Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 16

Close paraphrasing examples
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing concerning the language of the examples being used there. These examples were generated to give contributors guidance in talking to other editors where problems are sufficient enough to warrant tagging of the article, either by blanking with copyvio or with close paraphrasing. The specifics at this point seem to revolve around whether or not the examples should be altered to default to use on a single passage of close paraphrasing (by removing the current text "This is an example, there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely") or altered to embrace paraphrasing that may not be as close (by eliminating the term "very" from "very closed paraphrased"). Additional input in this conversation would be welcome to help establish consensus, here. The section immediately above is, really, essential reading. Sorry for the complexity; a content dispute seems to have swelled it a bit. :) Please see the discussion there if you have an opinion and would like to take part. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian costumes
Some sections of this article Palestinian costumes are almost direct quotes from a website on the subject. They are only a small part of a lengthy and important article which has been completely shut down. Is there any way of isolating the problem areas that need attention rather than censoring the work of many other editors?

Also is this claim of copyright violation a tool that any editor can use?Padres Hana (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All editors are encouraged to help deal with copyright violations. Please see WP:CV101 for more information on how. It is important to Wikipedia, to copyright owners, and to our content reusers that we keep our material legal and free. If you believe that the problem is isolated to specific sections of the article, I would encourage you to talk to the tagger to see if the blanking can be limited to those sections. If not, and you want to help rewrite the article to remove the problem, directions for doing so are on the template itself and also at Copyright problems. As noted there, your rewrite would be placed on a temporary page. If you do choose to assist in this way, please note on the talk page that you are doing so to help avoid the administrator who is reviewing the issue overlooking your rewrite. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Tawfiq Canaan
This article relies heavily on one source for much of the biographical info on Tawfiq Canaan. I spent a lot of time trying to phrase the mterial in such a way that it is not too close a paraphrase of this source but it is challenging given the limited ways in which one can impart biographical details. The article has now been tagged as a copy vio. I am worried it will be deleted before it is reviewed by other editors or before I have a chance to try to rework the material yet again. I would very much appreciate someone with experience reviewing the article and determining if the current tag is appropriate or if a close paraphrasing tag should be used instead or none at all. I should mention my contribs are currently under review. See Contributor copyright investigations/Tiamut.  T i a m u t talk 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't have time to review the article right now (the source is long, and work is busy), but I just wanted to let you know that the article will not be deleted without review. All articles tagged for copyright problems are reviewed by a copyright clerk or an administrator before deletion.


 * If I wanted to work on a rewrite and needed more time, what I would do is get it going in the temporary space and put a prominent and easily visible notice at the top of that temporary space that you would appreciate lengthening the period of the copyright problem listing to allow you to complete the work. If I were the administrator handling a listing and saw such a note, I would relist it without a second thought. While the article is blanked, there is no danger of redistribution, and we can afford to take time to repair it. :)


 * Without having time to do a comparison of the source and the article, I will offer you some of my general advice for handling rewrites where I find challenge given the limited ways one can impart biographical details.
 * The threshold for creativity is pretty low, and it protects not only the language that somebody uses but the way they put their facts together. The degree to which you need to write "different" depends, really, on how much you are taking from any one source. If source A says "John Smith was born in 1967", you're not going to get in any trouble saying the same (no creativity there; it is a very standard way to identify year of birth) if it's the only reference you draw from source A. (That said, I would still switch it up: "Born in 1967, John Smith....") If you then go on to follow their organization in large part, though, you're no longer just reproducing an uncreative way to say something. Think of it like art. A straight line is uncreative. The more straight lines that combine in the greater number of angles, the more creative it becomes. If you copy the pattern from somebody else's arrangement of straight lines, you may well infringe their copyright, even though the pattern is entirely constructed of straight lines. :) The closer you come to replicating their pattern, the more of an issue you are likely to create. When taking biographical details from a single source (or from a few sources), you are at greater risk of copying their pattern. You need to avoid both taking their language (where at all creative) and their patterns.
 * Try to meld multiple sources into the same sections. If you can take a fact from one and a fact from another, for instance, rather than copying over the facts from one, you are less likely to wind up with a closely paraphrased work, because your pattern will be significantly different.
 * Take basic notes from your sources and then merge those into sentences of your own. For instance, if your source says, "John Smith was born in 1967 to Rebecca and Harold Smith of Long Island, but was almost immediately transferred into the care of his paternal grandparents in Maine", your notes might say: "Place of birth: Long Island; Parents: Rebecca & Harold Smith; YOB: 1967; grew up in: Maine; caretakers: grandparents." Without looking at the source, you can then build something out of that yourself. For instance, I might build this sentence: "A native of Long Island, Smith was raised in Maine by his paternal grandparents." And work the YOB and the names of his parents into another. Ideally, if I've found multiple sources, I can do that one better: "A native of Long Island, Smith was raised in Maine by George and Harriet Smith who stepped in after his parents, Harold and Rebecca, abandoned him on the steps of the Long Island church days after his birth in 1967."
 * Caveat on the previous note: I very seldom rewrite sentence by sentence, because it is almost impossible to do it correctly. Instead, I would take notes of a paragraph or several paragraphs - still ideally with multiple sources - and work from there. If you rewrite sentence by sentence, it is very hard not to wind up with a close paraphrase because you will still be following the arrangement of your source. :/ If you are able to work with extended passages, taking notes, you can consider whether their arrangement is the only one that makes sense. With biographies, sometimes it is - chronological frequently works best. But there may be ways you can switch it up still. For instance, if we know more about Smith's relatives, we could start off our "early life" passage talking about who they were - what George and Harriet did for a living and who Harold and Rebecca were that they would abandon Smith to begin with.
 * After any rewrite, take a moment to compare it to your source. Don't look for where they are different; look for where they are the same. Are there many points where they are? If so, can you do anything to switch it up further?


 * Hope this helps somewhat! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot problems
DpmukBOT hasn't run today because it's reporting very high (>4.5 hours) database lag. Don't know more than that at the moment. Dpmuk (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, boring technical reasons appear to be behind the lag . I've run it manually ignoring the lag.  In doing so I seem to have made a minor error in running it from my computer as opposed to toolserver that meant it listed something that was already listed.  I'd put it down to the operator being tired and about to go to bed rather than anything wrong with the bot itself! I'll have a look and see what happens tomorrow.  Hopefully things should get back to normal soon.  Dpmuk (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oforia
I deleted Oforia under the G12 speedy deletion criterion because it appeared to be copied and pasted from this website (click on the Info tab). The article's principal author has written to me that he published the same text on several sites, and he would like us to restore the Wikipedia article. The content in question was added to the Wikipedia article during July 2008 and the website has a 2008 copyright notice.

What should I do? Can I restore the article and add backwardscopy to its Talk page? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it wouldn't be a G12 because there's content in history prior to the influx of potentially copyrighted content. G12 is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable. :) "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained." If nothing else, the versions of 11:13, 30 April 2008 and before could be published.


 * In terms of the disputed content, if we can't prove that it was the same person who published the text on several sites, we can't publish it here, even if it's true. If content was published elsewhere before it reached Wikipedia, we are required to verify license. Moreover, if in submitting it to one of those websites he surrendered copyright, he doesn't have the right to place it here even if he is the original author. Lyrics.com, at their Terms of Use, note that "Lyrics.com is the sole owner of all content and intellectual property of the web site, unless otherwise noted."


 * Beyond that, the content was actually added by an IP editor in April 2008, here, and subsequently modified by that IP editor and others, including the named account. I feel quite confident that it was here before lyrics.com had it, given this ; "one of the inventors of the genere" becomes "one of the inventors of the genre". It's highly unlikely that the IP would have copied it incorrectly from the other site and then fixed the misspelling.


 * Given that, I would feel comfortable restoring the entire article and placing backwardscopy on the talk page.


 * If you find an article tagged for G12 that doesn't meet the criteria, please feel free to put copyvio on it and list it at WP:CP. That'll give time for a more complete evaluation of the background. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate your detailed reply. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright attribution of CC3 file
These files:, , are based on another file licensed under creative commons:. The original file was created by a blogger in May 2011, before the creation of the other two files. The original file has a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. The pink version of the image attributes the source, but the second one does not. What is the best way to handle this. aprock (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When something that is compatibly licensed lacks necessary attribution, the best way to handle it is to add attribution and drop a friendly note to the contributor who uploaded it about licensing requirements. :) It may be a good idea to glance to see if this looks like a pattern or to request that the contributor fix any other attribution issues he or she may have created. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Maria
The article Maria (1956 song) includes the image File:Maria leonard bernstein.JPG. This is an image of some words and music from the song. The license information for the image notes that it was placed in the public domain by the creator, which is true of the image, but it seems to me that there needs to be additional justification for the use of the copyrighted original source material. After some thought, I've decided to post here, rather than at Media copyright questions because my concern is about the non-media portion of this, even though the technical format is jpeg. Matchups 03:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a clear derivative work, but it's on Commons. We can't process it here. :) I'll tag it for them to handle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thủy Pháp at AfD. Protocol question
The article on Thủy Pháp is at AfD. Now that the source website is identified, I would normally tag for CSD G12 but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about this. On the other hand, it seems wrong to let it sit there for 7 days while the AfD discussion runs its course. Blank for CP evaluation, perhaps? Would appreciate input from more experienced hands.--CharlieDelta (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blanking for CP is fine. G12 may be okay, but I would not use it if there's any chance for permission; copyvio is better in those cases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Of course, given what the article creator says about the source, it should be copyvio not G12. Thanks again.--CharlieDelta (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hist merge needed or not?
Just recently, I seem to have been dealing with a few cut-and-paste moves at SCV where the original article has been turned into a dab page for whatever reason. To begin with, I added the Copied template on both talk pages to provide the attribution to the previous page and marked the SCV listing as OK. Now that I've read the example at WP:CPMV which seems to illustrate exactly the situation I have been dealing with, I'm wondering whether these should, strictly speaking be marked as needing a history merge. Seems a lot of admin work. I'm wondering what the best course of action is in these cases. Dipogon (plant) and Cliff Parker (English football) are two recent examples.--CharlieDelta (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've repaired those two.


 * It's a pain, but better to repair where we can - the second example is a perfect case, as Cliff Parker (English football) was moved to Cliff Parker (footballer) subsequent to your tagging. When content is moved around, it's easy to lose it. :) When you encounter them at SCV, the best thing to do is probably just to flag them . The best thing is, as I know you do, to explain to the contributor why this is a problem, even if just using the template. They don't always listen to the bot, and we'd like them to stop. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you, in that case, to look at Pallada which was turned into a dab page with a move of content to Russian frigate Pallada?  I suspect that will also need repairing.  The move was done by an admin, User:Parsecboy, which gave me some pause...--CharlieDelta (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Even administrators can't keep up with everything. :) I'm sure this is just an area that he hasn't worked in. I've let him know, and finished out the attribution (we need the link in edit summary and it's a really good idea to place copied at the origin page, to prevent its ever being inadvertently deleted; there's a template specifically for multiple instances of copying, but I've got too much to do today and so just took the easy route!). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark Weinberg (judge) close paraphrase?
I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at the discussion about close paraphrasing on this article. The content has clearly been copied and then tweaked from the info at The Federal Court of Australia website. However, since the content there is really only a list of dates and appointments, the contributor is maintaining that this is acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines and has removed both the CSB and the close paraphrase tag. I can see both sides of this discussion and would be grateful for some guidance as to next steps (or is this, in fact, acceptable?). BTW, From an earlier discussion on the contributor's Talk page, it is possible that a number of articles on Australian judges may have been added in a similar manner.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential broad copyright issues

 * Davis-Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station ([ history] · [ last edit]) from First paragraph of article section copied almost verbatim from recent Economist article Dan Griscom (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've confirmed that this is a problem and notified the contributor, relisting under today to give him time to fix it. It's worrisome. A spot-check of the rest of the article may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned this one and am out of time, but have some concerns that the contributor may not be conversant with our standards on close paraphrasing. On 29 March, he added the following content to an article:


 * The source he used says:


 * This prompted me to look at some of his other work. I picked one article at random from his "good" list: Requiem for a Species. Comparing the first version to his sources, I see immediately this issue:


 * His source says:


 * I'm unsure if this necessitates a more indepth check and wanted feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My view is that the examples you give definitely reach the level of being a copyright concern and so fear that a CCI will be needed. Dpmuk (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've copied this from Copyright problems/2012 March 25 as I need more time to develop it and it should not hold up the closure of that day. My concerns persist. For instance, in this 2007 edit, I see that the contributor added content sourced to this "all rights reserved" source, which includes the following text:

Text he added said:

No intentional plagiarism, obviously, as he cites his source, but this a very close paraphrase.

In this edit, he uses this source, which says:

He added:

For some reason, he only started added quotation marks with the word "faces."

I need more time to delve into this to see if it is widespread enough to merit a CCI. It looks like small passages of precisely duplicated or very closely paraphrased content throughout. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've approached the contributor about it again, although last time he removed my note without response or without taking action on the article. While these have all been relatively small amounts, the most recent issue I have found is a bit more extensive, in this edit from November 2011.


 * He added this:


 * His copyrighted source says this:


 * This last example is particularly concerning to me as it is a substantial amount of unacknowledged, duplicated text that serves no apparent transformative use. I am beginning, like User:Dpmuk, to lean towards thinking we may need a WP:CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that your messages on my Talk page are not being ignored, and really have tried to lift my game since you previously spoke to me. And I can assure you that I am working to improve WP as best I can, even if sometimes that is not good enough. I certainly am not a perfect editor and in the heat of adding a contribution, with pressures of limited time, mistakes sometimes do occur. I am happy to go back through some of my edits with a view to re-wording if you wish, perhaps starting with the GA articles. Perhaps there is someone who specialises in copyediting, and who knows more about these things than I do, who could also help? Or I will understand if you need to block me. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just blanked Kings Canyon Solar Power Station. Looks like a CCI is necessary. MER-C 03:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Moonriddengirl for putting another note on my Talk page. I am certainly very keen to keep the communication channels open and co-operate wherever I can. I appreciate that you are willing to “minimize fuss and just get the job done” here. As a show of good faith, I have been copyediting some sections of my articles, starting with the GAs. Thank you for giving some thought as to who might be able to assist with this copyediting process, as I am certainly open to receiving advice and help from someone with more knowledge and expertise in this area than I. Johnfos (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Contributor copyright investigations/20120412. MER-C 05:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Structure of Freemasonry poster.jpg
Could someone please look into the attribution at ... I am positive that this image was originally created for an article on Freemasonry that appeared in the Oct. 8, issue of Life Magazine... and does not date to the 19th century as is claimed in the file description. Two sources that I trust both give proper attribution (see: and ). I don't know whether our hosting this image is a copyright violation or not... but at least we should credit it correctly. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios on Indian Television articles
Hello! Recently i have come across various Indian television articles that mostly copy-paste information from their respective official sites. Not whole page is a copy-violation and hence can not be tagged with for deletion. Also sometimes few editors have taken care to reconstruct sentences by changing clauses or converting voices. I would request some admin to go through these all articles and take necessary corrective action. I am finding it difficult to tag these articles with something suitable. Hence posting here. Also these involve many pages and hence would require a lot of time from some admin. Few samples are listed below: Should be many more... Will try and list more here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are these widespread enough for a topic CCI? I came across WP:Articles for deletion/List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters yesterday, then found a cleaning of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah by Moonriddengirl from June 2009. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say so, yes. Span (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * From a preliminary look it does seem that Animesh is right - I would not be surprised if PR firms are doing this, as has been the case in other Indian articles in the past. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 07:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Copying of plot summaries related to Indian/Pakistani TV shows and movies is a perennial and widespread problem (I speak from experience, it's a match in copyvio heaven). Just imagine the IEP, but neverending and many times worse. I don't think a mass cleanup is feasible until we get pending changes. MER-C 08:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are chances that some PR firms are involved. These users are almost always new. The 9th entry that i added now is tagged for PROD as it is not aired yet thus being non-notable yet. But it has good lotsa description copied from its web page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A large part of this is PR firms, for the producer, for the actors, for the channel itself. However, there's also a fair bit of fanboy copying. The copyvios aren't restricted to just the TV series articles, but also the respective actors; while film actors are watched by more editors and therefore blatant copyvios are found earlier in the cycle, TV actors languish for a long time (Mishal Raheja is an example of actor promotion with copyvios). Now that I remember this article, I will go there and strip the latest round of copyvio and spam added there. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of scope of this particular discussion; but many of these actors are also having articles now. They aren't that notable, in my opinion. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

From the languaging, there seems to be a lot of copyright vio going on that takes from sources not accessible on the internet (that I can find); that is, taking from magazines and TV adverts etc. It maybe, of course, cut and pasted from the press releases from the production companies. Whatever is going on, much of the text is not written by WP editors. See Saath Nibhaana Saathiya as an example. Span (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyways... do we have some admin who will clear these articles? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need admins to clear copyvios, they can be removed by anyone and if revision deletion is required, the articles can be tagged for that. Given the backlog at WP:CCI as well as the copyvio board, this is not something that can be done quickly by those active on copyvio cleanup. The best thing to do is to remove text that is likely copyvio and mark it as such on the edit summary and use on the talk page. Given that copyvio clean up editors are already spread too thin, another alternative is to take this to the India project and/or film/tv projects to seek their help. Essentially create a template that can be placed on the talk page to assign the talk page to a certain cat, that can be used later with catscan to check which articles have been addressed/need addressing. A topic CCI may not be the best way to go on this as there are numerous categories suffering from this problem and it'll just add to the CCI backlog. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Have cleared these articles now. In case they are restored we then take other steps. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Cycles Devinci
Could someone have a look at Cycles Devinci? At least one section has been added which is under Crown copyright:. I've reverted the section once, but the guy doesn't seem to get the concept. I suspect some of the other recent additions may be copyvios too. -Dhodges (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded that section and properly referenced it. Cutting the boosterism seems to be a major problem for this user. Buffs (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Hustle episodes
There's a fair number of direct copies of BBC episode summaries. i.e episode 6.1 is largely a copy from here, episode 7.3 is largely a copy from here. I'm afraid I don't have the time to go through the entire article and ascertain what is and what isn't a violation, but it does look like some summaries are original. I'd say notionally it could be salvaged, but without any obvious lead editor, it may be that it needs to go. Thoughts? HornetMike (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Templates on Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems
I noticed that there is no template message for "Article speedied due to blatant copyright violations". Is there a reason for this? I recently did this to one of the articles on the list, so I'm wondering if this is a sign that I shouldn't have done that. - Running On Brains (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's two reasons: we didn't use to get copypaste at CP, so everything we deleted was just listed for 7 days. And we have traditionally not always left notes when articles are deleted. The "redlink" has since before I arrived been presumed to be clear enough. :) We can add one, if you want, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How to handle this?
I came across the article New Foundations, which contains a footnote reading as follows:
 * Holmes, Randall, 1998. Elementary Set Theory with a Universal Set. Academia-Bruylant. The publisher has graciously consented to permit diffusion of this introduction to NFU via the web. Copyright is reserved.

The page history and talk page indicate that the content of the article largely originated from User:Randall Holmes, who unfortunately has been inactive since 2006. Obviously the concern is with the words "Copyright is reserved." Is this consistent with our GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing policies? Obviously the author has a copyright in everything they write on Wikipedia, but does this sentence imply that the author (or his publisher) is seeking to reserve some rights inconsistent with our licensing policies? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously the red flag goes up when the cited author and WPian share the same name, but this seems to be more of a case of an improper citation to me. I minored in math and this page is WAY over my head and I'd have to take quite a bit of time that I don't have to review it, but it doesn't seem to be self-serving (the user's name isn't mentioned anywhere except the lead. I'm inclined to let it stand until I can thoroughly review it, though tagging the article for cleanup/COI might be a good idea. Buffs (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a COI issue; it's a mathematician writing about a topic on which he has published, not a mathematician writing about himself or his work. My only concern is whether the author has improperly tried to reserve some copyright interests that are incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing policies.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If the author of the page on Wikipedia is also the author of the source that was used, then when the author clicked the save button to submit it to Wikipedia he released it under the GFDL. The "reserved rights" clause on the footnote can be read as confirming to anyone who looks up the original work that its reuse has been authorised. It should not be read as reserving rights to what was added to WP as they explicitly confirmed they were releasing it when they saved it. The concern raised here would be relevant only if the author of the WP page was not the author of the original work and the original work author did not consent to it being published under the GFDL. IMO. QU TalkQu 14:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something here? Has any of the text from that source actually been copied into the article.  A quick comparison, searching for some phrases and duplication detector (where the only hits are common maths terms) suggests.  I also note that it was originally described as an external link so there wasn't even the vaguest suggestion that text had been copied form it.  If it's just being used as a reference then there's no problem at all with it as most of our references are to copyrighted works (assuming of course that it is on the net legally, which it would appear to be, as we don't link to copyvios).  I would suggest that the phrase "The publisher has graciously consented to permit diffusion of this introduction to NFU via the web" is promotional and should be removed and that "Copyright is reserved" can be removed as unnecessary but unless someone can show copying from the book I don't think we have a copyright problem. Dpmuk (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Doh! You're right, I should have thought of that myself. I just assumed that the reference to the publisher and the copyright was talking about the content of the article, but it seems it was actually talking about the external source.  Never mind .... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparing organic fertlizers and inorganic fertlizers on maize
Organic cattle manure do great in maize plant than synthetic fer tlizers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.78.79.227 (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Rogers drove his cattle from not from Louisiana, but from Jackson County, Mississippi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.41.164 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana Tigers
The article Louisiana Tigers was largely written by a print author who has also written his own autobiography, Gary_Schreckengost. The article has 13 lengthy quotations from a work by the author and appears to consist almost entirely of content copied from his works. This appears to violate fair use, and the violations are so extensive it seems difficult to identify and fix them. Would like more experienced wikipedians to evaluate.68.34.210.83 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That would be an issue. :/ I've blanked the content for now and am asking the author of the material if he is able to verify permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

George Beauchamp Vick
Much of George Beauchamp Vick appears to be lifted verbatim from this article at the All About Baptists website. I don't find a copyright notice on the source article or on the main All About Baptists page; I don't know enough about copyright issues to know whether this is a copyvio or not. I'd appreciate the situation's being investigated by a Wikipedian who's better versed in copyright matters than I. Ammodramus (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright protection is bestowed automatically in the United States unless there is an explicit license release or there is some reason that the content is ineligible for copyright protection. Lacking evidence of either, we have to assume that the content is a problem under our copyright policies. I see the material has been removed. Thanks for pointing this out! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use of photo of statue
Where in WP would I go to get guidelines about uploading photographs of modern statues? E.g. File:Lone-sailor-statue.jpg which is a photo of a statue: the statue is copyrighted, I'm sure, but can any person take a photo of such a statue and upload it? Or, are such photos limited to "fair use" only within a single article: article on the statue itself? --Noleander (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where statues are copyrighted, photographs of them can only be licensed in countries that have a freedom of panorama law (or equivalent) that permits. This excludes the United States. :/ The image is hosted on Commons; while it might be usable under fair use on En Wiki, it can't be retained there. I've tagged it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I think that explains it: such images are prohibited on Commons, but are permitted in WP if they meet fair-use requirements, e.g. are used in an article about the sculpture, low-ish resolution, etc. --Noleander (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Citing on wikipedia
Does everything on wikipedia have to be your own words? I am talking about phrases and words not entire passages or articles. Example I am trying to mention some animals and agriculture products that were introduced by Captain Cook to the island of Niihau. I used the phrase "goats and pigs, as well as seeds for melons, pumpkins, and onions", can't I just cite the page I got it from and that would be good, or do I have to rewrite the entire phrase or even cite it. The phrase is from Page 39 Kauai: The Separate Kingdom. Do I have to put quotes on it and cite it like a high school English paper? I have never cited with quotes on wikipedia except on long excerts or quotes from famous people; I have only cited by adding the referenced source after the sentence or phrase with the ref template tool.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per policy, if you want their exact words, in almost all cases, you have to use quotes and cite it like a high school English paper. :) WP:NFCC: "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." (The guideline referred to is WP:NFC.) This is required for non-free content usage and in some cases for free content as well; see Plagiarism. When you're using brief runs, you can generally work them into a sentence, like the examples here - a couple of quotation marks and an in text attribution. An exception, which has to be carefully managed, is when you use indirect speech. Too much of this is risky and would obviously really only be useful if the words were important enough to be discussing the author. (For us, maybe "Churchill wrote that he was never satisfied with the easy solution." I made that up; for all I know, Churchill loved easy solutions.) See also Close paraphrasing.


 * In a case like the one you describe, if your source is not free, it's a small piece, but hard to justify copying it wholesale when it would be so easily rewritten. Off the top of my head, for instance, you could say, "Cook introduced animals to the island, bringing goats and pigs, and also brought seeds for new agriculture: melons, pumpkins and onions." Generally when you will need to retain the original wording of your source is when you have an "apt phrase" or when the content is non-creative: "John Smith was born in 1982." The phrase you give above is close to being noncreative, but with a tiny bit of tweaking we can eliminate the issue altogether. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail stealing wiki images
This article on the Daily Mail uses 9 photos from wikipedia without giving any credit! Note that the first image for the "SWEAT BEE" is not from wikipedia and credit is given to that one... all other photos are taken from wiki articles and none of the photos is PD: what can be done about this? noclador (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Paraponera
 * 2) Tarantula hawk
 * 3) Paper wasp
 * 4) Red harvester ant
 * 5) Honey bee
 * 6) Yellowjacket
 * 7) Bald-faced hornet
 * 8) Pseudomyrmex ferruginea
 * 9) Fire ant


 * Anyone can write to them and explain to them that while with a very few exceptions photos published on Wikimedia Commons are licensed compatibly for reuse, even commercially, there are frequently terms of reuse that require proper attribution. While this is an image issue, you might be able to tool one of the letters described here to the purpose. The only people who have any legal standing are those who actually took the photographs, as they own copyright, but reputable publishers are sometimes willing to do the right thing once they realize what that is. (You might even be able to take care of it by leaving a friendly comment at the piece - an approach like "Great article! I see you're using images from Wikimedia Commons. They're great pictures, but did you know that to make use of them you have to follow the steps at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia." You might find volunteers at Commons:Commons:Village pump who would be willing to help in one approach or the other, or who would at least know if the Daily Mail has done this and been approached about it before. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just thinking out loud here, but has there ever been a situation where some group like the Daily Mail (to give an example... I'm not suggesting this is the case) has asserted copyright claims on images or other content where in fact Wikipedia has been the original source of that content and the people asserting copyright are in fact guilty of a copyright violation instead of the other way around? more to the point, what protections are there to make sure those kind of images are not deleted from Wikipedia (or Commons) due to copyright violation policies here when users of Wikipedia content are acting in bad faith and misappropriating Wikipedia content like this?  I have to assume this is something that the OTRS guys have to deal with from time to time from copyright trolls.  --Robert Horning (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Thomas Palin
I reviewed Arthur Thomas Palin the other day, and my first instinct was that it was probably a copyright violation. However, I can't find any sources online that it matches. If you look at the original version the formatting isn't anything like the Wikipedia standard, and the prose is professional level and entirely unwikified. Could this have been copied from an offline source? And if it has been, what should we do about it? Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's a copyvio. Blanked and listed at Copyright problems/2012 June 16. MER-C 03:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems new noticeboard location
The noticeboard was split to Copyright problems/Noticeboard. For the explanation, see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive237.  Equazcion  ( talk )  07:56, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea. But in future it wouldn't hurt to discuss things like this beforehand. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, and I generally do, but the need for this seemed obvious enough that I felt comfortable doing it boldly. Hopefully it won't cause too much of that pure "but you didn't discuss it first" stir :)  Equazcion  ( talk )  08:32, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I have undone it until the bot is updated. Not so much a "you didn't discuss it first" stir as a "if you had discussed it first, you might not have broken anything" stir. :P If Dpmuk is available today, then the delay may not be long...assuming others don't simply disagree with the split. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The bot doesn't do much that couldn't be handled manually for the time being, as far as this page is concerned (most of its work is on the transcluded subpages, which wouldn't have broken). On this page it just adds the next day's transclusion. But no big deal anyway if you want to wait til it's updated.  Equazcion  ( talk )  16:08, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)

NASA Ames
If any US Government work is PD is than possible to copy whole pages with all the images without problems? One thing I found was a biography of Dale Cruikshank published on a NASA Ames page, is this PD or not?

Another question if I contribute to a NASA conference and they publish an abstract is than this PD, although it was produced by a non us government person?

--Stone (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstracts produced by non-US government people are, by definition, not US Government works. :) NASA cannot release those into public domain. Likewise, any picture published by NASA that was not taken by a government employee may be copyrighted. The thing to do is look for attribution. If they attribute it to somebody else, it's probably not safe to use (unless you can verify that somebody else is a US government employee). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I created the Dale Cruikshank article largely by copying the biographical text and list of publications (but not the image) from the NASA Ames website, on the understanding that this would all be PD, as US Government work. Is that right?. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to waffle on you, but we each take our own risks when we place content and I don't want to say, "Yes, that's right!" if you're the one who gets pursued legally if it's not. :/ Nobody on Wikipedia should give you legal advice. That said, I would feel confident that using that content in good faith wouldn't land me in hot water as no indication is given that it might not be public domain. There's no barrier in policy to using it here. If it should turn out later that the content is reserved (even though it wasn't marked) and somebody demands we take it down, we will. But you should place NASA on the page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've restored the NASA text and added the template. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for restoration of articles
Talk:Tarkhan Mughals, I have done so and matter have been resolved. I have created the temporary page(Talk:Tarkhan Mughals/Temp), now there is no issue of copyright, Please update the article.(Imtiaz Ahmed Mughal (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

Talk:Turko Mughal Titles, I have done so and matter have been resolved. I have created the temporary page(Talk:Turko Mughal Titles/Temp), now there is no issue of copyright, Please update the article.(Imtiaz Ahmed Mughal (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry, but you seem to have just copied over the article with some modification. You can't do that, as there is other copied content within it. For example, "The Huns were Turks with some admixture from the Mongols and the decimal system seems to have been—Tama-Tarkhan means the chief of ten thousands. Later on, Chingize Khan’s army was organized according to the same". This is what the source says: "The Huns were Turks, with some admixture from the Mongols, and the decimal system seems to have been an old tradition with both the Turks and the Mongols". (The rest of your sentence is also copied from that source, but in odd little excerpts that I'm afraid don't make much sense.)


 * It seems pretty obvious that there is rampant copying in this proposed rewrite. For one more example, "Tarkhan nama or Arghun nama these two are different names of the same work, The work is named after the Mughal families of Arghun and Tarkhan respectively, whose origin will be further noticed in the appendix." If you wrote that sentence, can you please explain to what appendix you are referring?


 * I'm afraid, as the directions instruct, that you need to start over so that no copied content is published in the article, not simply remove the copied content from sources that others may have identified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ennui (sonnet)
The analysis section of the Ennui (sonnet) articthis pagele seem to be pulled from this review on the guardian.

"This is wonderfully taut and restless in a manner that recalls Robert Browning or William Empson. That first phrase is probably the best moment in the poem, relishing its own archness."

appears in both, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.139.150 (talk) 5 October 2010

Is text that has been copied from a website a copyright infringement?
Large parts of the text in this article was copied from the website of a private oragnization. I am uncertain of whether this is a copyright infringement; is it public domain perhaps? I raise the question here because it has proven a little difficult to keep a neutral tone in discussions on the topic. So I won't post a note on the article's talk page unless I am sure to be doing the right thing. Skara B  12:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On the bottom of the page it says "©2012 ICD - Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. All rights reserved.". We tend to believe what people say unless we have reason not to. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Duh, thanks!
 * Skara B  14:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provisions
recently split Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provisions from Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act without attribution. I've since made a dummy edit with a link to the parent article in the edit summary, placed copied on both talk pages and advised the user to ensure proper attribution in future. I've been a bit hesitant though, having never dealt with a similar situation before – is there anything else I should do? Is there anything I've done that wasn't necessary? (Is this the right venue for this question?) Thanks. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This venue is fine for such questions, but sometimes very slow. :D That's exactly what I would have done, in all particulars. Thank you so much for taking care of it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd forgotten all about this but I think I took the lack of response as a positive, and it quickly became moot anyway. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Question
According to the Republic of Lithuania Law on Copyright and Related Rights article 5 „Works not Attributed to the Subject Matter of Copyright“:

Copyright shall not apply to <...> 2) legal acts, official documents texts of administrative, legal or regulative nature (decisions, rulings, regulations, norms, territorial planning and other official documents), as well as their official translations.

Lithuanian Defence Policy White Paper is an official document of the Ministry of National Defence Republic of Lithuania. So could the text from that document be used in Wikipedia articles? In addition, how to tag such a use? GiW (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't cover all official documents - only those of "administrative, legal or regulative nature" (and how the heck is that determined? It would be so much more helpful if they didn't waffle!). But if this came to WP:CP and this law was pointed out to me, I would not remove the material because I myself would think it highly likely that the law makes the use okay. What's important to understand here, though, is that ultimately you are responsible for what you place here, so if the Lithuanian government does not review "white papers" as in the matter not protected by copyright law, you'd be the one they'd be talking to. None of us can give you legal advice. :) It all comes down to individual risk assessment there. If I were going to place the material, I'd use PD-notice on the article, and I would put an additional note at the talk page explaining my rationale. That said, I'm a bit risk averse, particularly as I've lost the anonymity protection, so I'd probably restrict the amount of copying to what I felt would be covered by fair use anyway and summarize the rest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer ;) GiW (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ebineibgheniobg
has been creating several articles for episodes of a television series. So far, every article has a copy/pasted plot straight from ABC. I template-warned the editor but they've never used a talk page - ever. They've been editing since June 18 2011. I could really use some help with cleanup.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  04:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't take care of this issue on my own. I need the help of an administrator.  They're currently (today) creating a new article in their userspace and pasting in text fromr copyrighted sources.  I can provide diffs if that's why this case hasn't been addressed yet.  Here are duplicate detector links to keep this easy to see:, ,  (this one has been revdeleted), and  (copyright violation after warned).  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I personally didn't mean to ignore you. I've been catching up from Wikimania/vacation combo and usually start at the bottom of pages. I didn't make it past the first listing on this one. I'll take a look now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left them a note. Hopefully they will stop and take notice. There was a study done by the Editor Engagement team on the impact of templates, and they found that while new users pay attention to templates, they start to ignore them as they pile up. It's possible that this person - who has had a dearth of human contact in his or her time with us - doesn't recognize that there are human beings behind the note on his page. I dunno. Anyway, if they continue after the note - especially without contact - then a block may be inevitable. :/ But I'm hopeful. The latest issue seems to show more intent to rewrite, but some people - especially people who contribute to less rigorous open-source projects on the internet - don't immediately understand how thorough their rewrites need to be. This person seems to have scrupulously named his or her sources. I always take that as a sign that they didn't mean to do anything wrong.


 * Now, in terms of clean-up, I've done a mini-CCI and pulled a few plot copies. Some have already been pulled by you and some have been rewritten. I haven't had time to review everything and won't right now, as I've got errands I can't duck out of. :/ These are the ones I haven't checked. They might be fine. Anyone who wants to help is welcome to examine the diffs and see if the content meets our copyright policies, removing the material that does not.


 * The diffs weren't necessary (time was), but the diffs were very helpful. Thanks for adding them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Moon. Hope you had a good time at Wikimania and on your vacation.


 * That's interesting about the Editor Engagement team's study. I'll definitely take that into consideration in the future.  I can see with all of the templates that they were issued that they may have started ignoring them.  I hope I didn't scare them off completely. :-/


 * I'll take a look at the list below and help out where I can.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's back and has made 3 articles and 1 templates today, all clear of copyright violations. I'm glad I didn't scare him off and that he's producing so much seemingly good content.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mini-CCI

 * N The Voice of Ireland (series 1): (5 edits, 5 major, +3255) 
 * One Direction: (2 edits, 2 major, +2952) 
 * N Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012: (1 edits, 1 major, +2641) 
 * Heartbreak on Hold: (2 edits, 2 major, +2550) 
 * Swagger Jagger: (4 edits, 4 major, +2117) 
 * List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8): (4 edits, 4 major, +2115) 
 * What Makes You Beautiful: (4 edits, 4 major, +1981) 
 * List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1): (1 edits, 1 major, +1812) 
 * Victory (Jedward album): (2 edits, 2 major, +1625) 
 * My Moment: (1 edits, 1 major, +1480) 
 * JB Gill: (2 edits, 2 major, +1398) 
 * N Coast to Coast (Cody Simpson EP): (3 edits, 3 major, +1214) 
 * N Not Just You: (2 edits, 2 major, +1016) 
 * N Perfume (song): (1 edits, 1 major, +860) 
 * N Beautiful Lies (song): (3 edits, 3 major, +752) 
 * 4 U: (1 edits, 1 major, +715) 
 * List of The Voice UK finalists (series 1): (7 edits, 7 major, +382) 

Ram Kishore Shukla
Bit of a copyright quagmire here... The article has been recently stubbified (by me) to remove a large chunk of text that was apparently taken from an article called A biography on Pandit Ram Kishore Shulka by B.D. Sharma (previously hosted here, since removed). This text was previously removed in this diff. User:Ballisticizer, who is the main contributor to the article, claims here to be the author's grandson, and to have permission to use the text. However, he is unsure of what licence it was released under. We also have an issue in that I can't see an obvious way to verify his claim via OTRS. Any suggestions and/or help for Ballisticizer would be appreciated. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Respected sir, as i have already told you my name is Arunabh Sharma, i am grand son of Bhagwan Datt Sharma(B.D.Sharma), this article is about my maternal grandfather, my mothers name is Kavita Shukla my fathers name is Shailesh Sharma, i wrote this article with the help of my grand father and thought to use itself as a source, not that complicated as it has turned that day, afterwards i once again wrote entire article in different tone to solve that issue, my contact number is (redacted), my grand fathers number is (redacted) my mothers number is (redacted). Please help i have spent months on it like, i cant tell you, i had not touched my books since, please consider. Thank you Ballisticizer (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. You may wish to remove the telephone numbers. We can't resolve issues of this sort through phone calls anyway, and you really don't want people to start spamming you because of Wikipedia. :)


 * First, did you or your family request the removal of that material from docstoc, or did docstoc remove it themselves? It's not generally a good idea - if you have uploaded the document that somebody claims has been copied - to remove it from the other site where it originally appeared. That can actually slow down the investigation, and the fact that it is no longer published on docstoc doesn't help. Copyright lasts for many years and does not cease to apply when the content is no longer published. That the material has been removed from docstoc will only make it harder to verify who uploaded it and other pertinent information about it. If your family were the uploaders and it was removed on your request, you may wish to ask docstoc if they will put it back. If they deleted it on their own or will not restore it, we may not be able to help. However, any additional details you can provide about the publication history of that document could be helpful - was it published somewhere before? If so, by whom and when? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ballisticizer - can you call your grandfather for the texts, upload them to another website, put on the footer of the text "© B.D. Sharma – Permission is granted for use by the English and Hindi Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/ and http://hi.wikipedia.org/)." -- J (t)  13:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not an acceptable license for English Wikipedia; see Donating copyrighted materials. Beyond that, uploading it on a new site will not help, as we cannot verify authorship of the original. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It is acceptable and I completely disagree with you. I don't care about your rebuttals, so bye. -- J (t)  13:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Caring about rebuttals is kind of required to work on Wikipedia. See Consensus. Beyond that, while I'm sorry that you evidently find this upsetting, it is quite true that we are not permitted to accept content that is licensed for use on Wikipedia. Our material is liberally licensed for reuse by others, as WP:DCM explains, and content must be compatibly licensed in accordance with our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Respected madam, i wrote it by copying it actually from wikipedia text i.e. Wikipedia page was written first, then i went to grand father to add his memories to the article as i was just born at the time of my maternal grand father's rein was about hault, i uploaded it and deleted it, none of family members know to use a single key on computer, like me, our town is small one, this is india. Thank you very much Ballisticizer (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the Wikipedia page was written first, why does the article by B.D. Sharma say "Date: 04/09/2003" at the end? That suggests to me that the Wikipedia article came eight years after the Sharma article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The moral of my stupidity is, i just thought the Wikipedia article similar text as its source as then i was not known about how to use books as a source before User:Yunshui cited my article with books thats it. Ballisticizer (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am confessing it i did altered date, so as to use it as a reliable source, as one user just went after like i cant tell you i did not knew about these issues i ran my stupid mind and did this stupidity, but when i learnt citing, i did not use these types of sources, after all this was my homage to my maternal grandfather, if you want a demo i can remove that google document also right now. Please help. --Ballisticizer (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to solve the issue, I have just gone through the article and substantially changed the text (it needed a major copyedit anyway), hopefully it's now sufficiently distinct from the original as to avoid any copyright problems. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not seen the original, so cannot weigh in on whether the rewrite is sufficient, but in the absence of ability to prove compatible license, rewriting the content may be the only choice. Ballisticizer, I am highly concerned to hear you say that you falsified data in order to "fake" a reliable source on Wikipedia. This is a major issue under two of our core policies: WP:NOR and WP:V. Please do not ever present fraudulent sources on Wikipedia. That kind of behavior undermines everything we stand for. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The linked article by Metropolitan90 doesn't exist. At the same time, besides one or few sources that point that the article has copy vio concenrs, also do not seem to very legible and do not exist as of now compared to large number of secondary and reliable sources. So why not assume some good faith and help the article in a constructive manner by helping it rewrite or any suitable methods available? VIVEK RAI : Friend?  16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I have not seen the document in its entirety, there's no doubt that it did exist. Until the cache updates, you can still see text matches in the cache, both for docstoc and the google document, when you search text strings from the questioned version of the article. "Assuming good faith" with respect to copyright means something very specific; see WP:AGFC. The first step is helping the contributor to properly document license, if he is able. Rewriting, as Yunshui has done, is also quite appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Respected sir/madam, Please accept my apologies & i will be grateful till the end of life to all of you, Thank you very much, it was just issue of emotions to my elders who are not in this world, with sleepless nights to design the article, thank you very much, i have created a PDF of my version i will edit it, sort out the grammatical mistakes, shorten it and then, paste with the help of you people Although, i am speechless about what i did, i know i have did that wrong that i must be banned, i will never from now repeat these kind acts here. Once again thank you very to - Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 Moonriddengirl (talk)  J (t)  Metropolitan90 (talk) VIVEK RAI : Friend?  - Ballisticizer (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I need some free MBs for my iPod and I also need Facebook to and I need a iMessage app too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.58.194 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reporting copying of Wikipedia content without attribution
Is there a mechanism for reporting use of Wikipedia content without attribution? I just removed a Speedy tag generated by a Duplicate Detector on the article Williams v. Pryor. The article has been around since 2008 and has been extensively edited over the years. The supposed "original" content is from About.com, where it has no attribution to Wikipedia. Note that About.com is now owned by the New York Times. Is there some way to deal with this so important articles like this one are not speedily deleted in the future?--agr (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two different issues here: First is retaining articles here on Wikipedia. Since the Duplicate Detector doesn't generate any tags, the responsibility comes down to the editor actually doing any such tagging. Therefore, the way to deal with it is to educate users to do research before tagging articles for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. If there's any doubt, then it should be tagged with {{subst:copyvio}} instead. In this case, however, it seems there might actually be legitimate concern for a copyvio claim, it just needs to separate out any opinion from PD text from the courts.


 * The second issue is reverse copyright infringement. There is Backwardscopy which can be placed on the article's talk page to indicate that the copy is known and has been investigated to ensure that it is not a copyright problem on our end. There isn't a widespread mechanism for reporting it beyond the lists at Mirrors and forks. That page also lists some steps which can be used to encourage such sites to remove the content, but there's really only legal standing to make them do anything if you are the copyright holder (i.e. author) of a mirrored article.


 * Does that answer your questions? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is no attribution, consider Standard license violation letter. VernoWhitney is correct that you can't file a lawsuit or takedown order unless you wrote the content. Ryan Vesey 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does help, though I think this material belongs in our guideline somewhere. Note that in the case of the article I mentioned above, it appears that the Duplicate Detector was justified in flagging the article as a 2003 About.com version in Archive.org predates the creation of our article. --agr (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure if this is in the right place or not. I'm not even sure if this is an issue at all, but it seems wrong. There is a whole collection or "books" being sold on Amazon under, author's Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn, which seem to be nothing more than copy and pasted Wikipedia articles being sold for a profit. I realise Wikipedia is a free source and you can re-publish certain content with little problem but can you copy everything and try to sell it? I don't know, hopefully somebody else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.0.43 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

footer
Can somebody please explain the wikicode of the &#8220;footer&#8221; of this page? It seems that as of [ June 27] the footer displayed neatly, but its appearance changed on [ June 28]; however, the [ &#8220;diff&#8221;] does not show the actual cause of the change! Why is there a change in how my browser renders the section when there is no change in the wikicode of the section? 71.178.165.11 (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a size limit for the total amount of other pages which can be transcluded before they just stop rendering (200KB as I recall, but I'd have to look it up. It's happened here more than once before) and this screws up the templates which specify the date at the bottom of the page too.


 * Getting somewhat off-topic: When everything is peachy keen and there's no massive backlog the entire Copyright problems/NewListings page is transcluded, so there's no need for linking the section title like you did (the link that's there right now is actually instead of the intended transclusion within that section, but whatever). VernoWhitney (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Translations
Hello, I sometimes participate in this wikipedia although most of my contributions are in the Spanish one. I just wanted to confirm if it is still necessary, when translating from one wikipedia to another, to indicate this in the history or summary or by tagging the article as a translation to give credit to the original author of the article that was translated into another language. Have the rules changed? I presume that this would apply to other wikis ¿right? Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Maragm. :) Yes, you are correct. This rule applies to English Wikipedia and, in accordance with the wmf:Terms of Use should apply in almost every case to any other wiki supported by the WMF. (Cases where it would not are extremely limited, but, for one, if the content was copied to Wikipedia from a public domain source, there is no requirement to attribute the Wikipedia page, although the original should be clearly credited to avoid Wikipedia:Plagiarism). [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia gives more, including mentioning the template Interwiki copy. It's good practice to place this on talk pages. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Moonriddengirl for your clarification. I thought as much but wanted to confirm since we are discussing this at the village pump in es.wiki and I just wanted to be sure. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusing copyvio or reverse copyvio situation
I can't figure out the best place to list or discuss this, so I'm adding it here in the hopes that someone more knowledgeable can help me determine the best course of action. I noticed some problematic text in the history section of cellular automaton. The source is here, the two sections called "The Birth of Cellular Automaton" and "The Zuse-Fredkin Thesis" on pages 5–7. If you look at this version of the article, you can see the similarity. I asked Jclemens about it on his talk page here, and he realized the book in question was published in 2011, after the questionable text was added in 2003, so it looks like the book may have taken it from Wikipedia. There is no attribution in the book. The reverse copyvio tags I've seen seem to require a website making the violation, so I'm not sure what to do here. —Torchiest talkedits 18:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I listed Cellular automaton at WP:Copyright problems/2012 August 29. Regarding the appropriate tag, you could use Backwardscopy with the Google Books URL. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I sent the following email to the book authors:

Editors at Wikipedia try hard to avoid copyright violations, because, unfortunately, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, ignorant or uncaring editors often incorporate copyrighted material. To combat this, we use multiple techniques to correlate newly-added material with material published that is available on the web.

Recently, a correlating search program found text in the Google online preview of "the Universe as Automaton" (page 6):
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=21X_4SF9vP4C&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22Konrad+Zuse%22++%22Calculating+Space%22+%22digital+physics%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=x-U2zx24Ml&sig=0ofiy97ZX8VrF1ieeHI_Wv9yJkA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y_M8UICXMoK49QTjtoGYCA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Konrad%20Zuse%22%20%20%22Calculating%20Space%22%20%22digital%20physics%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

that is identical to text in a Wikipedia article:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton#History

Further investigation has found that the text in Wikipedia was added in 2003, while your book was published in 2011. There is no attribution in your book to the Wikipedia article.

There are many possible explanations for this. If the book and the article copied from a common source, and the Wikipedia editor did not have permission to copy, we need to remove the copied text. If the Wikipedia editor did have permission to copy, then we need to attribute the source. If one of you (the book authors) was the original Wikipedia contributor, then there is no copyright violation or plagiarism, but we should still annotate the article to keep our correlation robot from complaining.

discussion of this issue at Wikipedia can be found at:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Confusing_copyvio_or_reverse_copyvio_situation

That is an ephemeral discussion page. You may wish to comment there. If the discussion has disappeared, please feel free to reply to me.
 * -Arch dude (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just received a very polite response from one of the authors. He acknowledged that the material was from Wikipedia and that he had made a mistake. He has re-written the material to avoid copyvio and to acknowledge The Wikipedia article and has instructed the publisher to replace the offending material with the new material. -Arch dude (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My maps are stolen and posted here on Wiki
I was just informed that some of my cartographic works and fruits of my scholarship have been stolen from the Gulf 2000 Project at Columbia University, reworked and posted here on Wikipedia. I have no ability to remove them, and soon they will be all over the internet, being used by everybody without any credit issued to me as their author. I hold Wikipedia responsible for this loss of credit and potential income.

Most recently, the two maps and their adultrated legend boxes posed for Syria Ethnicity and Syria Religion are among these. The originals are found at:

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Syria_Religion_Detailed_lg.jpg

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Syria_Ethnic_Detailed_lg.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izady (talk • contribs)
 * Can you link to any of the maps on Wikipedia? Do you mean this? It has no references for the data, but it's not a copy of yours. Secretlondon (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For the time being, at least, I've deleted the images from Sectarianism in the Syrian civil war and Religion in Syria. They are simply uploaded drawings by an unknown user and as such do not qualify as WP:RS. As far as copyright violation is concerned, I have no idea. Seems, though, that one could take the to gulf2000 Columbia images and photoshop them together to create a single Religo-Ethnic overlay, and then change the colors. But copyright violations are far beyond my keen. --S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You've not deleted them - you've removed them. Secretlondon (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed them. (Now what?) For more, please look at . The image data says the creation was complied from two copyrighted images (the gulf2000 products) with Photoshop. Seems to me Izaday has a legitimate gripe. (He is the Michael Izady, a mid-east scholar, who created the originals.) Please help.--S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think he had a legimate complaint. The problem here is whether or not this was "merely" plagiarism (failure to attribute,) or copyright violation under United States copyright law. The image is now attributed, which relieves the plagiarism. I feel that the attribution must be carried forward into any article that uses the image to continue to avoid plagiarism. As to copyvio, this is a deep issue. To what extent are the elements of the gulf2000 maps that were copied "creative?" Only "creative" elements are subject to copyright. The underlying shape of the country and its subdivisions are not "creative," and indeed Izaday used these himself without attribution. This means that the only possibly "creative" elements copied into the new maps by Foxaxx are the regions that reflect the data in Izaday's maps. But is the data "creative" under US copyright law? (probably not based in precedents.) Is the idea of mapping the data "creative?" No. Furthermore, an idea is not copyrightable. Only a particular expression of an idea is copyrightable. So, did Foxaxx copy Izaday's expression? Possibly. But when there is only one reasonable way to express an idea, then copyright does not apply. Can you think of a different way to express Izaday's data as a map? If not, then Foxaxx's maps do not violate US copyright law. (I am not a lawyer: this analysis may be worng.) -Arch dude (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncertain, potentially problematic copyright situation at Coson. Plagiarism at the very least.
Apologies for listing this here rather than on the main Copyright Problems page, but I'm doing so because I'm not sure what the copyright situation is with the article in question and don't know how to proceed. (Also I'm not used to handling copyright problems in general.)

The Coson article contains three paragraphs of text taken almost verbatim from a 2004 coin auction writeup at, and the original author of that writeup has complained on the article talk page. There's no question that this is plagiarism and should at least be dealt with on that level.

The uncertainty is whether this is unauthorized copyrighted content. This is the edit which added the content to the article, but it was apparently taken from the Description field for this Commons image. That image's Permission field says that the image was contributed with the permission of the Classical Numismatic Group (CNG), and an OTRS ticket is provided. CNG is the owner of the auction writeup page in question. But did CNG intend their granting of permission to also cover the descriptive text, and if so, did they have the authority to contribute that text (i.e. was the copyright transferred to CNG by the contributing author)? Outside of copyright, there's also the question of whether a Commons image description should plagiarize like this.

Any help would be appreciated.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've left a query at the Commons OTRS noticeboard . At least we can find out if they gave permission to use the text as well as the image. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bach Family

 * Please have a look at Bach Family. It is heavily plagiarised (see my note on the talk page), to the extent that I think one would have to say it is in copyright violation. Not sure if this is where I report this kind of thing? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved from the main page. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Have identified copying from the 1911 EB, which is now attributed. More information requested at article talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Article-cv
So I'm proposing this here rather than at the actual template page since I presume that it isn't watched as heavily.

Currently, copyviocore directs editors to work on a temporary page should they desire to fix the problem rather than unblanking it. Now this link has never made it particularly obvious as to whether or not the temp page has been created or not, but now that even the mention of it is hidden in a collapsible section I imagine I'm not the only one who has trouble remembering to check for its existence on each article review.

It also directs editors to list blanked pages here using {{subst:article-cv}} which provides us listings such as: Anyways, what I propose is modifying article-cv so that the listings here at CP contain an extra link, as follows:
 * Federico Longo ([ history] · [ last edit])
 * Newmark family of Southern California ([ history] · [ last edit])
 * Federico Longo ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite)
 * Newmark family of Southern California ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite)

Now I already figured out the code needed to make that change earlier today. The catch that I see is that this same template is also used by DpmukBot/VWBot to list copy/pastes and close paraphrases, and for those listings this would just be extra size on a page that already has issues loading all of the pages it should be transcluding due to size limits.

Now I can change the code that VWBot uses so that they can be different (maybe repurpose Template:Article-cv2 if Dcoetzee isn't using it anymore, I haven't asked yet), but I'm still having a few glitches getting it to run automatically again and take the reins back from DpmukBot full time.

Thoughts about any or all of the above? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support support support support! Be bold! Do it! I can't imagine that this would be controversial. It's such a sensible idea and could be very valuable in helping make sure that rewrites are not overlooked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Uplift pilipinas movement
This article has been getting a lot of attention from one editor recently, and it appears that much of the text was lifted from the organization's web site. For instance, the "Uplift Booster" section comes directly from here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've notified the creator how to verify permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice?
At Wikipedia talk:Reference desk we're wondering if we should create a link to a paywall article that is being hosted for free on a website other than the publisher's. The publisher's, website says "Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article." The version of the article behind the paywall says "© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007" and the paywall site says "Buy & download fulltext article: Price: $35.00 plus tax." The free version on the other site doesn't mention copyright. I would welcome your guidance. (Moved from Moonriddengirl's talk page.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In accordance with WP:LINKVIO, we should only link to content that is being hosted for free on a website other than the publisher's if we have reason to believe that they are an authorized agent (because otherwise we may reasonably suspect copyvio) or if it is a small part of a larger work where the smaller part has a credible assertion of fair use. If the other site is using the pdf in a fair use context, deep linking to it may remove that context. Given this, I think it's plausible that author Caitlin E. Barrett submitted it to coroplasticstudies herself as an example of recent work, as she is a member of their organization.


 * Reading the discussion at the refdesk, that seems even more plausible, if Barrett links to the coroplastic pdf on her profile page at Cornell. We're each responsible, legally, for our own actions on Wikipedia, but in this case I would comfortable linking to the coroplasticstudies pdf, as I believe that I would be able to make a good case that I had reasonable expectation that the use was authorized. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's great. Thanks for clarifying that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Google translations
Does anyone know copyright status of quotations etc obtained from Google Translate? I've just seen an example of this being done, and regardless of the questionable reliability of the translation, it occurred to me that it might possibly be a copyright infringement? Or does the fact that it is machine generated rule this out? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no creative input in a machine translation, so I would be willing to bet that the copyright would still belong to the copyright holder of the non-translated work. This seems to suggest the same: "...machine translation of a text creates derivative work under the Copyright Act and [an MT service provider] may be liable for copyright infringement if that translation is unauthorized." Of course IANAL so I could just be full of crap, but my understanding is that even translated texts belong to the copyright holder of the original work unless otherwise specified - SudoGhost 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I had this concern with Cyprus Association of Librarians – Information Scientists (CALIS) which I listed back in August (see Copyright problems). Still, I'm not sure exactly what the approach should be to deal with it, can it for instance be deleted under CSD G12? France 3470   ( talk ) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that wouldn't be a copyright violation of some sort, it's a word-for-word copy of a website, even though it's fed through a machine translation service, that doesn't remove the copyright status from the work, because it's still a machine-aided derivative work of the original, and copyright still applies. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I'm seeing all kind of things online that support this, and nothing that says otherwise. - SudoGhost 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a translation of copyrighted text is a clear derivative work of the original, and thus a copyright violation if unauthorized. If it's a word-for-word machine translation I'd go for G12; if it's been legitimately translated by a human then creativity was almost assuredly involved giving the translator some copyright, but it would still be a copyvio of the original source unless they gave permission. I seem to recall a conversation hereabout recently which concluded that machine translation didn't invest any additional copyright with Google or whoever, but I'm not going to look it up right now because for our purposes it's really the copyright holder of the original source that's the sticking point. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi - Chapter_49
I noticed that an editor upload Chapter 49 from the 1951 version of the book Autobiography of a Yogi.  Clearly, because of this, to post this chapter is in clear violation of Wikipedia copyright rules and a copyright infringement. Requesting deletion of this file Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Project Gutenberg, the first edition of Autobiography of a Yogi is in the public domain in the USA Scroll down to Editions.
 * The 1st edition of the Autobiography only has 48 chapters. See book posted on Gutenberg and scroll down to the chapter listings.
 * In the 1951 version more revisions were added including a whole new chapter - chapter 49
 * This is a Wikisource issue, so I recommend bringing it up at s:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations instead. (Only a Wikisource administrator can delete the page you are asking about; Wikipedia admins can't.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Will doRed Rose 13 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How to tag copyright violation in image consisting of scanned printed matter?
The following image: File:Silences of Hammerstein pp 82 87 isbn 978-1906497224.pdf consists of 6 scanned pages of a non-free 2009 book. Somehow two previous attempts at speedy deletion were called off. The use of this image in the article Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord is redundant, since the pertinent quotation is already included in the article body and the book is in the list of references. I couldn't find an appropriate template to tag this kind of violation, so I'm posting here (and also posting on the copyright problems page). --Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's two options, really. You could tag it with {{subst:Dfu}} and put a note of explanation on the talk page of why you don't think we can justify scanning six pages of a non-free book to support a single quotation. (!!) Or you could nominate it for deletion at WP:FFD. The former requires an administrator to review and agree with you (and not the uploader, if he disputes). The latter, of course, relies on consensus. You could also take it to WP:NFCR, but that's often a slow and ineffective process, since it's more of an "opinion" board than an administrative board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Most of the "copyvio" tags warn that they're not for images/files. After further searching, I ended up using the instructions at Possibly unfree files.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked into this it would appear to me that the real problem here may be a misunderstanding of how we reference material and an assumption that's what referenced needs to be online (at least based on what's in the article and the fair use rationale). I've now removed the file from the article page as it was serving no real purpose.  I've somewhat boldy F7'd the file.  If it turns out I was mistaken about it's intended use I'll happily restore. Dpmuk (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a sound call to me. I can't fathom any way that we could justify using six scanned pages of a non-free book to support a single quotation. (Did I mention (!!)? :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How to tell if Glastonbury Town F.C. copied from wp or the other way around
I went to the article Glastonbury Town F.C. to try to add some citations, however I found the history section is almost word for word the same as the clubs web site, however I have no idea whether wp copied from them or the club copied from wp (there is no attribution on their page). Can anyone take a look?&mdash; Rod talk 16:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the entire section as copyvio. It was added with this edit on 3 March 2012. It is an exact copy from this page dated 4 January 2012. While these cases should be checked just to make sure, generally speaking the addition of large chunks of completely unformatted text written in a professional style almost invariably indicates that it was pasted from a prior source. Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent Copyrighted content addition in articles
I am not sure where to make this report, so making it here for people dealing with similar users to have a look into this. This newbie:

is persistently adding copyrigted content to articles, even after being warned thrice. -- S M S  Talk 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. :) This kind of thing can sometimes be reported to WP:AIV or, if the issue is more complex, WP:ANI. This one isn't complex at all - he has actually done it again since you left this note. I've temporarily blocked him. I'll try to keep an eye out for ongoing issues, but if you happen to notice that he resumes please feel free to drop a note at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Templates in page not working due to include size
People may have noticed that the page does not render correctly, rather than all the sub pages being transcluded a software limit is reached and you just see a link to the subpage. You can see this by a browser to view-source which shows the software limits The  is whats making the page not work. I've raised the issue on Village pump (technical). One editor there has suggested either splitting the page or looking at the sub templates used like .--Salix (talk): 17:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've weighed in there. Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixes for short-term and long-term page size: I have fixed the include-size problem to handle all days for the next few weeks by using new Template:La/x (rather than {La} ) in dozens of the WP:Suspected_copyright* sub-pages. That new template {La/x} runs 3x shorter (omits watch/logs), more-condensed than {La}, to stay within the template post-expand include-size limit of 2,048,000 bytes. Long-term, I have also recommended to improve the older Template:La, now with a pending {editprotected} request to install the /sandbox2 version as 40% smaller; however, there are so many other protected templates, in the queue to update, where the admins might take days, weeks or months to get the simple improvement installed, and not "uninstalled" days later. Everywhere, there is a huge backlog of everything in Wikipedia, because the numerous new users are unaware of how to help us. Meanwhile, if template {La} is not upgraded by November, then consider switching all future pages of WP:Suspected_copyright* to use {La/x} rather than {La} to provide the condensed article-link menus for each article in a Suspected list. I apologize that I did not fix this problem last month (or so) when people asked for help then, as I had strongly suspected "little" Template:La was actually overly huge, like many other templates during the past 3 years. Now, all the prior days will display, so the whole page can be searched, top-to-bottom, for any older articles. Much of the extra data, to exceed the include-size limit, has come from the August pages, which is the typical return-from-vacation month when WP users create many more articles, more copyvios. Hence, as those August days are closed and unlinked, then the total page will shrink, and the chance of so many more large days is unlikely. Remember, we have 9,500 active editors each month, so there are many people who could help reduce the various wp:BACKLOG lists, if contacted. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, but still not quite there. Its failing just before the new listings. One possibility would be to move the new listings up before the older ones, that would mean people would be easily able to see where a new listing should go.--Salix (talk): 11:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the /NewListings by further condensing {La/x}. -Wikid77 15:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But new listings aren't added like that. :/ The process for adding a new listing is to put the template on the article page, which generates a link to precisely where the listing should go. I think all listings should be visible, but like Verno, I'm curious as to what sent you looking for a specific day. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Both my cases were articles which were mainly OK but had one section which was copyvios (History sections in Action for Children and Methodist diaconal order both now copyvio free). I looked at the saw how ugly it was, inclusion would dominating the entire page, so decided not to use it. Came here, got lost in a mass of text, didn't find link to todays listings in the Suspected or complicated infringement section didn't find the listing for todays entries. Basically got lost in the system. --Salix (talk): 11:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

-
 * New-listing days need 350,000 bytes: The prior copyright-problem days (8 days prior) have displayed in 1,800,000 bytes of the post-expand include size of 2,048,000 bytes. I have not found an easy way to shave the extra 150,000 bytes from the page. Of course, if the MediaWiki settings for the NewPP preprocessor could be raised just 20%, from 2,048,000 to 2,548,000 bytes, then the entire page would fit to hold 90 days of copyright-issue subpages. However, despite many logical explanations of the need for higher limits, the WP developers have strongly rejected requests to raise the limits to more sensible levels. So, the trick has been to keep templates nested only 1 level deep, because templates nested inside other templates seem to inflate the bytes of the post-expand include size, which seems like a logic bug in the accounting of the template-processing data. That is why, other large pages, not overly huge, are hitting the artificially small limit of 2,048,000 bytes (2,000 kb), not because the page is actually that large. For example, when Template:La is condensed to contain the contents of Template:Lx, then the one-level template will shrink to 850 bytes, or only 62% of the 1,341 post-expand bytes used by {Lx}. Similar reductions occur when other 2-level templates are combined to be just 1-level templates. I will keep looking for other templates which could use fewer bytes to process the same data. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like VWBot is using CSB's old space in the hat boxes and an awful lot of those entries are redlinks, presumably speedy deletions. Verno, could you change the bot to remove redlink entries from it's sub-pages when it makes a daily pass? To keep it simple, maybe just scan back through the last 7 days worth of VWBot reports? Franamax (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, or it's DumbBot or MadmanBot or DPMUKBot, I'm all asea now, and it looks like there are bot reports in the manual tagging sections? So is there any bot that can remove redlink entries? Franamax (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * New Template:Lared could auto-shorten for redlinks: Wow, I had not even considered a "smart article-linker" (Template:Lared) that could simplify the menu for redlinked pages, as just "(redlink)". Although not a bot, it will choose when to omit the menu "(edit|talk|history|links)" but there is a limit of 500 times to check for redlinked articles, when checked all within the same large page. However, that would be part of an overall strategy to auto-trim the page when articles get deleted and become redlinks. Having a Bot remove the redlinked entries would be another tactic. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me try to clear up some of the confusion about which bot does what. At the beginning of each new day DpmukBOT/VWBot creates new daily CP pages with SCV transcluded. DpmukBOT/VWBot rotates the daily CP pages, adding them to WP:CP directly. Copyright problems/NewListings is always up to date thanks to template magic. Throughout the day on or more of CorenSearchBot/MadmanBot/VWBot populate the daily SCV pages. After the end of each day DpmukBOT/VWBot goes back through and adds any overlooked blanked pages as well as copy-pastes/close paraphrases to the "manual article tagging" section, since all the bot is doing is listing the articles and it was a human editor that tagged them for concerns in the first place. DumbBot and Zorglbot used to be involved here in various capacities but have since passed on.


 * Removing the redlinks could work, but oftentimes they are recreated a short time (hours or days) later with enough of a change that the bot doesn't catch them but they're still a problem. On rare occasions a claim for permission will be put on the talk page of a deleted article, but we probably don't have to worry about that, so the Lared or something like it may very well be usable if it really does save space. In any case, using anything besides La at SCV will need MadmanBot's code updated (it's the only one of the three running at the moment). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally dpmukBOT is currently comatosed due to some toolserver issues I don't currently have time to investigate - although from more recent e-mails I think it may be effecting more than just me so it may just have to wait until the toolserver admins fix it. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look and it's almost certainly this problem that is causing dpmukBOT not to run. Dpmuk (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a particularly time-sensitive issue -- I'm still running VWBot manually every day anyways since I'm having issues with my own cron setup. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Old {La} will fill /NewListings in 3 days, older in 15 days
Also, I am manually putting {La/x} on each prior-day page to reduce size 3x smaller. Unless Template:La is updated (from /sandbox2) during the next 2 weeks to reduce size, then the added usage of {La} will quickly fill the wp:CP page, with /NewListings to fill the page within 3 days. Plus, after 15 days, then the 8-day prior entries would fill to, again, start truncating the prior recent days. However, manual updating is ok when people know to help. For last month's redlinks, then just omit each "{La...}" around each redlink page name, and there will be no desperation to clear the previous month completely. Then the overall page could show 4 months of days, and all still fit. Removing "{La...}" around prior redlinks can be a lot faster than cleaning the other copyvio articles, so I suggest make that a recommended "best practices" when editing the older {SCV} pages, and create the extra slack to allow the overall page to easily show 4 months of backlog. Simply by occasionally removing many "{La...}" around redlink page names, then the list gains the enormous space to show an entire 4th (or 5th) month, so take the time to handle last month with more comfort. Does anyone object to removing the menu "(edit|talk|history|links)" from very old redlink names? -Wikid77 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is just used by this page and its sub pages?--Salix (talk): 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, {La} is used in over 200,000 pages, which is another reason why admins would be reluctant to change it, for fear of the impacts. See links: . So, the new Template:La/x and Template:Lared have quickly rescued page WP:Copyright_problems to fit within the include-size limit of 2,048,000 bytes for the next few weeks. As an experienced computer scientist, if I had the authority, then I would raise the include-size limit, soon, to 2,500,000 bytes. Meanwhile, we need to work with other people regardless of their overall knowledge of issues, and try to convince them to make improvements. However, once the new Scribunto interface is installed, in Spring 2013, to support Lua script modules, then we can re-write some templates to "invoke:" the Lua modules, with very low include-size overhead. The old adage, "If you can't fix it, then hire someone who can" or buy another product, in this case Lua. Other computer people can write Lua modules to help. At that point, we can stop all the wp:Subst'ing of all those images and repetitious text, and just keep the short template names in all the CP and SCV pages. Each template would directly invoke a Lua module to format and display text messages, with no further impact to template-size limits. At that point, the CP backlog could probably show over 10 months of entries, if needed. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

New {La} now allows 30 newer days to fit
Finally, the link-menu Template:La has been updated (from /sandbox2) to reduce size 40%, and that reduction will allow more days to fit within the page WP:Copyright_problems. Even if no prior days were closed and unlinked, then the report could continue to show 30 more days before the prior-day list would again truncate the bottom entries. However, earlier day-entries are likely to be closed during the same 30-day period, so the overall page should continue to display all prior days. Meanwhile, any unneeded {La} link-menus can be removed from older redlink article names, to reduce the overall page by over 1,000 bytes less for each {La} menu removed from redlinks. Removing each 15 instances of {La} will likely allow another new day to fit inside the overall page, to the point where 4 months of prior days would all fit together. There is no hurry to remove the {La} at older redlinks, but just part of routine updates during the month. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Violating Wikipedia's copyright
What about when someone else violates Wikipedia's copyright, rather than when Wikipedia violates someone else's copyright? Hyacinth (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia licenses its content under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. According to this license, anyone else can republish our contents, but they must attribute it to Wikipedia and they must republish it under the same license. If they fail to do either of those things, then they are in violation of WP's copyright. There's a non-compliance process for dealing with these cases. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

References to unauthorized scans of printed manuals
As far as I know, contents of vehicle manuals are copyrighted. In the article Four wheel drive there is this reference which is a collection of user contributed scans of manual, which appears to violate copyright. Does anyone know if having a bunch of links referring to unauthorized scans is permissible? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See here, its discussed before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/October#Promotional_brochures_as_sources.3F  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * hmmm so whats to keep from websites from just scanning pages of text books and such to drive traffic? The discussion says "as long as the source is within fair use".. the site claims it is,but is it? Having users scan pages in and send them in and making them available does not appear so. Any one highly familiar with copyright have the answer? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Bands
Dear copyright gurus, The following text was posted at the Entertainment Reference Desk. I think you guys will have a much better chance of answering, or at least directing the OP to the best source of help, and so I have directed him here. Thanks for your help. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

my name is dan brisebois, the author of www.canadianbands.com. i have a couple of concerns. on a few occasions i've come across articles on canadian bands that were swiped by someone word for word from my website, the headpins most recently. i removed the offending portion of the article, only to find it back up a few moments later, so i removed it again. i'm hoping it remains removed this time.

on a seperate note, i find a lot of the material added by readers comes from my website, which is natural. but my site isn't credited as the source of that information, which i don't really have a problem with per se. but i'm finding links to my site on the bottom of those pages are being removed, even though there are other websites that have links.

what exactly is the policy on this? as it seems to be contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizboy3 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which articles? MER-C 11:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsure of copyright violation, need help
In the article Stefan Th. Gries I think all three paragraphs have been copied. The first and second paragraphs were once all of the Amazon pages for Stefan Gries, but they were removed recently. They still appear when phrases are searched with Google. The first paragraph appears here: http://books.google.com/books?id=c6Ii092IX9oC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249 The second paragraph appears here: http://english.ua.edu/life/symposium Most of the third paragraph appears here: http://www.ugent.be/doctoralschools/en/doctoraltraining/courses/archive/2012-2013/2012-2013-digital-humanities.htm

I recently proposed the article for deletion under notability concerns a few weeks ago (the result was keep), but after posting it there discovered the copy/paste nature of this. An anonymous editor on Articles_for_deletion/Stefan_Th._Gries suggested that places were copying Wikipedia instead of the other way around. Considering the print nature of some of these sources (and the consistency of all the other descriptions except the one on Wikipedia), it seems as if these are taken from individual promotional snippets (perhaps written by the publisher or Dr. Gries himself) and added to Wikipedia instead of the converse. I strongly suspect that there is a copyright violation in this article, but am not sure where to go next because of the nebulous nature and the reverts done to the article whenever notices are posted. FratHoneyBee (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've blanked the page with the copyvio template and left a message on the talk page. Hopefully this and the edit summary will make it clear that the tag should not simply be removed.  If it is feel free to restore or post here for further help.  Now it's a waiting game to see how the editor involved responds. Dpmuk (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How to properly attributed copied CC-BY-SA 3.0 sources
I'm trying to write an article User:Douglas_Whitaker/Article_Drafts/Guidelines_for_Assessment_and_Instruction_in_Statistics_Education and one of the two documents covered by this article is copyright CC-BY-SA 3.0. My thought is that copying part of the introduction would be a great fit for the article because it is a pretty straightforward summary. Now... how do I properly attribute this? I really don't want to plagiarize or violate copyright, but by the same token I don't want to have to re-invent the wheel with this and other articles. How do I use this copy/paste text appropriately, if at all? Douglas Whitaker (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Douglas. Great apologies for the delay in response. The proper way to use copy-pasted, compatibly licensed text is described at Plagiarism, specifically in section Sources under copyleft. In a nutshell, you would want to use the appropriate "attribution template" on the face of the article, in this case the unfortunately somewhat complex Template:CCBYSASource. (I created that one based on an older template, and I hate the fact that you need the revision id to make it fully functional. I so wish it worked by timestamp or even simply date the way Template:Dual does.) The plagiarism guideline used to recommend dumping all of the copied text you were going to use at one time, with a note in edit summary as to what you're doing as well as the requisite attribution template, to make it easy for future editors to see if any of the copied content remains. That's still pretty good practice, but not require so long as the content is fully attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me, and no worries about the delay (there is no deadline ;-]). I had originally dumped it all in to the article draft in a single edit noting in the comments the source, but I've since reworded and summarized the key points and just cited the document extensively. I'm getting ready to publish the draft, and placed the entire text of the section I think is appropriate (along with the source) on the talk page so that perhaps other editors could make the decision later on about which is better or more appropriate. Thanks for the link to WP:PLAG - I hadn't come across that yet and, while I don't plan on contributing much from public domain or copyleft sources, it is still good to know. Thanks! -- Douglas Whitaker (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Footer corruption
The footer of this article appears corrupted. I am not sure how to fix it. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Its caused by the page trying to include too many templates which in turn is due to the large number of unfixed copyright problems. There was some discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 16.--Salix (talk): 13:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy regarding former versions of articles that were copyright violations?
The page currently located at Uta monogatari violated copyright in its initial version up until September 11/12 of this year. The page was a near carbon copy of the Santa Fe Poetry Broadside "A Brief Note Concerning Tanka Prose" by Jeffrey Woodward. It saw only relatively minor edits until User:Bagworm and myself basically overhauled it, and at least until that time entire sentences were still copied verbatim from the Woodward piece. I moved the page, and changed the subject (the original topic was not notable, and assuming good faith I guessed it was meant to be about uta monogatari, which I later found out was unrelated). Therefore, some of the text may still resemble the Woodward article, but in a completely different context and entirely by coincidence. However, I recently found out that on Japanese Wikipedia past versions of pages can get completely expunged if they are revealed to be copyright violations. This seems logical, since the offending material still exists in Wikipedia even if it has been removed in the current version of the article. Is this also policy on English Wikipedia? If so, is there a "past-edits for deletion" page I should consult? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Aliyah (Torah)
Copyright problems? This edit here added a huge section of copyrighted material even with the notes(references) - it is blockquote and sourced - but is this to much copy and pasting - looking for second opinion?Moxy (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Our policy forbids extensive quotation, and quotations should be used transformatively. That information should probably be used with a combination of paraphrase and limited quotation, within policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Anaren Inc.
While patrolling, I found that the text found at Anaren Inc. is very similar to text from their website and from a shareholders report. I can't tell if it's similar because it simply shares the same information or if it's a copyright violation. I was hoping that someone else could take a look and see what they think.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Indexed annuity
Please review: the article Indexed annuity appears to be substantially identical to Solutions: Ringo Financial. See Talk:Indexed annuity. Mathstat (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Merlin
Talk:Merlin (series 4) still continues into series 5 Talk:Merlin (series 5). Any attempt to deviate from the copypast is edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.132.9 (talk • contribs) 10 November 2012‎
 * I see from the talk page that this may have been resolved. Can you tell me if this is the case? This is important because in spite of notes made at those talk pages, the BBC's terms here are not compatible with our own. We do not permit restrictions, such as they require, on reuse in sites that contain pornography and sexually explicit content...and, indeed, we violate that restriction ourselves. We are not censored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Louis Pojman

 * Louis Pojman copy and paste from 2007.  Archive.org from 2006 shows that the website was the original source of biography.   Info at talk page: Talk:Louis_Pojman PeterWesco (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now listed at Copyright problems/2012 December 22. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2004
Last night, User:Till pointed out to me that New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2004 and all of the pages in RIANZ are copyright violations because "RIANZ specifically states that any reproduction of the material is strictly prohibited". We should probably delete the whole lot, unless there's some reason we can use it under fair use. I'm not sure that we do. Thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically, the question doesn't hinge on whether RIANZ says the content can be reproduced, but whether the content is creative, as US copyright law doesn't not extend copyright protection to uncreative lists. (See Copyright in lists which - caveat - is almost entirely written by me. However, with consultation with WMF attorneys. :)) If this is a simple tracking matrix of sales, it doesn't matter how much effort they put into it - it's not creative. If there is guesswork of any kind involved, it very likely is creative.


 * Unless something has changed, the NZ lists are compiled with a combination of 75:25 split between physical / digital singles sales figures and radio play information. This is creative to the degree that it is non-obvious. Would everybody agree that this is a good way to make such lists? The last time we discussed this particular ranking system, there was some disagreement (see in archives). Two of the contributors to that thread were pretty active in copyright issues at the time. One thought it was fine; one was less comfortable with it. We asked then WMF counsel Mike Godwin, who believed it was okay, and we settled the matter that way.


 * None of this means we can't and shouldn't revisit the question. WMF does not create or curate content (I'll bet I can type that in my sleep now. :D) I'm just providing background on it. :) I'm a bit waffly myself, given that I'm not sure the 75:25 split is all that obvious and natural a choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just closed the AfD—I have no desire to relitigate this, but User:Till might. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just going by what the RIANZ said. The lists that have been created aren't original, they are merely reproductions of the content that the RIANZ had produced on its website. Till  14:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Backwards copy on Scott-T transformer, can somebody confirm my analysis?
Hi, I have tagged Talk:Scott-T transformer with a backwardscopy template. Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can somebody review my analysis and confirm or dispute?
 * Are any further steps needed as part of the copyright problems process? At first sight not, but I want to be sure, as I was expecting to list also backwardscopy statements for review on the daily listings.


 * Your analysis was correct, except you actually missed a bit (they used stuff from Technical details as well). Given that the paper is dated 2012, but the text used was present in this article at least as early as the end of 2011, it's a fairly clear back copy. Nothing else is required &mdash; is just intended to help prevent overzealous copyvio reporting, it's not a formal process. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Darkwind, also for catching the extra copy-paste :) SchreyP (messages) 16:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Conservator of the peace
I'd like some other eyes on this one. Here's the (longstanding) situation. Most of the content of the article is an adaptation of a paper written by Matthew LeFarge.

Here's the problem. The paper says
 * "© 2006-2008 COMMONWEALTH PROTECTION INSTITUTE. May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes or cited with appropriate attribution."

That's not actually a free license. In particular, Wikipedia content is licensed for commercial use, and it seems to me that his is not.

I contacted Matthew LeFarge by email, and he says he's the editor who adapted and inserted the material. The edits in question are IP address only but I see no reason at all to doubt him. I asked him if he would consider editing his paper to include an explicit Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, or other Wikipedia license. I received an answer but he doesn't address the directly, saying only "I put that material in the wiki article. This issue has been previously discussed in the notes," and "It already says the content is included with my express permission." I don't want to be a stickler unnecessarily. It's not a blatant copyvio, his intent is clear, he wants the material to be in Wikipedia... but I'd appreciate it if some people more familiar with Wikipedia's licensing and "used by permission" issues would add to the discussion at Talk:Conservator of the peace. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ &mdash; I've commented on the talk page, and you're correct that it's the non-commercial restriction that is the sticking point. Unfortunately, intent isn't enough, especially given downstream use concerns. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nikiforos Diamandouros article—EU license
I'm completely lost trying to work out the copyright issues at Nikiforos Diamandouros. When I went to update the article I found that since its creation it has been mostly made up of text copied from the guy's CV on the EU website. The EU website is licensed as follows: "Copyright © European Union, 1995-2011. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use."

My questions are many :(. Does that license allow Wikipedia to use the text? (I suspect not). If yes, is the article okay in its current form, where most of the article text is a straight copy-paste? Also if yes, what sort of attribution is needed? And if it's not okay, what needs to be done? Since the copy-paste has been there since the beginning, do we just delete the article and start again?

Thanks very much for any guidance. —Noiratsi (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really have the time to address your real issues, but I will note you are in the wrong place. This page is for discussing things like the structure of the Copyright_problems page. What you want is Media copyright questions, where editors who follow copyright issues can weigh in.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, SPhilbrick. Are you sure I'm in the wrong place? The other things on this page all seem to be similar sorts of questions to mine, and the notice above the edit box says:
 * "This page is used both to discuss the development of the copyright problems page and, occasionally, to discuss specific text-based copyright concerns. If you know that an existing article represents a copyright problem, please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are requesting feedback on whether material represents a copyright concern, please remember not to extensively paste material that may be copyrighted here. Brief examples are acceptable, if they are clearly marked and attributed. For copyright questions concerning media, please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions."
 * My question doesn't relate to pictures etc, which I assume is what is meant by "media", and I am "requesting feedback on whether material represents a copyright concern", so I thought asking here would be okay. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood what you or the edit intro are trying to say. —Noiratsi (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly acceptable to ask such questions here, Noiratsi, and it is the most appropriate place for text-based concerns. (The page SPhilbrick pointed out is for images and other media files only.) I'm not sure about the answer myself. The wording is very close to our requirements and does not specify no commercial use or no alterations. I'll ask another editor with a lot of experience in these issues to give us some input here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) My problem with it is that it does not authorize modification, but only reproduction. :/ Our license requires both. It doesn't forbid that content be altered, but those restrictions are understood unless explicitly waived. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, but this is exceedingly odd. "Media" isn't restricted to images, so Media copyright questions is poorly titled if it covers images only. The description go on to narrow the subject matter, but not obviously excluding text. However, if you read it as excluding text, it suggests for other questions to go to Questions which has only one entry mentioning copyright, yes, the Media copyright questions page. This time it explicitly includes "other media". We have a convention that pages are used for subjects, and talk pages are used for meta-discussions of the page itself, not the subject matter. So how on earth is anyone with a text copyright questions supposed to know where to look (other than convention, which is to ask MRG)? And why would we answer subject questions on a talk page? Is there any other example?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking to copyright text on a website displaying it with permission
I have removed the full lyrics from Strange Fruit because, although I have found a claim the lyrics were published in the US in 1937 without notice, a possibly better view is that there was a renewed notice. And that brings me to the quandary. The International Journal of Epidemiology printed the full lyrics alone in an article (linked above), giving copyright details, claiming "Printed by permission" and explicitly giving free web access. Can I link there (using http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/4/902.full.pdf+html ) from Strange Fruit saying the lyrics may be found there? I think WP:COPYLINK is saying I can since full context is provided. Thincat (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's not a problem, since it's not our job to second-guess the truth of their copyright claims. Since the link is to a page explaining the copyright status of the material, it's fine. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think the status of the journal and its publishers is such that we can reasonably accept their claims unless there is significant reason to reject them. Thincat (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is a translation a derivative work?
According to UNESCO recommendation (received by USA under 17 U.S.C. § 101) a translation is a derivative work. or, at least, this is mine opinion about [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raffaele_Lauro&action=history this] small incident. Any comment about it? --Vituzzu (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, translations are derivative works -- so in order for us to use such a translation the original foreign-language text would have to be public domain or freely-licensed, and the translation itself would likewise have to be PD or otherwise free. If something's (correctly) deleted as copyvio on another wiki then any translation of it here needs to be removed as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated CPC template
Hey all, just wanted to let everyone know I made a couple of minor changes to. I added a "d2" code for:
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|20px]] Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --&mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(i.e. without the CUP part)

Also, the long code for the CUP version is now "deletedcup" for clarity, and the icon of "deletedother" now matches the other two. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. :) Although the redlink has traditionally also worked for the general deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'm too anal retentive for that. The day doesn't look "done" unless they all have their cute little icons. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Whatever works, works. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikishire licensing
So I came across Flag of Cumberland at SCV and the creator of the article removed MadmanBot's tag stating that "Wikishire is freely licensed". I looked into the situation some more and found no evidence corroborating the claim or otherwise clearly stating any copyright status. Earlier today, the editor (who is also heavily involved with Wikishire) created their Copyright page, clearly releasing the matetrial under GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Now my knowledge of UK contract law is effectively nonexistent, but I'm worried that this doesn't provide a usable release for anything contributed prior to today.

Anyone have any thoughts/input on this situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 December 2012‎
 * I would saw remove the text and not accept anything from Wikishire. I don't even see an owner or anything on Wikipedia, no notice saying any work as of now is CC (or any notice for retroactive copyright application). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikishire materially is freely licensed under Creative Commons (and admirably brief about it in accordance with its style: see here Howard Alexander (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was already aware of that page which is why I linked to it in my original question. The issue is that the page simply didn't exist until a couple of days ago, so any contributors before then were (to my knowledge) not informed that their material was being/would be released under those licenses. I'm not concerned with subsequent additions, but with earlier ones.
 * Thus my comment above about UK law -- I'm not sure if continuing to edit now that the notice is in place would qualify as a release for earlier additions, or if their copyright was already implicitly transferred (it wouldn't qualify under US law) by the "Please note that all contributions to Wikishire may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors." and other text visible when one attempts to edit a page there (I don't know where the specific mediawiki page for that is located, or else I'd link directly to it). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The particular material is in the public domain: For the same material there is this source and the Flag Institute iself, here. Howard Alexander (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the information is available from multiple locations. You should be aware that that does not mean it's in the public domain. Of course those pages don't actually contain the copied content, both postdate the Wikishire article, and in any case, copyright is generally automatic so absent clear evidence otherwise I'm afraid your additional links have little to do with the question at hand which is about retroactive or implicit licensing. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the section in my own words, with references for each element from various sources. I think this answers the issue. 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that just sidesteps the question for this particular article. There are other articles which have already been copied from Wikishire as well as the question of what to do should more be copied in the future, which is why the section title is about the source site and not the specific article here. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it would be much appreciated if any further replies could be kept on-topic to the actual legal situation for our use of content from the Wikishire site as a whole. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just intending to deal with that one article: it is the only one for which any issue has been raised as far as I am aware, and it has now been dealt with. For the future, the CC attribution is now firmly established by Wikishire (now they have got around to it) to permit copying to external sources, and anything submitted before is warranted free to use in the edit screen that appears at every edit, and that is wider that Wikipedia's:

''Please note that all contributions to Wikishire may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Wikishire:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!''

(As it happens, I am a UK IP consultant, hence my interest. I am happy with it now.) Howard Alexander (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; you're telling me that the shift in licensing terms constitutes either a post hoc release of all previously submitted content, or obliges any future submissions by people who have made past submissions to be released under CC compatible licenses? I'm sorry, but this simply isn't the case.


 * 1) In the case of the first option; one cannot simply create a post hoc release on behalf of the site. This would firstly require the site to own the copyright on the material (something the previous release does not allow it to) and secondly require the person posting the new notices to be an agent of the site (which I have no evidence of, but it's irrelevant - see the first reason).
 * 2) In the case of the second option; the site can totally require future submissions to be CC licensed, but it cannot force alterations to terms of past releases without explicitly noting so (something that the new release does not do). Even if that change was made, it would actually make the problem more, rather than less, thorny, by making it so that we were dependent on 100 percent of contributors to a work who could potentially claim copyright over some content having accepted the new terms before we could reuse it.
 * 3) The release is not an acceptable release, with or without the Wikishire:Copyrights page. It does not explicitly lay out the licensing terms of reuse (as Wikipedia, for example, does); you're asking people to agree to terms that are treated as an optional addendum to other terms which in some ways conflict with the CC licenses. "Please note that all contributions to Wikishire may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Wikishire:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" is not a CC-BY-SA release. It's not a public domain release. It's not even a free release. At best, it's the granting of a particularly liberal copyright license to the site and the site only. I appreciate that you are, in your words, a "UK IP consultant". But the terms here are not only not sufficient to allow us to make use of past resources, they are not even sufficient to allow us to make use of future submitted content. Ironholds (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was that there is no current issue as only one article was concerned, and that has been cleared up.


 * If this comes up again and concerns material submitted to the site after the site's CC licence specification was added, that licence specification deals with it. Your only concern would be any material copied from Wikishire articles which were written before that licence specification was added, though if that editor were to confirm on Wikishire that the CC licensing applies to it anyway, it would answer that one.Howard Alexander (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No; as said, the current way the CC licensing is structured is simply not sufficient. The CC terms (and, in fact, that it is a CC license release) are treated as an optionally-read addendum to a policy that contributions may be "edited, altered or removed by other contributors". The CC release cannot be treated as an optional-to-read thing for them to be definitively binding. That is not acceptable. Particularly when the method with which the release is linked is not at all in relation to the release and licensing of the contribution: it is simply stated to be part of a requirement that the submitter own the copyright, or that the content be in the public domain. I would not personally be comfortable with treating content released under a policy that states "other people can edit it. Oh! and you should own the copyright. You may want to read [terms]]" as released under [terms]. I doubt many other people would either. Ironholds (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the status of future contributions seems pretty murky. There's nothing about copyright at the editing guide. The disclaimer is empty. It's not linked from the policies page. (Currently, it is only linked from this page.) The licenses themselves are not linked (which is a contravention of the license requirements). I cannot see the additional text visible to editors without logging in, but it doesn't seem that contributors are properly notified of the license requirements. "See Wikishire:Copyrights for details" is not a consent to said license. Contrast this with our edit message: "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This is a clear acknowledgement of license, with requisite links. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for butting in, but it is nice to be talked about so keenly! The core team who put Wikishire together have concentrated on building the structure and putting it into shape so that now it is a useful, focussed resource and looking at its next stage. In this concentration though some of the adminstrative matters were put off, the licensing notices amongst them: the team all knew what they were doing so it was not a priority.  We are just filling those details in now. The basic CC note was added to the log-in first of all (it had been a redlink there all along) and now we have incorporated the text of the CC-BY-SA licence and Terms of Use.  (Having picked up on the coversation going on here, a link to the licence has been inserted into the Policies as well as the Terms of Use.)  We are willing to learn more though and any suggestions will be taken in the spirit of friendly co-operation in a common task.


 * Wikishire is not Wikipedia - it has a very different feel and approach - but now that Wikishire is breaking into wider consciousness we do take legal aspects seriously. Visitor from Wikishire (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting in touch :). My suggestion, then - as well as inserting a link to the license, I would recommend replacing mercilessly, edited, deleted etc with a note along the lines of "you irrevocably agree to release your contributions under [link|the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license]", or words to that effect (assuming you haven't already). Ironholds (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment we're using the default message from MediaWiki copyrightwarning2. I can't recall where in the coding that one is hidden, but we could look at it in the New Year perhaps. Visitor from Wikishire (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah; I tried finding it on your site but couldn't :/. Ironholds (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick bump to keep this from archiving, and to remind myself that there are still a handful of other articles which need to be resolved. VernoWhitney (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BPA Worldwide
Sorry, but I found that main page to be quite dizzying in complexity as to what steps made the most sense. I have reason to believe BPA Worldwide has some copyvio problems and I'm hoping someone more adept at researching the issue can take the ball on this old article and address it. Insomesia (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have any possible sources it was copied from, other than this one? That link is a backwardscopy -- the matching text was in the article in 2009, and the earliest copy I can find of that page is in 2010. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you answered the concern, thank you! Insomesia (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sk8terguy27
The instructions for listing new items at Copyright problems are currently broken (too many templates on the page?), but it was suggested this needs to be listed somewhere, so for now I'm listing it here, rather than just let more and more ANI mentions of it scroll off the ANI page without ever being noted elsewhere.

Multiple copypaste copyvios (copypaste of one or more entire but unquoted paragraphs from attributed sources) by User:Sk8terguy27 have been alleged here and here (the two posts may overlap in what material they cover), and essentially admitted by Sk8terguy27 in his subsequent reply to the second.

Having looked at the editor's contribs, listing five different articles on which he's made substantial contributions would basically either equal or come close to listing all articles on which he's made substantial contributions (to put it another way, his contributions are focused on a small group of articles), so I thought a CCI might not be needed. However these articles do need to be fixed - any help greatly appreciated! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I ran each article on which he's made more than 10 edits (top namespace list) through Earwig's copyvio detector and only found one copyvio, in Carolina Southern Railroad, which I cleaned. Several others came back as false positives from WP mirrors, so I'll have MadmanBot double-check those.  Unfortunately, the bot is down, and  is on holiday wikibreak, so I don't know when I'll get a chance to finish.  However, it doesn't look like a full CCI would be needed here. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also going through his images in due time and trying to fix the issues related to them. While the images itself isn't a copyright violation but just more of a misuse of fair use images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI the page is fixed now. Dcoetzee 23:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion?
Wasn't there an RfC some years ago about a proposal to mass delete some articles a prolific copyright violator had edited. Can you point me to it? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it's somewhere in here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI The whole thing is the discussion. Wizardman  04:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is precisely what I wanted. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

ODNB
I have some concerns about text added in 2008 by User:Hydeblake which appears very similar to the entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Examples includes David Petrie, Helen Cherry, Robert Craufurd and Maurice Oldfield. There may be others, but having found a few problems, I thought I should mention it here. You will need subscription access to the ODNB to compare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.221.129 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked Maurice Oldfield because that ODNB article is one of the ones available without a subscription. It was virtually verbatim. I've stubbed the article and left a note on the talk page. I can see from the others that the quality of writing seems way too fluent and professional to have been originally written here, but it will need someone with a subscription to the ODNB to check it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Helen Cherry has already been cleaned up.

In Robert Craufurd one has to look a little more closely because as the ONDB citations notes the OBDB article is a review of a DNB article and so what appears to be a copy of the ONDB may be a copy of (a copyright expired) PD text from the DNB, and so working out whether it is a copy of DNB or ONDB is more complicated. However take this sentence:
 * H. M. Stephens, ‘Craufurd, Robert (1764–1812)’, rev. David Gates, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6630
 * DNB 1797 he was promoted lieutenant-colonel. In the following year he was appointed deputy quartermaster-general in Ireland, and his services during the suppression of the Irish insurrection of 1798 were warmly recognised by General Lake, and especially those rendered in the operations against General Humbert and the French corps (see Cornwallis Correspondence, ii. 402).
 * ONDB 1798 he was appointed deputy quartermaster-general in Ireland, and his services during the suppression of the uprising there, especially his contribution to the operations against General Humbert's French corps, were praised by General Lake.

The addition by User:Hydeblake in June 2008 was This is a clear copy of the ONDB and not the DNB. -- PBS (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1798 he was appointed deputy quartermaster-general in Ireland, and his services during the suppression of the uprising there, especially his contribution to the operations against General Humbert's French corps, were praised by General Lake.

User:Hydeblake did not add all of his/her text to the David Petrie article in one edit, but in several and they may not all be copied from the same source, or even copied at all. For example the first edit includes the sentence:
 * "In December 1912 bomb attack on the viceroy, Lord Hardinge, in Delhi led to an investigation by Petrie and his investigation took until he February 1914 when he managed to arrest the terrorists. He received the king's police medal."

The ONDB text is:
 * "Petrie faced a crucial test when chosen to investigate the bomb attack on the viceroy, Lord Hardinge, in Delhi in December 1912. The reputation of the DCI was at stake until he finally arrested the terrorists in February 1914; he received the king's police medal."

It is probably too close a paraphrase of the ONBD but if it was the only example in the text I would probably give it the benefit of the doubt.

A later edit added a different paragraph that starts "After his convalescence Petrie returned to India in 1915;" seems to be more that acceptable close paraphrasing of the ODNB from the first colon on for example the rest of that sentence from the semicolon was by  Hydeblake:
 * "at this stage the DCI was concerned about contact between Indian nationalist rebels and German intelligence agents in neutral Siam. "

and in the ODBN
 * "the DCI was worried about contacts between Indian rebels and German agents in neutral Siam."

later in the paragraph there is a sentence
 * "He recruited agents during a tour of Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, and Japan, and directed their operations from August 1916 to November 1919, while ostensibly vice-consul in Shanghai."

and ONDB
 * "Petrie recruited agents during a tour of Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, and Japan, and directed their operations from August 1916 to November 1919, while ostensibly vice-consul in Shanghai."

In this case Hydeblake hasn't even bothered to change the listed order of the countries that were toured! -- PBS (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mini-MBA article is mostly plagiarism
Wikipedia's Mini-MBA article is almost entirely plagiarism added by User:Raoulex in January of 2012. Dealing with an article that is almost entirely plagiarism is not something that I feel comfortable with handling on my own. I'm hoping that the people who regularly read this page know the relevant Wikipedia policies better than I do. --JHP (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've reverted the article to the last clean. :) If you want to read more about the handling of this kind of thing, there's WP:CV101 and Copyright violations. Reporting it here is not a bad option, though things aren't always addressed quickly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Monster's Legacy
Please see Talk:Monster's Legacy and advise a course of action or (if you're feeling up to it) rescue the article. Mkdw talk 06:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've turned it into a copyright problems board listing. If you see others with similarly extensive copying from copyrighted sources, please consider if it would be appropriate to do the same. :/ The editor was cautioned about copyright policies in 2010; accordingly, I have issued a brief block with a reminder to review policies and a further explanation of the issue. If this has been a persistent habit, a contributor copyright investigation search might be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at that. I initially tried to the article but it was reverted by User:SVU4671. I started to look at SVU's other contributions and left my findings at Talk:Manhattan Vigil and began looking at Talk:Acceptable Loss. I'm concerned this could be a problem that has been occurring for quite some time and over long periods. A second opinion before going to WP:CCI would be appreciated.  Mkdw talk 19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my delay. As a general rule of thumb, I look for five articles with issues prior to opening a CCI. Three is pretty indicative that there are likely to be more extensive issues. Would you have time to poke a little more? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Unfortunately, I won't have time to look into a CCI if a similar study of the editor's contributions is required on other articles. The process was quite time consuming since the plagiarism was across multiple sources and sometimes one sentence at a time (and not listed as a reference). Normally I would have the time, but I've had my heart set on a GA Review I filed in early January and it's finally up for review. If the issues still exist and the GA review wraps up in a week I can take a look though I'm not sure if that would be the best course of action. I hate to make it someone else's problem, but I did talk to User talk:MelbourneStar and they suggested they could help re-write, but possibly also in an CCI if asked nicely. Mkdw talk 06:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sudbury Center Historic District
Is the quotation at Sudbury Center Historic District a copyright problem or is it short enough that it's allowed? 69.95.203.132 (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on how "susbtantial" it is related to the source and its usage. It looks like about a quarter of the original page, which could be problematic. (Two lines from a haiku are substantial; two lines from The Iliad probably would not be. :)) It's the bulk of ours. Moreover, it's not remotely transformative. I've summarized it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A copyright issue in mwl.wikipedia
Hello. I come here to pose a question, and yet it doesn't regard en.wikipedia. The reason is I've been working in mwl.wikipedia lately, and mostly it has been me - the community is almost non-existing, otherwise dispersed. I came here in the hope of finding some advice, since the en.wikipedia community is experienced in copyright issues. I believe there is a serious copyright issue in mwl.wikipedia. I've talked about it earlier in Commons and I got some answers here. There are very few native mirandese speakers. According to what I've learnt with my analysis of mwl.wikipedia, probably since its incubation there was only 2 users, maybe 1 only (one seems to have been a sockpuppet of the other) native speaker. His last edit was a year ago. But when you look to mwl.wikipedia, you see a huge encyclopedia with almost 1000 articles. How? Because there is a machine that has been used since the very beginning to transform text in portuguese into text in mirandese. The whole editorial process in mwl.wikipedia has been this: they select something from pt.wikipedia, feed it to the machine, and paste it to mwl.wikipedia. So, the whole mwl.wikipedia comes from pt.wikipedia. A derived work. It seems all right. But there is no attribution, none whatsoever, nowhere, never. Someone creates a new page, for instance mwl:Psicologie in April 2009 with more than 30 thousand characters, apparently from the air. When you look at it closer you suspect that, most probably, it has been translated from pt:Psicologia around April 2009. Now, according to CC-BY-SA, attribution is unavoidable. So, if I don't want a copyright violation to exist, either mwl:Psicologie is deleted, or attribution is ultimately made. Can I make the attribution myself? I suspect, but I'm not sure, that mwl:Psicologie is derived from pt:Psicologia. Can I attribute, not being sure? And if I decide to make the attribution myself, which revision of pt:Psicologia should I choose? I can't attribute a work to someone who hasn't participated in its creation, neither I can miss one single author, so I can't choose neither a too earlier revision nor a too later. Which? Must the page in the end be deleted or can I somehow make the attribution myself? That is the crucial question, because if the answer is delete, then mwl.wikipedia must be completely blanked. Garsd (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can attribute by means of a direct link to the Portuguese article. I don't think it needs to be to a specific revision. What I usually do to repair such issues is put a dummy edit in the article and in edit summary note "Article created as a translation of source, which see for attribution." You can also put a note on the talk page. I think if I were trying to fix this problem, I might modify the approach a bit. If you can get a bot to tag all suspect articles and create edit summaries, what about an edit summary like this:
 * Article may have been translated from pt:title . See talk page for details.
 * And then on the talk page say something like:
 * This article is almost certainly a translation of pt:title . Please see that article's history for attribution, prior to the date of this article's creation.
 * As long as the translations are attributed, they can be retained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That was a relief. Garsd (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * MoonriddenGirl's comments are correct (as usual.) But to clarify: You raise two distinct questions. First, how should you honor the CC-BY-SA when using a translation from one WP to another WP? Second, can one editor repair a copyvio made by another editor? For the first, you can find the Wikipedia interpretation of the CC-BY-SA at as it relates to en.wikipedia articles at Reusing Wikipedia content. I suspect that this should apply to all wikipedias in the absence of an explicit alternative. In your case check for any alternative at pt:wikipedia. There may be explicit (and looser) rules for inter-wiki translations: I seem to recall seeing them, but I cannot find them. For the second: yes, one editor can repair a copyvio of another editor. Based on Reusing Wikipedia content, any website (not just another wikipedia) can meet the CC_BY_SA obligation by linking back to the source article. There is no need to link to the specific version of the source article and there is no requirement to attempt to list all editors of the source article. I think that a null edit in the article as Moonriddengirl reccommends is acceptable, but if you are extemely conservative, you may choose instead to add an annotation to the same effect to the reference section of the article itself, probably via a template. -Arch dude (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Long time editor with apparent copyvios
I have come across a long time editor with hundreds of articles under his belt and in the few articles I have looked at he has copied text (sentences and short paragraphs) directly from copyrighted sources. This is clearly good faith editing since the sources are cited but there is no effort made to reword the content. I contacted the editor but have been rebuffed with admission of the copying but denials of the policy violations, since this editor apparently feels that citing the sources is sufficient attribution and acknowledgment. I would like advice on how to best proceed. Am I incorrect in my concerned about this? Joja lozzo  22:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As a courtesy, I notified Rosser1954 about this discussion.
 * I should hope that Rosser1954 will discover that copying published text is not the way to build articles, not even if the copied text is cited. I also hope that he will help to pore over past contributions to find and correct each instance of copying copyrighted text. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Binkster. I also would have identified and notified him once it was established that this was not a misinterpretation of policy on my part. Joja  lozzo  02:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This editor has not responded here nor contributed for the week or so since this discussion started. I am still seeking advice on how to proceed. Is there a process for reviewing the work of prolific editors who may not have adhered to copyright policy? Do administrators need to be notified? Joja  lozzo  20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a process for that. If you are afraid of many copyright violations from one editor you can ask for a review at Contributor copyright investigations. Garion96 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Rajbari District
Is this really the best way to add the Copyright issue tag? The way it has been done has deleted the ten citations for those parts of the article which have not been deleted. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response. If the tag was aimed just at that section, you can put a   tag at the end of the section in question, and the rest of the article (and references) will appear normally. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that. I'll have a look.  Skinsmoke (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations in Excess chemical potential
I've tagged the Excess chemical potential article as having a major copyright violation. This is the first time I've done this, so please let me know if I have made any mistakes in doing so. The content in question has been around for five years (!) and looks to be a copy of some class notes on the subject from 2003-2004. It is not a strict copy and paste, as some of the text is different, but steps in the derivation and the equations are an almost perfect copy of those in the notes. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This one is a bit unusual. As it happens, mathematical equations are not subject to copyright, so the removed material may not be a copyvio. If there are any "creative elements" in the wording of the steps, it might be subject to copyright, but you indicated that the article's is not identical to the source you found, and sufficient paraphrasing avoids copyvio, especially in this context where the phrases are not the crux of the work. Since we don't have an online version of your source, you will need to make this determination yourself.  Note that even if the material is not a copyvio, it is still plagiarism if the source is not attributed, however, you can cure plagiarism simply be attributing the source, i.e., by adding a cite that says something like Equations taken from  . It is quite possible that the source you found has itself taken the equations from somewhere, perhaps even from the reference in the article: I don't have access to that, either. Oh, and thanks taking action. We treat copyvio very seriously and very aggressively, so you did the right thing even if you find on re-analysis that it's not a copyvio. -Arch dude (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That mathematical equations are not copyrightable is something I did not know. As the article is mostly equations, this is then probably not a copyvio, but just plagiarism. Sorry about not being clear; the class notes are those written by a professor for his molecular dynamics course and the source is online at . I'll revert the copyvio notice at Excess chemical potential, add the citation you recommended, and let the author know that this was determined to be not a copyvio. Thanks for your help, --Mark viking (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyvio in image
Hi all. Pretty new to this so not really sure what the correct protocols are, but ...

I came across on the List of LNG terminals page and I thought it unusual that the map includes the text of source URL (www.chinagasmap.com) but the attribution says it is all the authors own work. Is it a copyvio? Or not?

TIA Atlas-maker (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Possibly. The upload default is "own work", so that text is kind of meaningless. There's a chance that she's actually associated with the website, since all of her uploads refer to them (see ), but we can't know that without such verification and the website itself is clearly copyrighted. Since that image is on Commons, there's nothing we can do about it here - Commons has its own separate administrative system and policies. But I know my way around there, so I'll go ahead and tag the images with npd and notify the uploader that we need external permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx Atlas-maker (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)