Wikipedia talk:Spotting possible copyright violations

Comments
What exactly are "Microsoft Smartquotes"? If this is referrint to alt-0147 (“) etc, they also could come into live because someone is copying text from word into wikipedia. -- till we *) 14:25, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * That's why they're a suspicion-inducing sign, but not actual proof of anything. The key thing is seeing clusters of these clues. -- The Anome 14:30, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Loaded" language?
Is it worth mentioning that somewhat loaded language with a strong POV is also a likely source? In the few I've spotted over the years, quite a few of them have been material copied straight from fansites or SPOV resources, containing "loaded" constructions such as "the well-respected X" or "the splendid Y". This is almost to the point where as soon as I see something written like this, my first instinct is to whack it into Google. 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

in cases of plagiarism as opposed to copyright infringment
I got to thinking about this in the last few days when I came across USS Saratoga (1814) which mostly comes from [|this page] and Lake Chicago taken from [|this incredibly poorly written page]. Is there Is there policy that's ment to be applied to plagiarism as opposed to copyright infringment? Would a new Cleanup tag saying something like "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. This page appeares to be plagerised in part or in whole, from this source.  blah blah blah...," be uesful in situations like this? Mike McGregor (Can) 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, see copypaste. While it's not a "plagairism" tag, it is very useful in identifying things that look so out of place, regardless of copyright violation, they need to be dealt with. 68.39.174.238 12:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Checking it out ~ Is this section truly POV neutral??
Should Google, Mozilla, etc. really be specifically listed as tools for help beating copyright infringement?
 * It's not in the mainspace, so I don't think it is a big deal. However, the comment about Mozilla is strange. I would guess that the person meant that it is good for searching for copyvios because it has tabbed browsing, but it doesn't say that, so it just looks like a plug. Also, Mozilla is not the only browser with tabs. -- Kjkolb 09:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Another sign of possible copyvio that should perhaps be added
The use of "We". Although it may have simply be added by a COI editor, I often find it's copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested change
Should
 * "In-line footnote links such as "[1]", especially when no footnotes are given." which is listed under Indicative, but by no means conclusive signs:

be divided as follows:
 * In-line footnote links such as "[1]", when no footnotes are given." which is listed under Indicative, but by no means conclusive signs: be moved to "Strong"

and
 * In-line footnote links such as "[1]", if footnotes are given."  remain under Indicative, but by no means conclusive signs, but with a note added that this is a legitimate technique of citing references in WP.   DGG ( talk ) 13:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)