Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations/Archive 2

Date breaks
I tried to break up the page by dates but the bot removed the links when it took out redlinks (even though the dates weren't redlinks). I've posted a note on the bot's talk page to see if this can be fixed as it would help avoid working over each other and duplicating efforts when multiple editors are clearing backlogs.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about being so late - I stumbled across this page when someone reported a bug about the bot. I am sorry that I missed your note on the bot's talk page.  I can set this up if there is consensus to do so, it is just one extra line of code.  (It was originally set up this way, but people asked me to disable it.)  Again, sorry for not seeing this sooner.  -- Cobi(t 06:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to put a section header at the end of the introduction to this page and the beginning of the list of articles, so that I can jump to there with a bookmark when I want to frequently return to this page. Would that be OK? (Just asking in case it would confuse the bots). Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 23:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

GFDL Attribution?
Is there any set template for attributing text to another GFDL source? It's popped up in a couple of cases (namely Kanswa and Czech Republic national baseball team), but I couldn't find any relevant policy. PranksterTurtle (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the attribution from the Czech Republic national baseball team. It is explained on the talk page. --Borgardetalk 10:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * gnuweb kinda works but I'm not sure if it's what we're officially supposed to use. --Rividian (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot II malfunction
ClueBot II has been removing bluelinks from the page for a while. Everything it has removed from the page - excepting real redlinks - in the last few days are now back again. Some of them are recreations after the initial deletion, but most of these still need to be sorted out (tagged for G12/A7/rewritten). The backlog is quite a bit larger now, and I guess I should go further back for more bluelinks... A bit disappointing to notice that the shrinking backlog was due to a helpfull bot. – Sadalmelik ☎ 11:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cobi has fixed the bot, and it's up and running again. – Sadalmelik ☎ 17:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

An interesting read :)
There's an interesting essay by Walt Crawford from Cites & Insights on the odds of having false positives on copyvios. They are smaller that you might think. I thought that changes from the usual "OMG bot is broken" messages here ;) -- lucasbfr  talk 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

CSBot tweaks
Hey all,

I'm about to bring version 2 of the CSBot match engine online. It's going to be quite a bit smarter about trivial rephrasing, and somewhat less dumb about some wide classes of common false positives (track listings, for instance, and very small articles).

I'll be keeping a close eye on things for several days, but more eyeballs on the new tweaked algorithm is a good thing. If you notice bad matches, or plain errors, holler at me. It'll go online in an hour or so, and I'll tweak the SCV message slightly so it's obvious which version is running. If things go badly, I'll revert to the current one. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Instruction question
Hi. :) I note that some of the contributors who take on the valuable and Herculean task of monitoring this page are adding the copyvio template to articles but not following the directions on the template of listing them at CP or providing the nothanks template generated to the contributors. Would it be possible/appropriate to add a request that they do so on this page? Maybe "follow the directions on that template and then remove them from this list"? DumbBot picks up on listing the articles, but Copyright problems/Advice for admins currently requires that we allow 7 days after the contributor receives that notice before deleting articles that are copyright violations, but not G12s. (I know that's a guideline, but that notice is a good idea anyway, as many of these contributors are offering incomplete assertions of permission and the user talk page template offers far more complete instructions for verifying.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you deserve kudos for discovering this problem and making a suggestion here about how to fix it. By all means, go ahead! :) I wasn't much aware of copyvio and nothanks templates until I read this comment. It's a wonder how I always run into easy cases with blatant violations that can be speedied without having to use the "possible copyright violation" tag (which seems more complicated with multiple following steps). These steps can be easy to forget. It's a good idea to make some reminding notes here, also because I can't think of any reasons to make it impossible/inappropriate. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All right; thanks. I have done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, I need your help
Hi, did you remove the copy write violation that I asked you to do? I cannot do it myself because I cannot even log in.

It is still there - google found it - the link to the page with my website in it, would you please help me remove this lie about my violation?

Is it possible to remove my marketingcure. com from the suspected list of copywrite violations because that is not true and google just found this still live.

Would you help me on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.148.87 (talk)


 * Could you give a link to the article here on Wikipedia? I couldn't find it—even with Google—to check what's happening. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's this deleted article, What is marketing?, which contained copyrighted info from marketingcure.com before it was deleted? The website name is also mentioned at this page of COI reports. Somno (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What is marketing
Yes, that is correct but I could not violate my own copy write - I just did not know how to use your wikipedia and then I included marketingcure .com as well. I thought the info was deleted when I asked but google found the suspected copywrite violation page with the website in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_copyright_violations

Could you delete marketingcure. com from this page, please as the copywrite is my own and I can't delete it myself, please?

WikiProject proposal
It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Council/Proposals
 * User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
 * Update: since I've received the recommended 5 supporters at the Proposal page, with several others who have indicated interest elsewhere, I've gone ahead and moved this into project namespace for further development. Please consider joining the project if you have time and interest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CSBot
Hey there. CSBot is back up, adapted for changes to the API. There is one outstanding bug left: it appears unable to create pages anymore, which means that it cannot warn editors who have no talk page at all (almost unfailingly newbies). Please be extra courteous and make certain the editor was notified when you delete the page until I find what the problem is and fix it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for notifying us. MLauba (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagination Movers
This article has a number of copyright problems... the text is way to close to the official website. Rich, SCott, Dave and Smitty] are very close to the original. The text are different enough that it looks like the person did modify it. (Eg changed a few words here and there and reordered some of the sentences, but not enough that you can't see direct attribution.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, since I am a Mover, I need to understand what is going on here on our wikipedia page. Please email me at to ensure I can assist in fixing this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.204.91 (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Home of the copyright problem
Hi. Currently, copyright concerns that are not tagged by real people for G12 are reviewed at two venues: WP:CP and WP:SCV. While WP:SCV is specifically for handling listings by CorenSearchBot, these articles are also listed at WP:CP. This means that the teams of editors on both pages often wind up reviewing the same articles, since those working SCV do not come to CP to note resolution here and those working CP do not go to SCV to note resolution there. User:MLauba and I were thinking that one good way to reduce the redundant effort is to refocus handling listings on one page, probably WP:CP. If the CorenSearchBot listings could be sectioned off in a subsection for each day, that would allow SCV volunteers to easily access the materials they usually handle. I wanted to gather thoughts on this idea. Good one? Bad one? A better way? Please offer input on this one, since I think it could simplify the lives of all parties involved. I'm inviting participation here at WT:CP and WT:COPYCLEAN. Thanks for any input! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. Currently, aside from the duplication of effort both here and CP, SCV is always stupidly backlogged unless we have someone willing and able to devote hours to clean out the whole list every week or so. Merging the two would probably allow us to combine the efforts of those who contibute here and at CP, creating some kind of lean, mean copyvio-reducing cleaning machine. I think that if we were to approach those who help out here and make it clear that their help is very welcome over at the new-look CP, this could work much more efficiently. Well, either that or you end up doing all of the SCV work on top of the usual CP stuff... – Toon 13:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! I flee in terror! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have given this some more thought in the meantime. If we (well, Coren is the code master) have the CSB notices put on individual day pages, we can then transclude them both at WP:CP and WP:SCV. Removal happens once, and once only. No need to remove one WP:SCV, no need to rewrite or merge the instructions, on the surface of things we have the same as before, on the backend we remove duplicate listings.


 * The additional advantage I see of doing it this way is that when I started out, I saw WP:SCV as the "safer" place to get involved. WP:CP struck me as the more "grown-up" place which has an aura of "if you're not an admin, this may be difficult for you" - and it still does to an extent. That being said, it all hangs on whether Coren can track down the bug which prevents the bot from creating new pages. Thoughts? MLauba (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, brilliant! Even if Coren can't, we may be able to get Zorglbot to help out. Zorglbot creates and transcribes things &#8482; for CP. User:Tizio can be a bit hard to get ahold of, since he's not very active on En-wiki, but he seems to be very willing once he's tracked down. OTOH, I'm willing to bet this would be easy-peasy (sorry for the highly technical jargon) for a lot of bot creators, so we may diversify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

←I've left Coren a note about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So since apart from time there are no technical issues of doing it this way, the next question is, what changes, if any, should we make to the SCV cleanup procedure? Do we continue removing entries on the per day log as today, or do we switch to using a done format like CP does? Also, we'll probably want to formalize the instructions on WP:CP to ensure that if you look at WP:SCV through this view and relist under a WP:CP section, you do so under the current day (to leave the 7 days reaction time) - unless we want to change that procedure?
 * Further, this may induce a modification of the automatically generated edit box from copyvio we'll have to be mindful about. MLauba (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that keeping a record is a good idea myself. I am lazy, which is why CP uses a check-mark. (Seriously, how lazy am I? My subheaders use ** because it's easier than :* .) We used to strike-through the name of the article, but after I got there, I unilaterally switched to y. User:CactusWriter uses done because he's more meticulous than I am. :D Articles are removed from this page because there is no archive. If the days are transcluded and the transcluded days are removed on completion, there's no worry about overwhelming the page. It's better for transparency, because as the process works now, creators can remove items from this list without anyone being the wiser. What's the issue with the edit box? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything to get more eyes on this backlog. I'm always willing to point-and-shoot the articles nominated for deletion per CSD g12, files nominated for deletion per CSD f7, etc., but I find this backlog extremely daunting and I no longer have the hours I once did to take out huge chunks of it. I'll do what I can, though, including having MadmanBot do whatever consensus supports to consolidate CP helpers and SCV helpers. &mdash; madman bum and angel 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Since it is technically feasible, I propose that we create daily subpages on the model of CP which are transcluded here and at CP. I think we should stop the practice of removing listings for transparency and because sometimes contributors remove their listings from SCV without taking care of the problem. (I catch this occasionally at CP, because they don't know about the duplicate listings. If we simply don't remove listings, any removal stands out.) Because speed and efficiency are important, I think we should use icons. I'm working up some, though they've got bugs to work out. I'm trying to get alternate names, and I would suggest creating a template for these at SCV. Currently, housed in my userspace, these are like so (I haven't worked out the build-in signature):
 * n (also works as no )


 * [[Image:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px]] No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * relist (also works as r )


 * [[Image:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px]] Permission plausible Article blanked and relisted under today through regular copyright problem procedure. Contributor notified how to proceed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * cleaned (also works as c )


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * deleted (also works as d )


 * [[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|20px]] Copyright concerns remain. Article deleted or tagged for speedy deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

When every article under the day has been handled, it can be removed from transclusion. Only those marked for deletion would need double-checking, as they should be redlinked before removed. If you guys think this template note is a good idea, I'll put it template space once we get this going. (The purpose: not to slow SCV volunteers down too much by requiring notes rather than simply removal. These wouldn't be mandatory, of course.

When we do this, we must be sure that DumbBot stops listing CSB tagged articles at CP, or I'm going to have double the listings. :)

Second issue: is CorenSearchBot still unable to leave notices for contributors without pages? This is a major slow-down for addressing these, I know. Anyone know? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm heading out so no time for a thorough evaluation, but it looks great a first glance! And yes, as this shows, CSB still has the same problem. – Toon 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I concurn, fantastic work here, MRG. I'm still busy busy busy but should be able to work on the backlog next week, and Coren might have some coding time free after that. As he hinted at on his talk page, he'll tackle the "can't create new pages" bug at the same time, so we only have one week to go. :) MLauba (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I changed the template a bit, so now it has to be subst-ed. J.delanoy gabs adds  19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Added one:
 * histpurge (also works as h )


 * Pictogram voting wait red.svg Article cleaned, still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. --MLauba (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because. And to stop me from posting reminders on WT:COPYCLEAN every so often. :)MLauba (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. :) So all we need to make this happen is some bot rearrangement? (Thanks to J.delanoy for helping with the template. Once the bot rearrangements happen, I'll move the template to template space.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to mention that adding these templates will slow the load time of this page significantly for some people. I'm not sure if that is a concern. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as I understand it, the daily pages will be un-transcluded once complete, so there shouldn't actually be that many of the templates on this page at any one time. Although, having just done a count of how many additions were made today I got 44. Which, since we won't be removing redlinks any more, might make both CP and here rather unwieldy. Hrmm. – Toon 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That could be an issue, yes. OTOH, if we prioritize older listings and wipe out days as they occur, it might not be. At CP we don't remove redlinks, but CSB articles are listed at the end of the day. Maybe we should remove redlinks still, which would make the deleted symbol only used if it is tagged, not yet processed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, doesn't a redlink speak for itself, really? We should only need to tag ones that we don't delete, so people know not to check them again. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem I have with redlinks is that sometimes they become not redlinks again very quickly. :) Sometimes this is because the copyvio has been restored, but sometimes it's because a new article has been created. I run into this at CP relatively frequently. I don't know if it happens often enough that hte burden of placing a deleted template would outweigh the inconvenience of rechecking, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be the best solution. I'm not even sure what would be gained from having all of the redlinks archived, especially those which get caught by the NPP and deleted quickly - perhaps the Bot could ignore those with comments after them that might be useful for future reference? I'm not even sure how useful that would be. Do you find situations where looking at the CP archives is necessary? – Toon 15:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, frequently, but most of the time it honestly saves only a few minutes. The first thing I do when somebody asks why I've deleted an article is go to the deleted space, click "what links here" and follow it to CP to see any notes left. (Sometimes I will leave a link in deletion log to CP, as with Exinda, when there seems a good chance contributors might wonder.) Usually, the only note is the source, and in those cases I could get the information by pulling up deleted revisions to see what it was tagged in the first place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (to Andy): It's useful to note when non-admins tag articles for deletion as it serves as a safeguard against users who just remove the speedy tags; if an article is noted as tagged for G12 but is still a bluelink, then something is probably wrong. – Toon 15:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Two remarks: first, cleaning the SCV part of a copyvio day doesn't require the 7 days wait period, we could probably concieve a bot task who removes the SCV transclusion of a CP day once every item has been actioned (would be easier for the bot if the templates weren't substituted though).

Second, ClueBot II could still continue removing redlinks as they are treated, the MRG template above serving as the means for the SCV queue worker bees to check it off as investigated until the speedy deletion gets applied with extreme prejudice. MLauba (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the template is now at SCV MLauba (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary: Bot modification wishlist
Feel free to amend if I'm misreading or miswriting parts of this

CorenSearchBot


 * SCV report: to be listed on daily subpages instead of the main SCV page ✅ (in theory, I still have to see a copyvio to be sure)


 * Nice to have: the article names listed using the Article template ✅

ClueBot II


 * Now needs to navigate through the transcluded subpages of WP:SCV

Zorglbot (or another if the coder cannot be reached)


 * Now also transcludes every WP:SCV subpage on a new WP:CP day


 * Every day at 00:00 UTC, transcludes the new WP:SCV daily subpage to WP:SCV

Did I miss anything? MLauba (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * DumbBot currently lists CSB tagged article at CP. It will need to stop. :) (It's other CP listings continue, though.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Struck through the ClueBot II change as we would no longer remove any SCV entries but clear them off using SCV.

Addition: CorenSearchBot II
 * Run searches on newly patrolled revisions (see WP:FPPR once Flagged Protection is implemented
 * List findings on separate daily subpages.

Zorglbot
 * If CSB II gets implemented, add its finding to the WP:CP day below the new pages results

That sums up the current trends methinks. MLauba (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot II Down?
Is it down or something, because earlier today I removed a bunch of redlinked articles from the page that ClueBot seems to have missed? Any further info? Fei noh a  Talk, My master 18:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem to throw tantrums every now and then and stop removing redlinks. – Toon 17:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If all goes well, this will all end in a week :) MLauba (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Attribution
The article currently states, "Note: Contributions licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL must still be attributed. Please put a link to the original source of the material at the foot of the article and on the article's talk page. If the source is CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-SA-compatible only, please note that." Is there a template that can be used for this? If not, where/how do put the link into the article?  The left orium  16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, there is a template. If it's dually licensed, you can use dual. If it's CC-By-SA-compatible only, you can use CCBYSASource. Thanks for pitching in with copyright problems! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have a question though, what should be used for Sasaki Genso Roshi (the text is copied from here, but the website states "This text may be used in the article «Sasaki Genso Roshi» on the English Wikipedia")?  The left orium  16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, unfortunately, that's not a usable license. In that case, you'd blank the article with the copyvio template and let the contributor know that we need a specific licensing release that is, at minimum, compatible with CC-By-SA, which permits modification and reuse elsewhere. I'll go ahead and take care of that one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks again! :)  The left orium  16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this Copyrighted?
I am trying to upload an image to Mike Kafka but most images are copyrighted. From Photobucket: http://media.photobucket.com/image/mike%20kafka/numba2393/NCAA%20Football/miami2006_kafka2_cinn.jpg?o=1 Is this picture copyrighted?  Eagles   24/7   (C)  00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, yes. Unless there's an explicit release granting permission to use under a certain license, all rights are reserved by the photographer and we can't use the pic. Most pictures you find on the internet are not suitable, and we need to be careful with the ones that are marked as licensed appropriately because people tend to take others' pictures for their own albums. Finding decent, appropriately-licensed pictures of people is one of the more difficult jobs on Wiki. Sorry! – Toon 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

CSBot changes
So, CSBot is now (supposed to be) able to put reports on dated pages (like Suspected copyright violations/2009-10-31), and does so using the article template.

Also the bug about not being able to create pages should be fixed now. We'll see at the next report. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still a minor bug, working on it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fix't. Transclusion will need to be done manually, though.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazing, thank you! MLauba (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The great SCV revamp of 2009
Left bot modification requests for DumbBOT, ClueBot II and Zorglbot so that we:
 * No longer get duplicate listings at WP:CP (DumbBOT)
 * No longer remove redlinks on SCV (ClueBot II)
 * Transclude SCV days under CP days AND on SCV (Zorglbot)

I also changed the instructions on SCV to remind all SCV workers that we should no longer remove investigated items but clear them off like we do at CP.

Anything I left out? MLauba (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are the SCVs listed on CP? It looks a bit confusing. Perhaps you should put a header on the CP pages that separates the SCVs from the "regular" copyright problems.  The cremat orium  Happy Halloween! 11:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole change came by because some (not all) SCV listings are copied to CP by DumbBOT, so there are many instances where the clearance check is done twice. That's what brought about the whole discussion on rearranging SCV by day pages. We will continue to transclude these here, but at the same time also transclude these at CP, the latter becoming the consolidated page holding all text copyright issues. That way, even if SCV becomes horribly backlogged again, we're not doing double work and we have the safety net of another series of people going through the list at CP.
 * So for SCV workers nothing changes but we reduce dual work between both boards. The other thing we wanted to change is the practice of deleting cleared items so that we archive everything, that gives us better control.
 * Your point about separating the listings is a good one, I actually asked the coder of Zorglbot to do just that. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. :)  The cremat orium  Happy Halloween! 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we removing sections from WP:SCV when all entries have been checked? Will we collapse them? Will we create an archive subpage? I don't fully understand. &mdash; The   Earwig   @  03:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When all of a day's listings are dealt with (either redlinked or otherwise), we just de-transclude that day's page. There's no need to archive, since listings are actually at subpages of here, i.e. October 31 listings are located at Suspected copyright violations/2009-10-31 and transcluded here - we just have to remove from WP:SCV when the day is dealt with. That make sense? – Toon 16:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it helps, you can see the same process in action at CP: . :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, understood. Thanks. &mdash; The   Earwig   @  23:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New processes
I've tweaked the instructions. The biggest differences as I see them:
 * Articles are no longer removed from listing, but annotated on the spot.
 * Articles that go to CP no longer have to be relisted.

I wonder if SCV needs to be tweaked so that the "r" tag is a bit more urgent--maybe a red exclamation point or something--so that the admins who close the day at CP will know that they still need attention?

Actual practice is when we will find out what problems this new procedure has. If you note any, please share. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't relist and list the same thing?  The left orium  19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm really observant here, aren't I? :) They aren't meant to be. Relist is for articles where the contributor asserted credible permission, but was not notified how to handle it. We have to give them a seven day window, so we sometimes need to close a listing and open it on another day if they got that notice late. List was meant for articles that were handled by listing to CP. I tweaked it because they're already listed at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes sense now. Thanks! :)  The left orium  18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the new system
I have a few things to say about this new system:


 * Cluttered: WP:SCV has significantly more entries then it ever had before; many of these have either been deleted or already reviewed. IMO it is a little difficult to differentiate between the pages that need review and the pages that don't, especially when there are tons of SCVs all over the place. My suggestion is finding a way to separate the pending and the handled pages. For example, each day page could be divided into two parts, where the top one lists all the handled cases, the bottom lists the unhandled cases. The handled cases section could be wrapped with tags to avoid cluttering the main SCV page. After handling a request, hiding it from WP:SCV would be as simple as moving it up to the top section. I'm not sure how this would function in practice, though.


 * Hard to edit the individual sections: The edit buttons on the side of WP:SCV do not take me to edit the content of the section, but take me to edit a template transclusion. This is not helpful. My suggestion is to move the section headers ( == ) onto the transcluded day pages, as is done at XFD, RFA, and other areas, instead of WP:SCV itself.

Even though the new system is much better overall, I still think there's a few things that could be improved. Thanks! &mdash; The   Earwig   @  03:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had the same problem with the second point, so I asked Coren yesterday to have the bot create new pages with a section header here and he says it should be pretty simple. The only concern with this is finding a way to not mess up the WP:CP page onto which SCV is also transcluded. I think it should be OK if we use level four headers. – Toon 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Level 5 headers would work better for CP, allowing it to be a subheader of the day. (Level 4 is the daily header.) Would that work for you guys?


 * I wonder if we could get a bot to periodically cleanup published subpages, moving redlinks into a subsection or the bottom of the page? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"New" template
As I've updated the instructions at WP:CPAA (feedback welcome), I've copied my User:Moonriddengirl/cup template to Cup. I know some of you use that one. It should be a little quicker to use now. :) (A simple matter of pasting {{subst:Cup}}) Plus, since it's not in my userspace, you may feel bolder about making it better. :) I have a gift for wordiness. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Daily pages have changed slightly
Just to note that Coren has implemented the changes I requested; the daily subpage is created with a level five header, so clicking "edit" on the main SCV page will take you directly to the subpage edit screen. Naturally, we don't need to manually add date headers to the page either, just transclude/remove the subpage, similar to at WP:CP. – Toon 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on CSB II for Flagged Revisions
I've opened up a discussion on a potential CSB II at WT:C. Please feel free to add your input there. MLauba (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright backlogs; trying to generate solutions
In an effort to try to come up with some solutions for massive and/or chronic backlogs on copyright issues (such as at WP:PUF, WP:SCV and WP:CCI), I've opened a discussion at Areas for Reform. Please contribute, if you have any ideas. I think there's a critical need. At this moment, WP:PUF has images that have been listed for over three months, while there are literally hundreds of articles and images still waiting review at WP:CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Possibly Copyvio
From my short history with this page, it has had some issues with weasel words and has sounded like an advertisement. Recently, a user by the name of Aimeeswartz has made a very large change to the page and one that I find is very closely related to the info found on the MMRF official website save for a few word changes. I have reverted the edit and am asking that other editors come to make a judgment on issue. I would also like to note that Aimeeswartz has claimed (see edit note) that she is a writer for the MMRF. I assume this is true but does not allow her to use the copyrighted material without written permission by the MMRF. I directed her to WP:DCM so that we may bypass this entire issue if possible. Also, I placed a COI tag on the article as an employee of the foundation is editing the article. Any help anyone else could provide would be greatly appreciated. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 20:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Header update
Hi. Those of you who might actually read this page probably know that I recently advertised for help on AN. Feedback I've received on Wikipedia and via e-mail from several individuals suggested that processes here and at CP were somewhat confusing. I've tried to clarify the instructions at both, and I've put the instructions here in a colored box to help them "pop" from the other text. What do you think? Good change? Bad change? Did I get any particulars wrong or over-explain anything? Your feedback much welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Nice work!  The left orium  19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. I don't know think it over-explains, but then I'm new to these here parts, and it would definitely have cut down on the time I spent looking over the history of the pages to see how other people did things. Regardless, good job! As an aside, it does lead me into a new question I have regarding close paraphrasing: the instructions are now very clear that they should be blanked and listed at WP:CP, so what's the purpose of Template:Close paraphrasing? All it does is mark for cleanup and places them in Category:Articles with close paraphrasing which has some articles in it that were tagged a year ago - I know close paraphrasing is a fuzzy issue, but should I start going through and looking at the backlog in that category (and either removing the tag or reporting to WP:CP as appropriate) or is it for some other even fuzzier-than-normal side to close paraphrasing? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for feedback, folks. :) Articles tagged for close paraphrasing were supposedly automatically listed for review at CP...so I thought. I'm astonished to see so many! :/ I myself use it only when a paraphrase falls into the gray area where I think it's probably not enough to constitute a copyright violation but may be plagiarism. I think it would be a great idea if you wanted to look through there and see if the paraphrasing merits CP, anyway. I've seen that tag used on some pretty blatant issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll start working my way through the close paraphrasing area then and see just how bad they are. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! :) Thanks for noticing that. I had no idea things were piling up there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't think of anything to complain about. Great work! MER-C 05:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just got in and has a quick look, the instructions are (as I would expect) comprehensive. What has struck me is the sheer massive-ness of the notice. Being grumpy, I think having to scroll quite far down the page every time I load it will irritate me (and possibly give me RSI!) Can we collapse the instructions with a friendly little blue "[show]" button? – Toon 23:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, go for it. :) Can you do inside the box, or do we have to put the box in the collapse or....? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that I've managed to successfully hack up a version of our very own WikiProject Copyright Cleanup page. How does this look?


 * I tested it with the actual instructions and it seems to work fine with my browser. – Toon 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, ✅. Is it just me or does the text look smaller? – Toon 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just you, but as long as it's readable I guess it's worthwhile anyway. :) The lack of a TOC here does make navigation tricky. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean navigating the different days' listings? I think there need to be four section headers... could add to the page if you find it an issue. I changed the text size to 110%, which seems about normal to me. – Toon 17:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of TOC might be an issue for people who routinely work here when there's backlog. But I myself access it through WP:CP, so I'm good either way. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:quote
There is a proposal to promote this.174.3.113.245 (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For the curious...
This is handy to see if CSBot is running right. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That'll save me harassing you with questions about it. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Sorry to boter you, but I have two questions relating to SCV?

1} The listings we find at, do we then list them at SCV or just deal with them without reporting.

2) And two, track listings aren't copyrighted are they?

Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To point 2, no. :) To point 1, maybe one of the regulars can weigh in? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To point #1, I haven't looked there before, but as far as I'm aware CSBot should have already list them at SCV unless people are adding them manually...which apparently they're doing? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing my answer, I don't think there's a need to report them to SCV unless there's a problem cleaning it yourself, just like pages tagged copypaste or Close paraphrasing. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't they listed automatically at WP:SCV? Theleftorium (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to copyvio process
Several people have noted over the years that the autoblanking is not ideal and the most recent conversation about it is pretty clear, even for not-technophile me (see Template talk:Copyviocore). Accordingly, I've altered the instructions to again require removal of the text as was once done in order to better protect the project, our users and copyright holders. I haven't removed the "auto-hide" function because it will take a while for this to catch on, and better safe than sorry. If you want to discuss it, how about doing so at Template talk:Copyviocore? Seems like a solid location. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's User:Coren?
Does anybody know? Theleftorium (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't. :( I just sent him an e-mail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, it's working again. :) Theleftorium (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And not. I've asked Xeno for advice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeno is currently inactive.  maucho  eagle   ( c ) 19:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay. We resolved this one quite some time ago. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Procedural handling
Hi. :) I wanted to suggest that, if a day is complete down to needing history purges, yank it off the list. They are reviewed again when they come current at WP:CP, and the admins there can follow up on that. (At least, I do.) That will keep the days from lingering here when there's really nothing to be done without tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, I will do that in the future.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please check
I just created Black Orlov which was flagged as a copyvio. I've removed the tag and commented at Suspected copyright violations/2011-06-10, but as I obviously have a COI, I feel a bit funny reviewing it alone so I'd appreciate it if someone would check it over for me. Thanks, -- Beloved Freak  18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a false positive. The bot can do quite badly with some articles but it's generally better to get a false positive than a false negative. I've marked it on the daily page. Hut 8.5 21:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Beloved Freak  23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot status
It seems a serious remedy is needed for the bots operating this page which explains why there has been no postings for a week or so.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't even want to think about what's getting through. :/ -- Beloved Freak  18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here, I am going to try and scan through NPP more for the obvious. I have found a few c/p tags as well. It seems like the bots formed a union and are on strike.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the bot will be down for the unforeseeable future, clerks can help out at WP:CP and/or with articles in Category:Articles with close paraphrasing and Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections. Extra eyes on new page patrol would be most helpful as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio
There is suspicious COPYVIO at GLAM/ARKive. Two wikipedians are claiming that material has been released under CC license, but there is absolutely no evidence for it: Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/ARKive. There is need investigation and/or demand evidence from these contributors. --Snek01 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Until today, I wasn't aware this had been raised here. As I have already pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/ARKive I am Wikimedia UK's appointed outreach ambassador to ARKive. As such, I have the authority to confirm that the articles listed on the project page are released under a CC-BY-SA licence. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the Wikimedia UK site there are reports of meetings, a collaboration project, the appointment of Andy jointly by the two organisations, and a named contact in the partner organisation. Is it seriously being suggested that this is all made up? If that's being entertained as a serious possibility, why has no attempt been made to contact either organisation for verification? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS confirmation of release under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL confirmed in ticket 2011090810014488 and added to Template:GLAMARKive. – Adrignola talk 19:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

History cleaning
"History cleaning" means that selected versions of the article, which contain the violation, are somehow acted upon so either they are gone, or only privileged users can see them, right? Does that need to be done by an administrator? Is there a special way to comment on the entry to indicate that history cleaning is needed? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * History cleaning refers to revision deletion, which does indeed need to be done by an administrator. To signify that revision deletion is necessary, please use or . &mdash; madman 01:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

SCV
I made a few minor changes to SCV. The only one that could cause an issue is the correction of list styling. Previously, the template was using  for list items; it should have been using. The former breaks lists, while the latter nests them. Since this template has a close association with bots, it's probably a good idea to keep the lists nested properly. The only catch is that there appears to be a MediaWiki bug whereby list items and indents starting a template are always preceded by a line break. Two line breaks will break a list, and you'll see two bullets instead of one indented bullet. As such, the SCV template now needs to be on the same line as the report. When it substitutes, it will insert its own line break.

Here's an example of a problematic use case:

false
 * Example report

Would yield:


 * Example report


 * Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. False positive. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 06:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, there are appear to be two bullets. That is because the list has been broken; the first line is its own list, and the second line is two nested lists. There is no content for the top-level list item besides the inner list, so the bullets display adjacent to each other. The correction would be:


 * Example report false

Yielding:


 * Example report
 * Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. False positive. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 06:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If this becomes too much of an issue, I'll undo that change, but it would be nice to have a computer-parseable report list.

—Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 06:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem intuitive to me to put the disposition of the report on the same line as the report itself, and I don't think it's too difficult to parse the lists as-is. (In fact, I've parsed years' worth of the lists already in order to create a research corpus and test improvements to the bot's methodology). But I don't think it's an issue and don't care enough to say it should be changed. Just putting in my two cents. &mdash; madman 23:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I made another edit.   didn't really match the case for a deleted article.  I moved that to  /  and made a new   that just says that the article has been deleted.  —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 07:50, 16 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) 08:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can request revision deletion per RD1; if you leave an on the talk page anyone can do it. Cheers! &mdash; madman 03:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted sites
Hello! Recently, the website India-forum.com was blacklisted. The main reason for getting it blacklisted was that it was basically a chat forum of fans and hence far away from being reliable. Another problem was that it was a huge source of copy-paste artistry. Now, when i find some obvious copyvios, i can remove them from articles, but can not report it anywhere on talk pages or here as i can not give evidence. I am not even able to insert that link in edit summary. How do we deal with this? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just the same way you did here: as india-forum.com or something similar rather than a fully-formatted and clickable URL. It's a pain, but it's pretty much our only option for blacklisted sites. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the other editor has also suggested using . Thanks for this idea too. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)