Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 20

Strategic entrepreneurship
I'm unsure what to do with this one, so I thought I'd ask here. Parts of the article are almost word for word copy and paste of a Google Book Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization By Michael A. Hitt, R. Duane Ireland, Robert E. Hoskisson. It's also, a Quizlet flash card quiz but I'm pretty sure that's just a copy paste from the Google Book. Can this be speeded for copyvio? Or is just careful pruning needed?  Whispe ring  23:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted as a copyvio. Thanks for reporting! Crow  Caw  17:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Stern des Südens
I am not sure I have reported this correctly. The entire text of the song is probably copyrighted (and in any case its inclusion is not necessary). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The writer, Willy Astor, is still living, so the lyrics are copyright. Unless it can be proven that they have been released under a suitable license, they cannot be included. The lyrics have been added many times since 2007., would you take a look and revdel. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright In Lists violation?
See Category:Rankings of universities and colleges in India. All of them seem to run afoul of WP:CIL, being lists of rankings from various sources that appear to have been creatively compiled (i.e. not by student count, graduation percentage, cost to attend, etc). Since there are a few of them, I want to list them here for additional eyes and opinions rather than going on a G12 frenzy when I may be off the mark. Opinions welcome and indeed requested! Crow Caw  16:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Several of them seem to have been created by asking a load of academics to take a survey about which colleges/universities they think are the best, I'm not sure what the copyright status of that would be but we may well be better off deleting them if we aren't confident the methodology allows us to use them. I'd suggest listing them here rather than tagging for G12 though.  Hut 8.5  19:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, listing them here. Eyes-on welcome of course!
 * Indian engineering college rankings, 2014 - Raw list without analysis. Criteria listed at sources include what seem to be subjective unquantifiable elements: Selection process, infrastructure, "personality", etc.
 * Indian engineering college rankings, 2015 - Same as the 2014 list.
 * Indian medical college rankings, 2015 - Same structure as the above. Only 2 source rankings included.
 * List of Indian business school rankings - Devotes several paragraphs to why the rankings may be meaningless, then lists them.
 * List of Indian law school rankings - Again leads off stating that the rankings are either misleading, flat out wrong, or "irrelevant".
 * All these look to be lists and rankings that were based on some subjective criteria by the sources that ranked them, and not factual criteria (number of students, percent graduating, etc). Thoughts? Crow  Caw  17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware (or I forgot) about this discussion, and nominated two of them for deletion. The other should probably also be added. --Muhandes (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Association of Professional Political Consultants
I would like to report the following copyright violation but am unable to do so as I cannot create a new daily log page as a non-autoconfirmed user: Thanks, 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Association of Professional Political Consultants ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://www.appc.org.uk/about-us/.

Pratima Bandopadhyay
Okay I'm posting this here on the talk as I'm not sure how to list it mainly. I'm no copyright expert but the article Pratima Bandopadhyay concerns me, mainly the fact that there is a lot (a lot) of references and notes that link out to Youtube videos. I suspect that these Youtube videos are all copyright violations, but again I'm not an expert. This is why I'm bring it here to draw attention and get some opinion instead of deleting stuff in case I'm wrong (possibly.) Thanks in advance. Canterbury Tail  talk  01:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleanup of the article. The links aren't appropriate even if they aren't copyvios. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Usage of Wikipedia without attribution
I am trying to find what to do when someone with a blog and podcast (obviously outside Wikipedia) has made extensive use of Wikipedia, including one case of simply reading part of the text of a Wikipedia article into part of a podcast, with no attribution to Wikipedia. The blog is careful to list a number of other sources, but Wikipedia is never acknowledged. Most (perhaps all) of the pictures in the page from which the podcast is played can be found on Wikipedia, including original work that was first posted on Wikipedia (so, prepared by an editor). I understand this to be a clear breach of Copyrights, particularly the section about Attribution.

I have seen advice on how to handle such a situation before, but cannot now find it on Wikipedia help text.

Thanks,ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion at THIS PAGE about a similar situation, with all the links to the various notifications. I link here instead of to the actual notices as the dialog there is nicely representative of the approach to take. Crow  Caw  22:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was useful to get me started on dealing with this. There are several parts to the problem. The blog and podcast can be found at https://www.futilitycloset.com/2015/03/23/podcast-episode-50-the-great-tea-race/ (this is the precise episode that deals with the Wikipedia article, Great Tea Race of 1866, that I know well from having rewritten much of it).
 * The easy bit is the map of the race route, which I created for the article. So this is a breach of copyright and can be dealt with by the appropriate standard letter.
 * The next problem is the spoken text of the podcast. Early on, this is different from the Wikipedia article, but later, some of it is read directly and the overall structure of the podcast follows an abridged version of the article with a lot of common text and phrases. I checked one particular sentence, where it may be that I did not paraphrase the cited source - but I did and the podcast uses exactly my language. So, in short, the podcast is not an exact replica of the whole Wikipedia article, or even of selected sections or paragraphs, but it clearly uses the structure and some phrasing, including an exact copy of one sentence and close copies of others.
 * It is difficult to check without close familiarity with the articles involved, but since it appears that every podcast (List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes) has an equivalent Wikipedia article, I do wonder whether the same problem as with Great Tea Race of 1866 is there to some degree with other articles. Should I try and trawl through these and try and alert frequent editors to this? (That would be a lot of work.)
 * Finally, what do we expect the Futility Closet to do? They have an "about us" page (https://www.futilitycloset.com/about/ "Where do you find this stuff"), wherein Wikipedia is notably absent. I think their acknowledgement of Wikipedia could, in fairness, be a bit woolly - something like: Like most people who do research on-line, we make use of Wikipedia. We will always acknowledge a Wikipedia article that we have used, especially where this provides a source of pictures or diagrams or we have quoted some text from Wikipedia. (So you would expect to see a link to appropriate Wikipedia pages on each relevant podcast.) I feel that I would need a consensus view from the Wikipedia community to suggest looking for that from the Futility Closet - and I am not sure even if I think it is a good idea. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice on the web page that calls up the podcast (the one you linked above) they list sources used. It should be easy enough to ask them to add the WP article to that list. But then, yes, it gets tricky: Since they modified the content, the WP license requires them to re-distribute that content under the same CC BY SA license (the Share-Alike clause). Now, not having listened to the podcast, do they use the WP content for something that could be fair-use (e.g. discussing what WP said about the race, etc) or did they just build the podcast's script using that text, which would not be fair use? In any case, it will all begin with making contact with them, either informally or using one of those canned emails. Seeing how they respond would determine how amicably it can be settled. Crow  Caw  22:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And I should add, Futility Closet and List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes are possibly ripe for deletion. I am not sure how either is notable if a lot of the info is gleaned from Wikipedia. The former had a deletion discussion a little while ago, but with no real material input from either side of the debate. There was also a spamming promotion of their podcasts which contravened WP:REFSPAM, which I think may also influence a deletion discussion.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * To answer your question - the podcast is a continuous narrative of the event and - more than half way through, some words are read directly off the Wikipedia article (which is also a narrative of the event. Incidentally, re-reading it now, it is, in places, a little away from the encyclopedia style we all seek, but when you are immersed in the original sources, you get a little swept up in the spirit.) I am no expert, but that is certainly simple plagiarism at the very least.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I am going to have to read up on these licences, to more fully understand the subject - a job for another day.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Related discussion
There's a discussion that may interest regulars here at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and your input would be welcomed. Thanks, ansh 666 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect advice?
It seems to me that a good deal of the advice given at Adding open license text to Wikipedia is at odds with our policy and our customary practice. I've had a go at remedying what seemed to me to be the most serious errors, but was immediately reverted. Would other copyright regulars like to take a look? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There were a few problems with that revert... many have been corrected since then. One glaring error that jumps out at me is that GFDL is listed as a compatible license. While dual-licensed GFDL may be ok, any GFDL-only license has been incompatible since June 15, 2009 (retroactive to November 1 2008).(Ref:WP:LU). Crow  Caw  18:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, . The three things that stuck out to me as wrong were that, the failure to specify which versions of CC-BY-SA are compatible (and which one isn't), and the incorrect advice on how to deal with copyright-violating text. But there's a problem here: WP:LU says just what you and I think it says about GFDL, but WP:COMPLIC lists it as compatible. They can't both be right, I don't think. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, tracked that down: the error was introduced with this edit on 15 December 2016‎, now reverted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I commented on that talk page in case the same editors are not watching here. Crow  Caw  15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cvs
Template:Cvs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dated copyvio
Template:Dated copyvio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Emil Fischer Plagiarism and Copyright Violation
It appears that almost the entirety of the article on Hermann Emil Fischer is plagiarised from the Nobel Foundation's website (https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1902/fischer-bio.html). This text is certainly copyrighted, as it was initially published in Les Prix Nobel which the Nobel Foundation claims copyright to (https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/publications/lesprix.html)

I wasn't too sure what to do with this, so I thought to post it here. It appears to be a very old edit that put in most of the plagiarised content, specifically the IP 205.251.159.155 who edited at 19:48, 5 November 2006.

Thanks for the help

Lord of the Scrubs (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the infringing text that was added in 2006 and marked it for WP:RD1. Thanks for reporting. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about multiply pasted FIRSTSENTENCE in LGBT rights in CountryName
There is a discussion going on at WT:LGBT regarding a boilerplate sentence that has been copied into dozens of articles. A portion of this discussion raises a possible copy-paste issue. We could use your CWW expertise there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Request check against deleted revision
Could we get a quick check of Draft:Ronald H. Winston against Ronald H. Winston? Markup left in the draft makes me think it may have been copy-pasted without attribution. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the draft is basically identical to the deleted article except for the references. I've made a null edit to add attribution per WP:CWW. The original article was written by a sockpuppet (User:Usterday), it's possible that the recreation is as well.  Hut 8.5  07:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

American Psychoanalytic Association
As I cannot create a new log page, could someone please report these for me? Thanks, 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * American Psychoanalytic Association ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.apsa.org/content/american-psychoanalyst. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * American Psychoanalytic Association ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/node/6976/print. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cleaned and marked for WP:RD1. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I want to note that this article has yet to be added to the log. Additionally, I have one more: Thanks, 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Philippists ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/ii.xlvi.htm. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a copyvio. The text is in the public domain as noted at the end of the article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on copyright and FfDs
There is currently a discussion at Village_pump_(policy). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agnosticism
user:Rashkeqamar added a section on Carl Sagan to this article which removed as a copyvio and requested RD1 revdel. There's two issues:
 * 1) I'm not sure this is a copyvio as the text is fully cited and attributed to the various sources used and follows a similar pattern to other sections in the article quoting significant agnostics and their views. With the attribution and sourcing given I don't think the quotes fail Non-free content
 * 2) The cited source is to a google books page which is quoting a book from PediaPress so the content quoted is therefore a partial lift from Carl Sagan.  This isn't an issue (side question of whether the attribution needs changing) but the quoted text is either unfair free use in both articles or neither. Nthep (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just commenting since I did the original revdel: Google Books claimed that the content was copyrighted and didn't link to a free license either on the copyright link or the PediaPress link. I went with that since I wasn't familiar with them. Since it looks to be under free license because they reprint content taken from us, I have no problem with the revdel being undone. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the material was not a problem, it should probably also be restored in the article too. I liked the text, but when searching for non-quoted sentences, various pages and books were exact matches, so I assumed that it was unacceptable as-is for copyright reasons.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well yes, this is copyrighted, but it's more an issue of whether the use of this text can be justified under our rules on non-free content than whether it is a copyright violation. That section did include a number of substantial quotes from copyrighted material which I think was rather more than really be justified here.  Hut 8.5  19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That maybe the case but if that is the case all the sections relating to various peoples' opinions on this page need to be assessed for the same reason as they all contain quotes from the subjects. Nthep (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All but two of those people died long enough ago that all their works will be in the public domain. The only copyrighted quotations there are from Russell and Weatherhead, and the ones from Weatherhead are very brief.  Hut 8.5  21:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Using CC BY-SA material
Hello, wikipedia only has a redirect for Parade Stadium (it's not a great redirect, btw) in Minneapolis. There is very good material at MNopedia. It is CC BY-SA 3.0 with general references. How much and how can this material be used to make a Parade Stadium article on Wikipedia? Thanks. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 20:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From a copyright point of view, all of it can be used if properly attributed. CCBYSASource can be used to provide attribution. Wikipedia also uses CC BY-SA 3.0. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, a full copy and paste is okay? Put the same refs as general References? Thanks. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 23:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as copyright goes, yes. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Not my area of expertise, but maybe something like this:  —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wiki searched MNopedia and found it has its own template . - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 04:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus
As I cannot create a new log page, could someone please report this for me? Thanks, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://eewc.com/about/. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Listed by Sakura Cartelet. I've cleaned the article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard Enraght
As I cannot create a new log page, could someone please report this for me?


 * Richard Enraght ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.portslade-mileoak.org.uk/portsalde-history/fr-enraghtst-andrew-portslade-prisoner-of-conscience/. I'm not certain as to whether this was copied to Wikipedia or vice versa. I suspect the former. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

List of members of the Forbes 400
Some editors would like to include the entire Forbes 400 list in the article, List of members of the Forbes 400. I previously removed this content in October. I believe that this raises serious copyright concerns. Although Wikipedia is free to independently assemble its own list of wealthiest people, there are always judgment calls to be made in calculating the present net wealth of any person, and in identifying and describing vital statistics for that person. I don't think this is something that we can do. Justlettersandnumbers has agreed, stating that this "is not publicly-available data that would enable any ordinary person to compile the same list, and so we cannot host the ranking here", and suggesting that I raise this issue here to seek a definitive consensus. bd2412 T 19:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've left a comment on the article talk page, I agree it's a copyright violation to include the full list.  Hut 8.5  22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks like an open-and-shut case of a creatively created list that is thus copyrighted. I agree with not adding it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this here, . I suggested it in the hope that it might lead to some lasting consensus on what is to be done about this list and others like it, which are a recurring problem/timesink. As you've said above, I fully agree that this is a "creatively-compiled" list. As such, I don't see how any part of it can be hosted in Wikipedia. WP:NFC, bullet #4 of WP:TOP100, is perfectly clear: this is unacceptable as "". I can't see any room there for top-ten-only or similar ranked extracts from listings. One possibility that has been suggested (though I'm damned if I can remember where) is to allow listing of the top-ranked elements in alphabetical order.
 * There was discussion in 2014 on this type of list at Talk:Nation branding/Archives/2015, where – as usual – says it more succinctly and clearly than I can. I'm hoping that  may be able to point to other parts of that extended discussion.
 * WP:CIL is an essay, and WP:NFC a guideline. I believe that what is really needed is to add something about this to WP:NFCC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This one isn't so clear. The list appears to be the X wealthiest Americans, ranked by net worth. That would make it a list based on a neutral quantifiable stat. Unless there are other people with high net worth who were excluded from the list for some subjective reason, then wouldn't this be just a ranking based on factual data, even if not publicly available? We trust 3rd party WP:OR as a source, would that not be the same here? I guess the question is: is there a creative element to the given net worth numbers. CrowCaw 15:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , you've surprised me! Do you not think that the estimates of net worth by Forbes staff are based on "value judgement", that they are reached using a "wide variety of informational sources and their professional judgment"? Because when I read their account of the methodology employed, I thought that was exactly what was being described there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some billionaires choose not to make information about their exact wealth available. For those people Forbes has to guess. Perhaps the person's wealth is drawn from some company and Forbes' analysts make an estimate of the value of that company based on the value of some other company which does have publicly available information. This means the list is in large part down to someone's judgement and hence copyrighted.  Hut 8.5  18:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is copyrighted, the more carefully calibrated issue is how much can we include, it is not CI to include some of the list depending on context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My take: we don't have any basis to include any part of the list in list format. Our guidance specifically mentions (as unacceptable) "partial recreation": "A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner" is "unacceptable use". Of course we can refer to such lists, state what the position of some person is in such a list ("Gates was the richest person on the Forbes 400 list in 2014"), and so on. But we can't reproduce them, in whole or in part. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not saying this is PD stuff outright, just that it is not as clear to me as the typical CIL case. Looking at Forbes' own page on the list, it looks to me like they went through "a wide variety of informational sources", yes, but beyond that research did they apply some creative ranking or element to the number, or is this simply the total of all the assets minus all the debt that they could find? That's what's got me going hmmmm. I don't see anything like "we took their total assets and multiplied by the Forbes Power Factor(tm) to arrive at their final score" which is the sort of subjective criteria I typically see in CIL cases. The one iffy bit is the part about how they valued private business that they couldn't pierce, and that may be enough to taint the list, but I wonder if any of us had the same factual asset and debt numbers they used, would we get the same final value for Net Worth? If yes, then the list would seem to be based in non-creative criteria. If no, then the opposite is true. Again, I'm only asking, not declaring. CrowCaw 22:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this having had time to look into it deeper. My questions above still stand, to wit: the numbers used could be expected to be non-creative, but I guess the bottom line is that we're not 100% sure. Because of the irrevocability of our CC reuse release, the standard we've (I've) always used is that unless the source can be 100% confirmed to be properly licensed, then we must default to removal. It can be added back easily enough if properly licensed or confirmed. So now to the issue of how much can be used. As a pure list, I'm in agreement that none of it can be used. Providing the list as a list is the same purpose for which Forbes published it, so inclusion here fails the test of transformation. Using it to state that X has been at the top for x years (or listing specific years) falls under analysis so is fine, but having the list (or portions thereof) presented as a list is superseding so must be removed. CrowCaw 17:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well,, that's exactly what I think, only you said it better. , , , , anyone else reading this: do we have agreement here to remove the listings from this and other related pages? And to revdelete the various histories? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced a partial listing is cvio under every circumstance -- at any rate, here is one group of articles to look at Lists of people by net worth, but since I can't delete articles or revdelete, it's quite beyond me. Good luck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There might be situations in which it's acceptable to use parts of the list under our rules on non-free content but unless that's demonstrated then I agree we should remove it. Revdel will depend on the situation, but it often isn't a good idea to do revdel vast numbers of revisions to get rid of a small amount of content.  Hut 8.5  07:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

rsssf.com
Hello, I can copy rsssf.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Uploading a scan of a ticket to an event
I have a ticket to a performance event. It includes a photo that the theatre used for promotional purposes. Can a scan of that ticket be uploaded into enWP to illustrate the event. (The event does have an article). Scarabocchio (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No likely. The photo will almost certainly be copyrighted and not in free use. And using it under fair use to illustrate the event will likely fail WP:NFCC, doubly so if you want to use it to illustrate the theatre. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I suspected :-(  ... thanks! Scarabocchio (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 29
You are invited to join the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 29. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 14:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

revdel request on WhiteSource
A revdel request was placed for revision 827225103 which is the revision of 09:09, 23 February 2018. However, there seems to be nothing in that revision which is not also included in several subsequent revisions. I am reluctant to do a revdel pending proper identification of the exact revisions to be redacted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * who placed the template. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I placed the request. In the revision of 14:09, 23 February 2018,‎ number 827225103, a section was added to the article on the "Product". This contained the two violations I mentioned in the request. These violations have been present in all subsequent revisions. I will repeat the revdel request. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, Thank you, . DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

wrong place
Well, I got this in the wrong place. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

revdel request on World Diamond Council
In this edit requested a revdel for copyvio removal of content from https://www.worlddiamondcouncil.org/about-wdc/history acording to the tag. It seems that this content was removed in this edit. However, i am not seeing any of the removed content in the stated source. I am not willing to do a revdel without some confirmation that a copyvio actually existed. I will remove the tag pending confirmation. , is it possible that the source url is not correct? Or am i missing something? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing something - everything from "The origins of the WDC date back to the late 1990s..." to "...and conflict diamond related issues" is taken from that source.  Hut 8.5  21:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, now i confirm it, I think I had my browser scrolled wromngly so i was looking at the wrong part of the source to match. Entirely my error, but better to be sure. Thanks for doing the revdel,, and for tagging it, . This issue is now closed as far as i am concerned. 21:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Manny Alvarez
As I am unable to create a new page, could someone make the following report for me?
 * Manny Alvarez ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://www.askdrmanny.com/contact-dr-manny/. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done  Hut 8.5  21:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Jaguar Battlesphere article extensive cut and paste.
Over the past several weeks one user has been rewriting the following article in their own image. BattleSphere

Apart from being mostly uncited, and using notes to explain parts of the text giving WP:OR concerns, a large proportion of the text has been cut and pasted from two of the few citations - the FAQ and Developer log.

I raised issue on talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BattleSphere but his reply amounted to "they will not be bothered".

User has previously been informed of copyright problem in aliens vs predator for Atari Jaguar article as can be seen on their talk page. StraightDown (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A quick opinion about a non-free image

 * The image

I am just a bit worried that it is not permitted. The thing is, it is from a an article with "...Posted by Mike Sivier in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment..." above it. I am not sure the website owns the copyright, and I think I saw the image elsewhere. Also, if they are using the image, and we do not know who owns it, then it might be AP or some news agency that provides images, in which case, not permitted.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , you'll probably get more input at WP:MCQ. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Thank you!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

New post here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Contribution Surveyor down?
I've haven't used the Contribution Surveyor for several weeks. It seems not to be working, and there's the word "table" in the error message which makes me think that's probably because of the recent "improvement" which removed some sort of table support. Is the Foundation working on fixing this, does anyone know? , is this something you could take a look at? We are really up the creek without this tool when it comes to dealing with CCIs. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reported as phab:T198443 —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Full poem quoted in biography of Bernard Binlin Dadié
Im not sure is kosher ☆ Bri (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not.  G M G  talk  18:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Was about to remove it but someone else has already done so. I suspect it's not impossible that this is in the public domain but it probably isn't and we have no evidence that it is.  Hut 8.5  18:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Works in the Ivory Coast don't fall into PD until 99 years after death. He ain't dead.  G M G  talk  18:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Ivory Coast copyright law isn't exactly my strong point. (Assuming it was first published in the Ivory Coast.)  Hut 8.5  19:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Always good to keep a link to c:COM:CRT handy.  G M G  talk  19:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Just a heads-up, this was the work of Les Classes Wikipedia, a project that is aiming to create 100 new articles about writers. Maybe the exemplar from the project, even; that's how it's appearing in the upcoming Signpost. They might need some education on copyright. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm...  G M G  talk  21:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The text of the poem has been in the article since 2008, when it was added by some IP. Another IP later replaced it with a different translation in the same year. I don't think that project is responsible.  Hut 8.5  21:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm...Well I was going to say "no one took it out either", but then again, neither did a half dozen sysops who have edited the article. That's not encouraging.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What attribution for European law?
This has come up at Boerenkaas: some European law, sourced to eur-lex.europa.eu, was incorporated in the article. According to this clear statement of permission, all content on that site is available for use, commercial or not, provided that attribution is provided. But how do we provide that attribution, since no licence is specified? Do we consider it to be a CC BY release, or what? Is there an appropriate template to use in the article? Thanks for any advice, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like they expect the attribution to be "© European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/, 1998-2018", which would make it incompatible with Wikipedia - TNT 💖 20:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it's fine if they retain copyright of the text, as long as they permit reuse under a free licence. You still have the copyright to your Wikipedia contributions, you've just agreed to make them available under CC-BY-SA.  Hut 8.5  20:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You could use something like Free-content attribution or something else suitable in Category:Attribution templates. If it's a binding law then it's public domain in the US anyway though.  Hut 8.5  20:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please check it out: c:Template:European Union Government and European Commission decision of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (2011/833/EU). --Holapaco77 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

How are the main page and the "todays' section" page related?
First-time report and I found this terribly confusing: I added a report at the link given by the copyvio template, which was Copyright_problems/2018 August 24, a new page. After I saved it, it showed up under August 23 (not 24) on the main page. Then I thought I should add more information, but I didn't know in which place to do it - edit the August 23 section of the main page, or go back to the "today" page. I tried the former, and when the edit window opened, everything but my entry was there, so I couldn't edit it. I then did the latter and added more info and saved it, but it didn't update on the main page. Could there please be some kind of explanation of all this? Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, it updated on the main page a while later. It's still confusing that it's listed under the previous day, and if you want to add a comment to it by clicking on "edit source", you can't because it's mysteriously missing. You have to guess that you should click where it says "put new article listings" in the Footer instead... --IamNotU (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it, the issue was just that the new page you created didn't have the header with that day's date on it, so it wasn't distinguished from the previous day's listings in the list. I've added that header now and it looks fine.  Hut 8.5  06:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

subpage chaos?
Why are the unresolved issues on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018_September_20 not listed on the main page? --Espoo (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably just an oversight, I've added it. No need to call it "chaos".  Hut 8.5  21:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Large-scale copying of ancient inscriptions into articles
I can't find a policy page (I checked WP:C-P and WP:COPYOPEN) that talks specifically about the copying of large amounts of primary source material from a website containing ancient inscriptions. The article is DNa inscription and the website is livius.org. This doesn't seem to be a COPYVIO issue, as their about page specifically permits copying of text.

My question is really more about the suitability of this sort of thing for Wikipedia, vs. using Wikisource instead. Copying the entire text, if desired, seems to be what Wikisource was designed for; and limiting the Wikipedia article to content about the inscriptions, perhaps with some brief, quoted sample text, seems more in line with Wikipedia's encyclopedic role.

Should we encourage the off-loading of large amount of text from DNa inscription to Wikisource in this case? Is there a policy page on Wikipedia which governs this question? Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion listed at Wikisource:Scriptorium. Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the copyright issue, we can't used text copied from Livius. Their about page says that you can reuse text "provided that you refer back to Livius and do not make profit either". That last bit isn't consistent with the licence Wikipedia is available under, which does permit commercial reuse. The article claims to be taking the English text from a printed book published in 1893, which is in the public domain. The original text is certainly out of copyright and I suspect the transliteration may not qualify for copyright protection, depending on what was involved in creating it. I think the general question of whether inclusion of inscription text is appropriate should be discussed somewhere else (WP:VP).  Hut 8.5  06:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hut – the 1893 book is safely PD, the transliteration may not be creative in any real sense. Our guideline on long boring texts is at Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources; the talk-page is probably the place to start a discussion about this specific case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The text of A guide to the Old Persian inscriptions (1893), the published source of these passages, is welcome at English Wikisource and can be used by Wikipedia in whatever way is appropriate here. The original inscription can be hosted in its original form at Multilingual Wikisource as Old Persian does not have dedicated wikisource of its own. However, the table at DNa inscription, with the translation, transliteration, and original text in three parallel columns, does not belong at Wikisource in that form, unless such a table exists in a published source. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Phone number issue
Consider the case where I am providing my phone number in my the user page of myself. Will that be considered as a copyright violation?Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but you should be mindful that the internet is forever and once you put it up, it’ll be out there for anyone to see. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was actually a problem by yet another wikipedian. If it violates, I thought I can inform the admins about the same.Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Flagging a CWW article as needing translation attribution
I sometimes notice articles that appear to have translated content that is not attributed, and I have a question about how to properly flag this. I'm thinking, a new maintenance template at the top of the article is perhaps needed.

I'm aware that if an article contains content translated from an outside source, this would fall under COPYVIO rules, and might not be permitted at all, depending on standard Copyvio conditions. (These must be difficult to catch or prove, as standard plagiarism tools will not work on translated material. Not sure what, if anything we can do about this right now, but this post is not primarily about this case.)

The issue I wish to raise now, is about content added to en-wiki that is translated from another Wikipedia or sister project. As I understand it, this is governed by WP:CWW and is generally permitted, as long as required attribution to the source article is provided. However, attribution is not always provided. My question is, what to do about such articles, when one finds them? This case seems not quite as serious as plagiarism from outside sources, so blanking the article with a big, red banner while investigation is underway about attribution from another Wikimedia project would seem like overkill to me. I was thinking a new template is needed, that could be placed on top of an article, saying something about suspected translated content and missing attribution, and linking to CWW, ATTREQ, and so on. Interwiki copy is not the right template, and WP:TFOLWP says nothing about this case. I'm thinking of a new template, along the lines of Cv-unsure, but geared more to translation rather than copy-paste, and with verbiage about proper sister project attribution, rather than copyright violation from an external copyright holder.

For a real world example, you could have a look at Talk:Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet. I placed a Proofreader needed template on to of the article itself, but that template really doesn't address the atribution issue at all, which is what got me to thinking about this situation, and whether we needed a new template. Feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For a mockup, please see User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Template:Translate attreq. Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What I normally do is perform a tiny edit to the page so I can retroactively add the attribution myself via an edit summary, like this:  Then I place a  template on the article talk page, and I notify the editor how to do it properly the next time, like this:   — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, thanks. Yes, I've used dummy edits for adding edit summaries retroactively myself, as well as adding the translated page templates to the talk page more than once.  That works, once we know that it's a translation, and where the translation is from. The situation I'm trying to address is generally before that point, analogous to a cv-unsure. As far as editor notification, I had considered creating a uw template as well, to provide some boilerplate to a user, along the lines of what you suggest above, and that might be a useful template as well. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

CopyVio - PlayStation Portable
Following a previous conversation on admin TonyBalloni's talk page; could someone look at this GA nomination for Copyright infringement? [Earwig's CopyVio test] brings up some issues, but aparently most of these are reverse copyvios. Could someone look at 8-bit central against the article PlayStation Portable for infringements. It's all a bit beyond me, and I don't want to continue a nomination if it fails the immediate failure conditions.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll have a more in depth look later but the link you've given there looks like they copied Wikipedia - the table halfway down looks like a screenshot of a table on Wikipedia, because they couldn't be bothered to reproduce Wikipedia's table formatting.  Hut 8.5  18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. I get nervous around copyvio issues; as it's not something I have much background with.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio of WP?
Does anybody know if Barnes and Noble has a pattern of plagiarising Wikipedia articles for book summaries? I was investigating a 10-year-old copyright vio allegation on the talk page of Paradise Regained. I started with Earwig's, got an exact match (minus mark-up) for. I can't do date checks due to a lack of archives for B&N, yet the I find the poor prose far more becoming of Wikipedia than a bookstore. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another URL in the Barnes and Noble domain, using an older version of the page (and executing it quite poorly). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitely looks like they're copying Wikipedia. For example both article and link use the sentence "Thus, antonyms are often found next to each other, reinforcing the idea that everything that was lost in the first epic will be regained by the end of this "brief epic"." This version of the article from 2009 says instead "Thus, antonyms are often found next to each other throughout the poem, reinforcing the idea that everything that was lost in the first epic is going to be regained by the end of the mini-epic." This indicates the text has developed dynamically over time, instead of being copied from an external source. Somebody claimed here that they'd dealt with the copyvio allegation on the talk page, FWIW.  Hut 8.5  21:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A related TfD
Please see: Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 4 (seems to have a dubious use case on this wiki, even if it may serve some purpose on Commons). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Text from Smithsonian
The text in Lighthouse Tender Joseph Henry is from Smithsonian. Unless I am missing something, Smithsonian is CY-NC-SA, and I tagged the article for speedy deletion, but also writing here to double-check.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Smithsonian license is NC, which isn't compatible. The article was deleted by and subsequently recreated. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is exactly what I thought. The new one does not seem to contain copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Earwig's results indexed by search engines?
I was working on an article listed as a suspected copyright violation (I am currently considering speedy deletion, but need to so some more checks). Google search lead me to this page, which seems to be the result of Earwig's search of the same article from September. Is this ok? I though we exactly do not want copyright violations to be indexed?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)