down rapidly.) While you took exception at my revising my comments above after the first version: that's just the way some of us work. However: even the first version was not in violation of any law, and as far as I can see, any policy here. And yes, I look like a dork for revisiting this, but since you have placed it in this forum, I realise that leaving your statements unchallenged could lead to this unbalanced zero tolerance idea -- delete first without discussion -- gaining currency, just because walking away is easier than going through this bureaucratic gauntlet. (And I revised this two goddammit times, as that metric seems to be important to you.)  Barsoomian (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to keep the record straight, it is against the policy WP:NFCC to use excerpts from non-free text that are not clearly indicated as copied: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks,, or a similar method." (It's also a problem under guideline for Plagiarism, which also requires that copied content be marked.) I would myself think that the best way to move forward from these kinds of events is just to note it for future use. AGF says, with respect to copyright, "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law.... Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices." I don't know if you guys have some kind of background that may lead to increased tension, but from where I'm sitting this looks like the kind of problem that should be easily handled with a bit of polite conversation and really shouldn't need to generate bad feelings in anybody. :/ There's no reason to believe that you intentionally violated any policy and every reason to believe you did not, as you were very forthcoming about your source. It's just that we do handle things differently here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl, if you haven't already, maybe you should look at the article in question (on the upcoming series 4 at and let me know if it is a problem now. What it involves is three episode summaries, sourced and cited from a press release (as that is so far the only reliable info available). Each summary was one or two sentences. Initially maybe one sentence and some phrases were verbatim. (Now, none.) Naturally I started with the press release text, and cut and rearranged it to suit the purpose -- since that is the whole reason the company provided it. I didn't rewrite it solely to file down the serial numbers. But if rewording will avoid such problems, I'll keep it in mind. I find it hard to understand why this could have offend anyone, or cause any problem for Wikipedia, requiring deletion with no warning or discussion. I cited the source (which is unusual for episode summaries, hardly any cite any source) to show they were not the hoax summaries for upcoming episodes some fans continually paste in, and which I routinely delete myself. And no, I've never encountered AussieLegend before. Barsoomian (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had not already looked. Doing so, I have to say it's quite clear that they are the originals and that yours is abridged from theirs. For example, your "A group of humans come through an anomaly in a theatre, followed by deadly arboreal dinosaurs ("Tree Creepers")" compares quite closely to the source's "A mysterious group comes through an anomaly in a theatre, unknowingly followed by deadly tree creatures." This is what we would typically call "close paraphrasing", and if there were more of it it probably would constitute a problem. As it is, I don't think it does. Ideally, we would craft our own content with our own structure based on our own observations of the show. This is challenging, obviously, when the show has not yet aired. :) As I said above, it's obvious that you weren't trying to pass anything over, since you did clearly indicate your source. One of the problems we run into, and that you may not have encountered, is that some editors contribute articles based substantially or even entirely on such closely followed passages, enough to very probably constitute a derivative work. To avoid creeping too far in that direction, we generally try to avoid the issue altogether. We have had some cases where copyright holders have complained about close paraphrasing which have wound up costing us entire articles, since the Foundation responds to take down requests. I'm sorry that you felt "bitten" by the event (don't have to be new to feel bitten! I still routinely get nibbled). Terse communication can sometimes lead to that. :/ I generally would rewrite such content as first encountered with an edit summary explaining why. If short of time, I will frequently clumsily mark the copied content with quotation marks and ask the contributor to revise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it. I woudn't have had a problem with a response as you suggest. However, the problem is that in such a brief summary, any and every summary, even independently written, will use pretty much the same words and recount the events in the same order.  The same way you could look at independently written news wire stories about some event -- very often these all end up with the same headline, virtually the same lede. The names of the protagonists, places, creatures (in this case) has to be the same.  Every one-sentence summary of that episode would look like a paraphrase of every other one. I removed all the slightly creative adjectives -- the things that are the essence of creative writing, which is what copyright protects, not a dry recounting of facts, which is not normally subject to copyright. I couldn't change much more and still be describing the same events. And while I appreciate that Wikipedia has concerns about using non-free content, talking about "take down requests" as even a possibility is inconceivable in the case of a press release, which they are begging any and everyone to publish. Of course, it does retain copyright, but it's ephemera of little or no commercial value. I imagine that the take-downs you mention had some publisher who felt his work had lost its exclusivity and thus value due to a version appearing here. Anyway, while my opinions on copyright haven't changed, (I'm not a radical here: CUP's guidelines above seem a good standard) I will try to avoid provoking those who take  more restrictive attitude. Barsoomian (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to note that you've written around 1900 words defending your episode summaries, not including words changed in the numerous revisions. The disputed episode summaries only totalled 70 words. It would have taken far less effort to rewrite the summaries in your own words. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd "just like to note " it would you? As all your contributions to this storm in a teacup, completely unhelpful and with a personal slight to boot. I rewrote the summaries in the very first version. You deleted them. I rewrote them at least 4 times since then. I actually work as an editor in the real world, and there I "rewrite in your own words" frequently, but only when the text needs it, not just for the hell of it. Meanwhile you made little webpages charting my progress, awarding percentage ratings on some scale you invented, while never offering any suggestions on how to avoid whatever transgression it was that you had appointed yourself arbiter. You just wanted to 1) delete and 2) snark. (Actually your above "note" is the first time you've ever stated what changes you wanted, short of deleting -- if you'd said something like that at the beginning, both of us would have saved a lot of time.)  Once you opened the discussion here, accusing me of  "lifting" text, without bothering to inform me, I responded on the issues here. The only respite I got was when you were edit banned on another issue. Barsoomian (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your tone is really inappropriate. Please try to be more civil, comment on content, not the contributor and don't take things so personally. I explained on the article's talk page why I removed your episode summaries and you've been told here by somebody else that it's best to write summaries from scratch, which you could easily have done instead of writing 2,000 words explaining why you believe the summaries were not copyvios. Your offence at me using the word "lifted" is unnecessary. The fact is that the summaries were copied from the press release and that's not how we do things. The copyright violation template, which I didn't add out of respect since you are a regular contributor makes it clear, "You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images." Saying that you lifted the content isn't an act of plagiarism, it was simply stating that you copied the content, which you did. The "little webpages charting my progress" that you seem so offended by were simply comparisons of the press release and your version to show how similar they were. As for "never offering any suggestions on how to avoid whatever transgression it was", I pointed out in my very first response to you what the problem was and provided a link to the appropriate article. You should know about copyright and what Wikipedia's policy is by now, since you were heavily involved in a discussion about the use of non-free images in List of creatures in Primeval, where your tone was not dissimilar to here. There is a related thread at Talk:List of creatures in Primeval that you were also heavily involved in. Finally, your reference to my recent block being the "only respite I got" is a blatant attempt to point score against somebody you mistakenly perceive to be an opponent. On 13 December, a full day before I was blocked, you removed your episode summaries at List of Primeval episodes and then announced here that you were leaving, comparing me to a troll as you did so. The block had nothing to do with your self imposed exile. As for the block, perhaps you should have considered the comments made by other editors, and the admin who unblocked me. before trying to use it for point scoring purposes. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your deletion of my text was inappropriate. Your characterisation of my work as "lifting" was inappropriate. I could argue the rest of your rant in detail, but no one would care except you and it would never end. Though if you're going to keep saying I compared you to a troll, which I guess you'd like to use as a charge against me, I note you are referring to a short-lived edit that was quickly deleted, and didn't call you a troll in any version. If you insist on resurrecting it out of context, it's on your own head. My only interest in your block was that it explained why you'd left me alone briefly. The original issue here is settled -- since you haven't attempted to delete it recently I assume even you find it inoffensive now. So try to move on, or at least find someone else to spar with. Barsoomian (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Transmedia storytelling
As discussed at Talk:Transmedia storytelling, the page (especially an earlier version of it) appears to be substantially similar to work published elsewhere on the web. I am not blanking that page, since the suggestion is that someone may have copied it from WP. But it is also possible that both the WP page and the similar-sounding work are close paraphrases of a third, as yet undiscovered piece. Cnilep (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot verify it, as I can't locate a source that predates the article. This might be a good occasion for cv-unsure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright at Seychelles
Noticed that large portions of the text are identical to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6268.htm - might be a legitimate copy but wanted to mention it because neither source lists the other one in their sources. Richiez (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've confirmed that they had it first. It was added to our article here; here is the archived version of the source. I'll handle attribution and notification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Australian Sex Party
The policies section of this article contains approximately 900 words (more than half of the article) that is copied verbatim from the party's website. The content is referenced, but the size and nature of the copied text makes it a clear copyright violation. I have removed it twice (once earlier in the year and again yesterday, when I rewrote it as a smaller prose summary), but have been reverted both times. I have brought the matter to the talk page. -- Lear's Fool 03:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when are a political parties' policies copyright, and reproducing policies a copyvio? The logic is plainly silly. Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a copyright violation. No question about it. Of course the text by which a political party sets out its policies is copyright. It is a literary work for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why am I not seeing any copyright notes/notices on any of the site's pages? Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant. A work doesn't need to be registered or claim copyright to attract copyright protection. Copyright subsists in any original literary work, subject to limited exceptions. Our own article explains... it informs readers of the existence of underlying copyright; it does not establish copyright in and of itself. See also page 3 of this document. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add, as a general note regarding this edit summary, that copyright policy is not subject to consensus. There may of course be reasonable disagreement about whether particular text is subject to copyright. In that case, the appropriate course of action is to blank the content first, and resolve the disagreement before restoration. It might have been best to list this at WP:CP (and if Timeshift still disagrees, we should do just that). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mkativerata is correct. Under the US law that governs us (and determines whether we can place this content on Wikipedia), all original works are protected by copyright at creation, unless they are ineligible (as with works of the US government) or explicitly released. See also Public domain: "In short: Copyright notices are not needed anymore." Laws are reproducable, no matter what nation produces them, but political parties' policies do not have the force of law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bergier commission
I haven't looked very far into the source but it seems that this article in at least one place quotes verbatim from the report of the commission it is about but doesn't acknowledge the quote at all. "To summarise, it is apparent that the claims of surviving Holocaust victims were usually rejected under the pretext of banking secrecy and a clear preference for continuity in private law." is a direct quote from page 455 of the source. I would edit the article myself but the bulk of the article is about Switzerland's WWII relationship with a country that I am not allowed to discuss because I am topic banned from Eastern Europe. Can somebody else please have a look and edit accordingly? --Varsovian (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the article for non-free content concerns and left a note at its talk page. If no other action is taken, I will likely remove the content after about a week. If you see other duplication, please let us know here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Migration of images to Commons
Following a request at WP:ANI to look at deleting some of the backlog of duplicated files that have been moved to commons. Nearly all but one of the first five I have checked were copyright violations which has led me to one uploader despite a history of copyright violations and iffy uploads some of them have been moved to commons. Really need to review image moves before they are done as all we are is duplicating work deleting these copyrighted images. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a problem. I've seen a lot of redundancy with CCIs, where images here have been duplicated there. I'm not quite sure what the answer is, as we have trouble even getting people to review CCIs. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please look at U.S. Sugar Program
U.S. Sugar Program seems to have text from:. I see why the user would think it's fine to copy it, being another wiki and all, but it seems to be under a non-free license. I'm not sure this is the original location of the text, so it very well may be ok to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Ormont (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Can you single some problematic text? I did a snippet search but came up with no matches. It being a substantially longer page and we having a backlog at CP at the moment, I'd rather not comb over the other Wiki if I can avoid it. It may be that both of them have taken text from the PD source cited in our article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Someone reverted to an earlier version that has no questionable content.  This is the version which has the text under scrutiny.  The added text is also at: another source, but I don't know that this is the original source.  It may have alternately been copied from an acceptable source.  ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a "Root key" protected by copyright?
I have reverted this edit on the basis that it has no encyclopaedic merit but I was just curious as to whether it also violates copyright. Would a piece of copyrighted software's (in this case, the PlayStation 3's system software) root key fall under that software's copyright? If so, does this diff need to be hidden? Thanks  Chimpanzee+  Us &#124; Ta &#124; Co 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall having seen a discussion of this before, but I can't quite remember where. I will ask User:Dcoetzee to weigh in, as this is his area. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moonriddengirl. Just for info for people who may not know what this refers to, the "cryptographic hash" that the Code signing article talks about is what is meant by "root key" in this case. Not "root nameserver" (as "root key" redirects to).  Chimpanzee+  Us &#124; Ta &#124; Co 14:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyrightability of cryptographic keys has not been tested in court (one could argue that since they are generated at random by a computer program that they should not be). It's clear that short cryptographic keys - say about as long as a single sentence - are probably too short to be eligible for copyright. With longer cryptographic keys, I remain uncertain. This particular case is difficult because it includes several keys, each of which is probably too short to copyright on its own, but I'm not sure about all of them together. Publishing them may contravene the DMCA, but that's another matter. Dcoetzee 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Material that can only be expressed in one way is not eligible for copyright protection. If it is essential that the key be expressed in a particular way to work, I don't think it would be copyrightable. If it's just a number, the copyright could be avoided by expressing it in a different base. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. This is very interesting... to me at least! :) You obviously seem to know a lot more about the technicalities of these things than me so excuse my ignorance, but is a key not part of the software's source code? If so, wouldn't this protect it as the code as a whole is copyrighted?  Chimpanzee+  Us &#124; Ta &#124; Co 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyright for a compilation work does not automatically extend copyright any incorporated non-copyrightable or public domain content. Consider a hypothetical situation of the release of an annotated Shakespeare volume - the work as a whole would be copyrighted as well as the annotations but you could still pull out the original play/sonnet/etc. and republish it freely. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No - to give a comparable example, if a work of fiction contains (for some reason) an alphabetical list of all people living on a particular street, that list may be extracted and reused without any concern, because it is not eligible for copyright protection in itself, even though the book as a whole is certainly protected by copyright. Typical source code contains many small parts which are either too short or too unoriginal to be protected by copyright by themselves. Jc3s5h's point is also valid; re-expressing the number in some other base (e.g. octal or binary) would avoid any copyright concern, per idea-expression divide, although it would certainly be somewhat unconventional. The idea that some facts can only be expressed in one or a few ways and so their expression is not protected is the merger doctrine. Dcoetzee 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.  Chimpanzee+  Us &#124; Ta &#124; Co 15:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Clan Anstruther
There is clearly a copyright violation between the Wikipedia article Clan Anstruther and http://www.scotweb.co.uk/info/anstruther/, but it is not clear to me which way round it is see Talk:Clan Anstruther for more details. Could someone more experienced with this type of problem follow it up for me? -- PBS (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:Clan Anstruther. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct license for a picture of a living person
When I created the Hans Einstein article, I uploaded this picture of him. The photo is frequently seen in web and print articles about Dr Einstein. When I asked him about using it for Wikipedia, he said that would be fine. I was never able to figure out the correct license that this picture would fall under. Do I need to contact him again and explain what Collective Commons are? Frotz (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Creative commons, not collective. I would suggest the [CC-BY-SA] license, which is most commonly used for materials on wikipeda. If mr Einstein grants permission to use the image, see Requesting copyright permission for further details on how to confirm that permission to our Volunteer response team. Yoenit (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankenstein film still (1931)
We have bit of a problem at the article Malibu Lake. The lake has been frequently used as a film location, most notably for the film Frankenstein, made in 1931. A contributor has uploaded a still from the film, showing the monster by the lake ( File:A frankenstein.jpg ), and states that they have been told it is public domain. As the contributor is new to Wikipedia, he/she doesn't seem to have filled in the relevant fields (or possibly, uploaded to the correct place). Is there any simple way to determine copyright on this? Given that it was shot in 1931, will copyright have expired anyway? And if it is public domain, has it been uploaded to the right place? I've not uploaded images myself, so am unsure of the correct procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The cutoff date for public domain material in the US is 1923, so this is not automatically public domain because of its age. It is theoretically possible that copyright was not renewed or Universal Studios released the movie into the public domain, but if that were the case I am sure we would have heard about it. The file seems to have been uploaded as non-free content with any form of rationale. As it does not seem to meet the wp:NFCC for use on Malibu Lake (it is easily replacable by a free image of the lake) there is no choice but deletion. Yoenit (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Two RD1 requests that need cleaning first
Please see The Manzai Comics and Lake Ram, two articles that had been languishing in the RD1 requests queue for almost a week. I'm guessing the reason they sat so long is that no one could figure out exactly what the problem was, since the articles were not cleaned before RD1's were requested. Courcelles 07:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Manzai Comics seems a perfectly fine request and the only fault in Lake Ram is that the user did not revert to a clean version before applying the tag, which would be trivial to fix. Is the problem perhaps that people do not understand the revision numbers as specified in the tag? Yoenit (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Rybachy Peninsula
Bringing this comment up from the talk page of this article. It states:

"The Dispute section is from, whose license reads "Copyright © Bellona -- Reprint and copying is recommended if source is stated". Is this a license compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL?  I am going to delete the copied content until the question is answered. —Cxw (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)"

I tried to answer it myself. Minima c  ( talk ) 18:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a really crappy translation of a foreign license. On the Russian version of the site the license is "Перепечатки разрешаются только со ссылкой на источник", which apparently translates as |en|%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D1%81%D0%BE%20%D1%81%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA "Reproduction permitted only with reference to the source". Seems  compatible not compatible with Wikipedias licenses, but I would like a second opinion from somebody who speaks Russian. Yoenit (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I confirm the accuracy of Yoenit's translation, but I have no clue whether this wording can be considered CC-BY-SA- or GFDL-compliant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 13, 2011; 19:35 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it is not compliant, unless they also permit modification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Yoenit (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Enterobacter cloacae Article
Copyright folks, I ran across this glaring example of plagiarism today. looks like a straight copy/paste from a website. It was noted on the talk page ~6months ago but never addressed. so i figured i would bring it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterobacter_cloacae

Thanks!

Nwaggz (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've removed it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigurimi
I posted this note at Talk:Sigurimi - This article appears to be copied substantially from Albania: a country study, Volume 550, Issues 98-994'' (1994) ISBN 9780844407920. Could someone run a check as to the extent of material copied?''

Since this is the first post at the TP, and the article was created on 14 August 2003, I thought it best to bring it to attention here too. There is also substantial overlap with of the Muslim World'' but that was possibly sourced from the Wikipedia article. RashersTierney (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

List of T.U.F.F. Puppy episodes
It appears that many if not most or all of the episode descriptions are cut and paste copyright violations from the Toon network site. Can someone who is familiar with copyright process take a look and take appropriate actions? Thanks. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Questionable example at Work breakdown structure
An "example" has been lifted verbatim from a copyright website.  Maybe it's fair use, but it looks inappropriate to me.69.1.23.134 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Hunter...
The vast majority of the Paul Hunter (director) article appears to be a direct copy of the Facebook site belonging to the same director (http://ko-kr.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Hunter/103124983061137). The article was created by User:LaurenPB; their only editing was to create this article. Judging by the promotional language in the article, which makes considerable and unsourced claims about the artist, I'd suggest that the article was copied from the copyrighted Facebook site rather than other way around. There's nothing really to revert to. What's the process to follow here? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't actually created by LaurenPB; she's just the earliest of the most recent 50. :) It's been around since 2005,, when it was created by User:FuriousFreddy. This is what the article looked like before she got there. Copyvios entered in the next edit. Since permission seems possible here, I've blanked the content and will list it, notifying her of hte procedure. Whether we really want the content is a separate concern. It might be useful to base a more neutral article. If permission is not forthcoming, it'll probably be reverted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Agree about the neutrality point. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Chicago literature
Most of the recently created Chicago literature was copy-and-pasted from Wikitravel, without giving any attribution. I read Copying within Wikipedia, but couldn't figure out how to attribute it after the fact. The rest of the article is a long paragraph copy-and-pasted from a copyrighted source, but vaguely attributed with a link. Are either of these an issue? Thanks, First Light (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thanks very much for pursuing it. Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia Foundation project, so Copying within Wikipedia does not apply. Since it is compatibly licensed, we can use the content, but failure to attribute is a licensing violation and thus a violation of copyright. It is reparable with the proper choice from Category:Attribution templates. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The quotation does seem excessive, particularly given the length of the source. I have tagged it and explained at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixes and for the education (including your posts on the various article, talk, and user talk pages). I'll watch the article and fix that quote after giving the editor some time to deal with it first. First Light (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel
Is there a template/category for non-admins to request revdel of copyright infringements? If not should there be one?--Misarxist 13:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And of course just after that I find . But not through the instruction pages so should I put a reference to this on the revdel policy page and the copyright cleanup pages?--Misarxist 13:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be great! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Lancia 3 RO
Looks as if it is being copied from another Wiki or similar, but I can't trace it - possibly being machine-translated en route! PamD (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of message boxes
@ Moonriddengirl: Regarding the design of the header, here's what I find problematic about the message boxes: (1) they use the style for talk page message boxes, though they are not; (2) they indent the content at the left and right, which lengthens the page unnecessarily; and (3) the incluson of these particular instructions in message boxes seems arbitrary when instructions below are not. Perhaps you could let me know what you find effective about the current layout, and we can come to a solution that addresses both of our concerns? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) What I like about it is that the essential pops out for the contributors, and I am not necessarily wedded to the way that they are done but I worry that stripping the format will make them harder to find. This is the way that they used to look, prior to our doing away with images at that page: . Very eye-catching. They are the key instructions for contributors dealing with copyright infringements. (A little out of date, since they don't mention rev deletion). The ones below are not quite as critical. Is there a way to keep them very visible, which I like, without the elements that you dislike? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I think we can make that work. My only interest is in removing the message boxes. Once that's done, I wouldn't have any objection to you putting them in tables, styled any way you like (the rev you linked is one example of using a table), provided only that they are sections with appropriately-named headings, so they can appear in the TOC. How's that? --Bsherr (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If I can figure out how to do that, that would be fine with me. I'm afraid I'm rubbish at coding. :/ But we've got others in the copyright department who are not, so maybe they can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Help:Table. If you get stuck, just let me know. If you happen to make an error, I'll fix it up. --Bsherr (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've created the table, and retained the headers. I've started it off as "class=wikitable", for demonstration. Have at it, if you please. :-) --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a half success. :D I tried to use the color scheme from the old structure. The first block worked; the second did not. This stuff always seems like it should be so easy. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You were close. You just had an extra "#" in there. I fixed it. --Bsherr (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks! I appreciate the assist. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tokey Hill
This article appears to be copied from his school's home page (http://www.tokeyhill.com/aboutus.html). I assume that still makes it a copyright violation, but I want to be sure. I also posted at the article's talk page, but since the article hasn't been edited since 2009, that's probably of no value. Papaursa (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Xiangtan University
Most of this article's text seems to be a copyvio from http://en.xtu.edu.cn/. -Rpyle731talk 09:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed and watchlisted Yoenit (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rpyle731talk 08:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing Gold Can Stay
According to http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/detail?fileID=1806429525X, the copyright for Nothing Gold Can Stay, one of the poems in New Hampshire was renewed in 1951. Am I right in assuming that the renewal means the text of the poem cannot be included in the article? 67.100.127.241 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Faith Theological Seminary
I found an issue at Faith Theological Seminary, in that the whole article had been lifted from it's website, so I removed it as a copyright violation. The person who added it has since come to me, saying they were trying to add the information as Academic Dean. A lot will still have to go, as it's not in keeping with what should be on Wikipedia, but I was wondering if the rest qualified under WP:IOWN? They are quite new, so I'll need to explain COI and Copyvio to them, but should I be suggesting they share the text on the website or email OTRS? Not worked that much in copyvios, but it's an area I would like to learn about - so just wanted to get the procedure right! Worm  09:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the procedure. However, text from official websites usually has to be completely rewritten anyway to comply with wp:NPOV, so it is probably best to focus on the wp:COI and wp:NPOV issues and only raise wp:donating copyrighted materials once it is clear there is some material worth keeping. Yoenit (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good good, I'm glad I've got that right. I see you've reverted the page, so I'll write a message to the "Dean"  Worm   10:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Andandand Creative
Stumbled across another aparant copyvio, Andandand Creative appears to have most of it's text taken from it's own website, with some small changes. Compare the following for example Now my question is, should I be going through and checking every line against the website or reducing it to a stub? at what point is a db-copyvio appropriate? Worm  12:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (wikipedia) "&&& Creative were asked to document the 24-hour marathon interview event conveying its immediacy, accessibility and highlights. Avoiding the clichéd all angle documentation so frequently employed."
 * (official site) "Creatively document the 24-hour marathon interview event conveying its immediacy, accessibility and highlights. Avoiding the clichéd all angle documentation so frequently employed."


 * You do not have to compare every line; it's enough to note significant copying or close paraphrasing. Have you seen Cv101? It has some potentially useful tips for you, if not. :) Personally, I am very unlikely to clean an extensive copyvio without first tagging to give regular contributors a chance, but that's because for me cleaning copyvios is generally an admin action, and I do not want to blur the lines. Given that, I use db-copyvio copyvio when: (a) I think that the person who placed it can probably provide permission; (b) the content is too embedded to easily remove and regular contributors of the article might like a chance to repair it before it is excised; (c) the article probably will not survive without the content or a complete rewrite but it is not a WP:CSD candidate. I think all of us should probably use db-copyvio copyvio in (a), but with (b) and (c) you might consider other factors before deciding whether you should just go ahead and fix it. For example, is the article heavily edited/watched/contentious? If so, it may be a good idea to give those contributors who are familiar with it a shot at it first. Whenever you do react to a copyright problem by stubbing, please keep an eye on the article for a time. It is not uncommon for these actions to be reverted by the person who placed the text or even by bystanders who either do not understand the nature of your action or simply have a knee-jerk response to the sudden loss of content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick and helpful response! WP:Cv101 is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, should give me something to think about.  Worm   13:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MRG, do you perhaps mean copyvio? db-copyvio is the speedy deletion template. Yoenit (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes! Thanks for catching that. I did mean copyvio not db-copyvio, and it makes quite a difference. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I caught that from the WP:Cv101 page. But worth clarifying!  Worm   14:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in references
Just a quick question: is it ok to include long quotes of sources in the references section as a new editor has done at: Vernalization? I've seen small quotes used in some places before, but this might be taking it a bit too far so just wanted to check with those of you who know more about copyright. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not okay. :) We can only use brief excerpts in any space, whether that's article or footnote. I've removed the lengthy ones and will speak to the contributor about when and how to use the quote parameter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanking you. That's what I suspected, but I just wanted to check. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, and thanks for checking this. Moonriddengirl let me know and fixed some of my quotes; I think I have now shortened all of the ones I did before, except for a long and interesting quote in Avebury from an 1871 source that I am pretty sure is public domain. Sharktopus  talk  15:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, 1871 is PD. I didn't look at the dates; sorry if I removed one unnecessary! For Wikipedia's purposes, anything published before 1923 is fair game. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

<-- No, MRG, everything you did was fine, and thanks a lot for the help. But before this scrolls off into history, how long is too long? If I am quoting from a copyrighted source, giving credit to the source of course, is there some rule about "100 words is too much" or "5 sentences is too much" or ??? Does the answer change if the work itself has a 1,000 words or 10,000 words? Sharktopus talk  22:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck
What are the guidelines on length of quote inclusions? This is an entire paragraph from this article. At over 200 words in length it is a considerable amount of directly copied text from a magazine article. The closest statement I could find was this. This is just a question of length of the quote being used. It would appear that an entire paragraph from a relatively short article would be borderline at the least. Arzel (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I too would welcome clearer guidance on how much is too much. Sharktopus  talk  19:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that only a legal court can really decide when something is too much. As a general guideline I would advise to get rid of the material when its length worries you. I know that for plot summaries we use 2 words per page of the novel. Yoenit (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Orbela's People
Going through the backlog of advert-tagged articles, I found this article. Besides a probable COI, the article itself is almost completely copied from here (select 'orbela's people) (trouble with ext linking). However, the site does not clearly state under which license it publishes its content. There is no hope for saving part of the article; there has been no meaningful additional content creation after the copypasting. What is the best course of action? CSD per obvious copyvio despite the unclear original license or deletion via PROD? Pim Rijkee (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The page you link to won't load for me. I found however, which seems to be where the article was copied from. All material is automatically copyrighted, unless specified otherwise. This is a blatant copyright violation and can be deleted under CSD. For more complicated issues see the instructions on wp:cv101 Yoenit (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Creighton University Page
The history section of the page for Creighton University appears to mostly taken from http://www.creighton.edu/about/history/. This edit was carried out by Bluejayscholar, who had not edited before and has not edited since. I believe that this section should be deleted as soon as possible, however WP:CV implies that you should be an admin to delete it. If I am incorrect, please tell me, otherwise, please look at the page, and you will see that it seems to be a clear copyright violation. Thank you. Supergeek1694 (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Only admins can delete pages. You can remove the copied material yourself though or tag the section with . See also wp:cv101 for some basic advice on how to handle copyright violations. Yoenit (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up.Supergeek1694 (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

METLIN
A part of this article is very closely paraphrased from http://metlin.scripps.edu/. I would like to fix the article (in my opinion this database is notable for Wikipedia), however, my knowledge of medical/chemical terminology is weak and I don't want to make a mess. Thanks for any help. I'll notify also the WP:MEDICINE. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Different creative commons licenses
Sorry if this is in the wrong place. If material is licensed on another website as cc by-nc-sa, can we copy it here? Or, is the only creative commons licensed material that we can copy over, that which is licensed cc by-sa? I ask because I have noticed some articles flagged at WP:SCV which have been taken from www.cate-sphingidae.org (eg. Xylophanes pyrrhus), which uses a cc by-nc-sa license. Are these ok? -- Beloved Freak  21:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Of the creative commons licenses only cc-by and cc-by-sa are compatible with wikipedia. Any license with "-nc-" does not allow commercial reuse (nc = no commercial) and is thus unsuited for Wikipedia. The same is true for any license with "-nd-", which means no derivative works are allowed. Yoenit (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I thought.-- Beloved Freak  18:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a handy table on what license works with us at WP:CCPS (and other places) BTW. MLauba (Talk) 18:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted text copied & editor has not yet addressed them
Editor in question posted these: :This would "finally consolidate our whole country to one nation only," Jefferson suggested in 1803. He regretted in 1813 that white-Indian war had prevented this: "They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time." Edit made:

vs this text from which it comes:


 * In 1803, he suggested: "In truth, the ultimate point of rest and happiness for them is to let our settlements and theirs meet and blend together, to intermix, and become one people."


 * This would "finally consolidate our whole country to one nation only." He regretted in 1813 that white-Indian war had prevented this: "They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time."

I notified him, and went to the Admin board , but he still did not remove them; I had to do so and left a note & link on noticeboard. Someone else noticed additional violations; a direct quote:


 * Lewis and Clark Expedition: "All earlier travelers had warned of this powerful and aggressive tribe. A recent Sioux raid had killed 75 Omaha Indians and burned 40 lodges."
 * Source: "All earlier Missouri River travelers had warned of this powerful and aggressive tribe ..." "A recent Sioux raid had killed 75 Omaha men, burned 40 lodges ..."
 * Trans-Siberian Railway: "The peak of the resettlement occurred during 1906 to 1914, when 4 million peasants migrated to the Siberian provinces."
 * Source: "The peak of the resettlement occurred during 1906 to 1914, when 4 million peasants migrated to the Siberian provinces."
 * There's more along those lines in a couple of others I checked. **END QUOTE**

Editor in question discussed copyright in a separate incident on a different article here, so this isn't the first time. Editor in question has still not removed the violations the editor brought to his attention on the noticeboard. Based on the comments on the admin board "There's more along those lines in a couple of others I checked", his edits seem to meet criteria for referral to WP:CCI; I would refer it, but it says editors who have ongoing disputes should not do this. Hence I am notifying you here of the unresolved problems, and of what someone else feels may be a greater problem. Ebanony (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at some random edits in the contributors history, I found more problems.

"In the early days of long sea voyages, scurvy killed more sailors than did warfare, accidents, and other causes. For instance, in 1499, Vasco da Gama lost two thirds of his crew while making his way to India; and in 1520, Magellan lost more than 80 per cent while crossing the Pacific – all mainly to scurvy" "'Between 1780 and 1870 smallpox itself was the single major cause of Aboriginal deaths.'" is directly copied from the source given. This seems to be an editor who does not understand copyright at all and a CCI is necessary. I will copy this to the CCI page and discuss this with the editor on his talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Source 1 : "In the early days of long sea voyages, scurvy killed more sailors than did warfare, accidents, and other causes"
 * Source 2 :Vasco da Gama lost two thirds of his crew to the disease while making his way to India in 1499. In 1520 Magellan lost more than 80 per cent while crossing the Pacific.


 * I am already aware of the copyvio issue . I have carefully read, understand the WP:COPYVIO policy, and want to clean up the copyvios. Starting yesterday I am going to rewrite or remove all copyrighted material, . There is no evidence to support Ebanony's assertion (I have an on-going dispute with him []) that I had discussed copyright in a separate incident on a different article. I didn't check what 51kwad wrote because I didn't have enough time to do it . There are no copyvios from me . I just left a comment on the article's talk page a few months ago. Tobby72 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kate Obenshain
Hi folks, there seems to be a bunch of verbatim copy-paste copyright violations on the Kate Obenshain page. Specifically the Political experience section has two paragraphs that are word for word the same as the source link. As it seems most of the information on the page is from the link, there are probably more. The user who added these bits edited the page a couple times 1.5 years ago, and has not be around since. Stuinzuri (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Balmoral Castle
I've just spent a very frustrating hour or so which started with the intention of fixing one issue on the Balmoral_Castle article and, so far, has caused me to have to delete perhaps 80 or 90% of it due to copyright violations. I've used to remark on this on the article talk page but, to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if all but perhaps a dozen sentences of what remains after my actions is also a direct copy-and-paste from somewhere. I've got a few large-ish projects on the go at the moment and do not have the time to rewrite it but I'm wondering whether it would be better for WP to scrap the entire article and start over. I haven't notified the editor(s) yet but I'll try to figure out who it is that s/b notified real soon now. Obviously, my edits and the urls on the talk page can be fitted together to prove my assertions. Quite upset about this because I do not like destroying things & have had to take copyvio action on three articles in two days, but never previously. You can "blame" the big backlog campaign for that - piqued my interest. Sitush (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Pomerania during the High Middle Ages
VWBot picked this one up already though I was also thinking of bringing it up here. The problem is with the 1993 Piskorski "Pommern im Wandel der Zeiten" source which has been copied more or less verbatim across a bunch of articles related to Pomerania - with the caveat that there has also been some cherry picking and word-changing apparently for POV purposes. Specifically see here, here and here. The same user who inserted those close paraphrasing also copied verbatim text at the Drang nach Osten article from a different source (Ulrich Best) of which I informed Moonriddengirl which was then removed  from the lede, though the same text remains in article body. Because this appears to have happened across several articles I've collected the issues here - though I am still in the process of checking other articles where this source has been used extensively (and as I mention above, there's some POV concerns as well).

The Piskorski source is not available in English or online hence it is difficult to verify it but I do have a copy of the book and the text in it corresponds very closely to what has been copied into Wikipedia articles. The Ulrich Best source is available on line here (check page 58 and compare with the Wikipedia article text).

Because in every instance where this source (Piskorski 1999) is being used extensively it has been copied more or less verbatim I am also concerned by the use of other sources by the same user - in particular, the problem appears to be an over-reliance on one or two sources without an adequate consideration of other sources (which is what led me to look into this in the first place) which lends itself to mindless copy-pasting of text, rather than a proper paraphrasing of the meaning of the sources. The other particular source which is extensively used by Skapperod, is Buchholz, Werner, ed (1999) (in German). Pommern. Siedler. ISBN 3886802728. Like Piskorski, this other source is not available online or in English but judging by how it is being used in articles (for example, the narrative tone of the text switches from paragraphs where Buchholz is cited to ones where another source is cited) I'm thinking there is a similar problem here. So I think the use of Buchholz needs to be verified as well (preferably by a German speaker).

Ok, the thing is m,e and the user in question, Skapperod, do have a bit of "history" together and at the same time we tend to edit the same subjects so we always run into each other. So I would appreciate it if an outside uninvolved person looked through these examples - are these really close paraphrasings/copyvios or am I being too nit picky here? Does the extent to which this is being done warrant a thorough checking of other frequently used sources? I'm biased in regards to this user so please take a look.  Volunteer Marek  06:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Marek wrote So I think the use of Buchholz needs to be verified as well (preferably by a German speaker).


 * I am going to the New York Public Library on Wednesday- Stay tuned--Woogie10w (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content questions: List of highest-grossing Bollywood films
During a recent AfD (in which I was not a participant), it was pointed out to me that the sources behind List of highest-grossing Bollywood films are copyrighted. It is not a raw compilation of data, but rather a subjective analysis included a variety of factors (akin to CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports and CDN Inc. v Kapes). I've currently got a conversation started (well, I'm attempting to start one) about how we can safely include in a list of these elements at Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Input would be welcome! (But some admin will need to stay uninvolved to close the conversation :)). I am seriously wondering if this is the time for me to see if I can introduce myself to our new attorney. :/ Please give feedback there, so as to keep conversation in one place. I am also raising this at WT:C and WT:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

repeated posting of text
Perhaps editor is new and doesn't understand policy; I've posted a note of it on his talk page. The text in question has been removed by the editor who added it (once), and by myself (twice). This other editor, User talk:Dodger67, keeps adding it back saying "It's not necessary to destroy content when a simple rephrasing will fix the problem". Well, he's made no attempt to reword it ^ as far as I'm aware. The text happens to be a verbatim copy of the articles cited (no quotes), and is currently listed as a violation on the where even the editor who originally added it has tried to remove it, but likewise has had his efforts reverted. Ebanony (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps User:Ebanony should first try to actually compare the original text in the cited sources to the paraphrase I inserted after the copyvio was originally pointed out. See this diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disability&action=historysubmit&diff=413889018&oldid=412995637
 * I stand by my edit summary that my paraphrased version is no longer a copyvio. "Close paraphrasing" is necessarily a subjective opinion. In the case of the two disputed sentences it is very hard to state the same facts in a way that does not at least superficially resemble the original without creating a very complex sentence structure.  Roger (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is not a "close paraphrase"; it's a direct copy & paste, with the now just changing the order slightly. My understanding is this is a violation:


 * Since 2001, the number of U.S. military veterans with disabilities has increased by 25% to a total of 2.9 million.


 * The number of disabled veterans has jumped by 25 percent since 2001 — to 2.9 million — and the cause really is no mystery. from Fox News


 * Afghanistan has one of the highest incidences of people with disabilities in the world.Afghanistan: People living with disabilities call for integration FoxNews:
 * This is one of the highest percentages anywhere in the world...


 * The editor who first added the content is on the CCI board for extensive violations; he attempted to remove this, but Roger has reverted this violation (with a slight change) ; I then changed it 2 times citing this policy, but he has added it  .  Whilst the 2nd text from irinews is not so bad, the foxnews is virtually the same. 2 editors attempted to fix this, but he's edit warring now.Ebanony (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What would be an acceptable way to simply state the increase in the rate of disability among US military veterans? Let's work this out here - edit warring is not my style. I would really apreciate some input from uninvolved editors too, my understanding is that is the purpose of this discussion page. Roger (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger indicates he will replace text with a different version. I withdraw the aforesaid claim, and make note the problem is resolved. Ebanony (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Chart lifted from CNN article and claimed as own by wikipedia user


...is lifted straight from here:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/01/markets/SEC_CFTC_flash_crash/index.htm

...by User:S51438 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.10.16 (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare the dates: The file was uploaded on wikipedia on 18 may 2010, the CNN news article is from 1 october 2010. CNN reused our material, which is perfectly fine for the file was released in the public domain. Yoenit (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Quit with the accusations against me please. Check the dates of the upload and of the article date S51438 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So what do you have to say to this, thief?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?hpt=T1

That's TWO WEEKS BEFORE YOUR UPLOAD.
 * You're definitely right, and it appears to be the same size as the one used in the CNN article. I'm deleting this now, and thanks for bringing this to our attention and providing evidence to support your claim. Just please remember that we are all people here who do make mistakes... yelling at us isn't going to get you anywhere. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Professor Habtamu Wondimu
This is one of those incidents which can't help but make me sad. I don't know if anyone can be blamed here, since almost everyone involved has been acting in good faith.

This article has been around for a while, & reviewed by a number of people who are hardly unsophisticated Wikipedia newbies. It was PRODed not long after it was created a couple of years ago, but kept. An orphan article, it remained under the radar until PRODed it again. I reverted that, but since it was a biographical article about a living person without sources, I knew sooner or later one of the BLP fanatics would be eager to delete this article. ("It states that he's the chairman of the psychology department of Addis Ababa University; how do we know that? The article may be a hoax & it's presence offend the real chairman of that university department.") Since Wikipedia needs as many articles on academics from Africa as we can get, & having a spare minute or two, I did a Google search on the good professor. And discovered that this was a cut-& paste job from the third Google hit.

That source? The Fulbright Scholarship website. He was singled out as one of the "Fulbright New Century Scholars" -- an award which ought to make any question of him being notable moot.

I'm tagging this article as a copyright violation with much sadness. Them are the rules. Maybe after the article is gone someone will re-create it, adding some more information to round out Prof. Habtamu's profile.

Sometimes too much knowledge is a dangerous thing. -- llywrch (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But instead of deleting it, why not move it to the correct title and create a minimal stub with the information you've got? I've done so (other way round - created article, then made redirect from the "Prof... " version of title). Didn't take long. PamD (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't delete it. I was going to mark it for deletion, & had added the tag but forgot to make the final click on "Save page" when I was distracted by dinner & helping to put my daughter to bed. By the time I came back hours later & saw my mistake, someone else had read my comments above & deleted the article. But the result would have been the same. Now that the copyright violation is out of the article history, a stub can be created for Prof. Habtamu. But first I'll create a few links to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If a U.S. government employee copies/pastes text from a U.S. government web site, is that a copyvio?
This IP, which is registered to the United States Fish & Wildlife Service, has been copying text from that organization's web site and pasting it into relevant Wikipedia articles. These all seem to be good faith / good-intentioned edits. But my question is, does this violate Wikipedia's copyright policies? –BMRR (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By U.S. law, there is no copyright in any publication of the U.S. government. Therefore, a U.S. government employee -- or any other editor on Wikipedia -- can copy text that was created by the U.S. government (such as U.S. government-created text on a U.S. government website) without a copyright issue.  See WP:PD for specifics.  Whether that is really a good faith edit is a more subjective question. -- AyaK (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sibmas article
The text of the WP article Sibmas and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/sibmas.htm is practically identical. The globalsecurity.org page has a copyright claim, it doesn't acknowlege or refer to WP at all so if they copied WP they have no right to claim copyright. If it's globalsecurity.org's original work then the WP article is a copyvio. I don't know how to determine in which direction the copying occured. Roger (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the article history. Sudden jumps in article size are often a red flag for addition of copyrighted content. If the content is added by various editors in small bits it is usually a reverse copyvio. In this case the original version of the article is a perfect copy of the the global security site, so there is little doubt who copied who. Yoenit (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. So it doesn't take any magic to figure out - just simple logic. Roger (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tgarden
I've just discovered that created No. 50 Squadron RAF and that on creation the article was a copyvio of http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/50squadron.cfm, which is unexpired Crown Copyright. In real life, Tgarden was Timothy Garden, Baron Garden and is now deceased. Therefore no purpose would be served by informing the user that his copyvio has been discovered. A check of his editing history points to this being the only new article created by him, so it's probably not a serial copyvio issue, but I would appreciate another set of eyes on this matter. I've flagged the issue at WT:MILHIST and hopefully those fine folks will write a new article which can replace the existing one. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And so they did, it seems. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

COPYVIO check
Over at Egyptian Revolution of 2011 we had a massive timeline section that got moved to a separate article. But we needed a short summary in its place. I copied a timeline from an article here, cut out sections, changed the tense, copy-edited, removed extraneous pieces, rephrased where I could, etc. Since this is a timeline, there's not a lot of room for editorial discretion, and there's still similarity between the texts. I realize it would have been better to make edits before putting it on the main page, but hopefully the edits to rework it are sufficient. Can someone check it for 'substantial similarity' or too-close paraphrasing? Ocaasi (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for requesting review of this. I believe it is substantially similar. I've removed the content with some examples at the talk page and further explanation there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese coinage


It has come to my attention that large portions of this article are verbatim copies of text in the copyright book, Cast Chinese Coins by David Hartill, ISBN:9781412054669.

The primary author of the article is, the author of that book.

Recently, I removed a large portion of the article and placed it on the talk page, trying to sort out referencing. This lead to Davidhartill putting it back, and adding some references. However, it is now very clear that portions are copied.

(Note, that means if text does need removing for (c)-infringements, then make sure the talk page is checked too)

I'm not quite sure how to approach this problem. I suppose we could ask for OTRS permission, but as it is a published book, I forsee difficulty. Hence asking for help here. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 12:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * getting permissions should be trivial. According to the book web site, Hartil owns the copyright. He's posting his own work here. He should be aided with the formalities, not deal with as a probable infringer. I wish we had more such experts working here.   DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, it should be, since he included his e-mail address in the book (which I note, somewhat worrisomely, is self-published; however, he does seem to have two papers in reliable journals). I've blanked, since we can't disseminate this until it's verified, and left him detailed instructions how to confirm the license for the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Kirsty Duncan
Kirsty Duncan is identical to this bio from her website. However, the fact that the article has citations while her website does not makes me wonder if she copy and pasted Wikipedia instead of vice versa. --Padraic 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that this has been evaluated at the talk page, where a conclusion of reverse infringement was drawn. All settled? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Kingkiss.jpg
One of 2 non-free images used in the relatively small aticle King & King. Having 2 non-free images is excessive. The other is the book cover, which is fine. This image is used to illustrate 2 men kissing. The image is a COPYVIO and fails WP:NFCC #8.Lionel (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't you already start a discussion of the file at Non-free content review just a few days ago?   Will Beback    talk    02:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forum shop, please. Having failed to delete a cartoon image of two men kissing isn't the end of the world. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR is what i'd recommend for this, and it seems like it's already there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyrights and translation
I am unsure about the following situation. has been in trouble at the Spanish wikipedia because of a bad habit of building articles as patchworks of lines copied directly from copyrighted sources. He has now arrived at the English wikipedia and it seems some of the problems came here before he did. In this case  creates the article Cerro de las Minas translated directly from the Spanish version article containing a copyright violation originally inserted by Gumr51 here  copied from. In essence what we have now is a translated copyrights violation (and quite possibly a lot more than one), but I am unsure whether the process of translation (which occurred obviously in good faith) affects the seriousness of the copyrights violation, maybe to the degree of it being considered rather a paraphrasing? Please advice and keep a look out for the contributions of  - I fear that we have a potentially big problem on our on our hands.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article by El Cerrito (archaeological site) also seems to be a direct translation of this website belonging to the Mexican government.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Translation doesn't somehow vacate copyright. A translation is a derivative work of the original and is therefore bound to the same conditions.
 * Translation of an article from a different Wikipedia language is obviously permitted provided it is properly attributed, but regarding the text copied and then translated for a third party, it should be handled like a normal copyright issue here. MLauba (Talk) 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is translated directly from a thirdhand copyrighted website. I have look at a few other of Gumr51's articles and have detected COPYVIO in all this far. This is a potential largescale problem. What to do?·Maunus· ƛ · 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * what is the status of copyright of works of the Mexican government? I presume that, like most non-UScountries, copyright does apply to them.   DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know but there are also copyvio's of several non-governmental sources. Another article that was almost fully plagiarized was Las Flores (archaeological site).·Maunus· ƛ · 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to this conversation, but I think what you're doing at his talk page is exactly right. If the problem persists after he is properly coached, then we may have to take additional action. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

William Nutt
I was going to tackle this article as a copy edit backlog item, but I'm bringing it here because I don't know what to do with it. This article was created in 2008 by an editor who has not edited since. The entire text appears to be copied directly from this webpage. This webpage predates the Wikipedia article, so it can't be some sort of a mirror. My interpretation of that webpage is that the information was obtained from one of several books listed there and referenced in that webpage as "Vol XXII, No. 36 Natick, Mass., September 1, 1909". I don't know if this constitutes copyright infringement and should be removed, or if it is simply plagiarism that can remain until rewritten. I would appreciate it if somebody who is knowledgeable/experienced in this area could render an opinion. Robsavoie (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, reword, rehash, remove. Phearson (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, exactly what we must do. :) Fortunately in this case, I've been able to verify the age of the text by finding the bulk of it published in 1907. I've attributed the sources, both of which assert to be PD-old. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Giasone
I find this article suspicious; If nothing else, the plot summary is all in quotation marks - and is a couple pages long! We surely can't quote several pages like that, unless it's out of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There were only some sections that were in quotation marks; they were used baldly, without any attempt at transformation, so I've removed them. If you're still concerned, you can add cv-unsure to the talk page, which may invite other contributors to locate the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

YouTube link may be copyvio
I'm not up-to-speed on what's normally done in these situations, and I couldn't find specifics that covered it, so I've brought the issue here for advice. The Block Parent Program article contained a link to a YouTube copy of a TV news article that may itself represent a copyright violation. For the time being, I simply commented out the link and added "Possible copyright violation" at the beginning of the comment. If further/different action is required, please let me know. – RobinHood70 talk 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a legitimate concern and a good response. The person who uploaded it seems to be a journalist, maybe the one narrating the event, but there's no reason to believe that the material was appropriately licensed. Even if he is the newscaster, he's not the guy with the camera. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Moonriddengirl! – RobinHood70 talk 20:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation ?
'''My articles has been deleted from Ampati, as it has been found to have violated and I have copied and pasted from http://ampatisubdivision.blogspot.com/2010/04/topography-and-ampati-sub-division.html and http://ampatisubdivision.blogspot.com/. I strongly feel that the administrator didn't care to check the Blogs. I am the same person who has started the blogs, i am the owner of that blog. Hence the question of copyright does not arise. Hence I strongly urged the administrator to rectify the error.'''

Regards Swarup Banai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarup banai (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Camberwell Public Baths
Whilst conducting a GA review of this article I discovered cut and paste and close paraphrasing of material from http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200229/investing_in_leisure/1391/camberwell_leisure_centre. I tagged the section with this edit. Some of this has been removed and the article nominator who claims to be a an OTRS volunteer is affronted that i challenged the apparent copyvio. Could some one else take a look and make sure that it is now OK? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not "affronted" at being asked to fix marginal paraphrasing (not a direct copypaste as was the notice you originally added to the article) and this matter has already been independently discussed with Moonriddengirl. As has been said more than once, I intend to get back to re-writing it within a day so raising as a notice here is unnecessary escalation of what started as my good faith request for an article review. What I considered inappropriate for a GA review I have already explained on your talk page, please do not misrepresent my comments. As for "claiming" to be an OTRS volunteer, you are an experienced editor with a long track record, it does not seem unreasonable for me to expect you to know that you need only go to my user page to confirm my status. --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)