Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. Good eye, January. That's a backwards copy all right. :/ I've tagged it and am investigating to see if they need to be listed at Mirrors & Forks, as they've copied an awful lot of our content on that one page alone. I'll let Minimac know. Not sure if Minimac has encountered a backwardscopy before, might not know to check the history for this kind of thing. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)16:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)reply
This site was not suspected to copy phrases from Wikipedia. I have just found out that they do. There's no reason not to assume that the work is copyrighted, particularly since they claim it is, but part of the job of working at
WP:CP is learning to recognize when other sites copy us without attribution. It's not just a matter of removing duplicated text, but verifying that we need to. :) If you haven't read through it lately,
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks includes a section on recognizing backwards copyright issues. One of the biggest flags for me is when I check early versions of an article and I see some but not all of the duplicated text. That doesn't always prove backwards copying, but it frequently does. It's enough to start me closely evaluating for this.
Reviewing
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks would probably be a good idea in general. For instance, I note you're still addressing articles right after they are tagged. I do appreciate the work you do here. Your help on this board is very welcome - we certainly need it - but please remember that we're supposed to allow the community a minimum of five days before we address the issues ourselves. And please make notes on the daily pages as to what you've done. The procedures are all outlined in that document. :) --
Moonriddengirl(talk)18:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Hi. :) This is a little confusing, since the link to the external source you offer postdates the edits you link on Wikipedia. I just want to be sure you realize that this is a noticeboard for handling copyright problems where we have copied other people. If you've found a case of backwards copying, you should tag the article talk page with {{copyvio}} and, if you'd like, consider contacting to request proper attribution. The procedure is at
Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. I'll check back in case I am not understanding you correctly. :) --
Moonriddengirl(talk)16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for explaining and linking to the book. I've blanked the article and will relist to allow editors of the article time to address it. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)18:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. Good eye, January. That's a backwards copy all right. :/ I've tagged it and am investigating to see if they need to be listed at Mirrors & Forks, as they've copied an awful lot of our content on that one page alone. I'll let Minimac know. Not sure if Minimac has encountered a backwardscopy before, might not know to check the history for this kind of thing. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)16:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)reply
This site was not suspected to copy phrases from Wikipedia. I have just found out that they do. There's no reason not to assume that the work is copyrighted, particularly since they claim it is, but part of the job of working at
WP:CP is learning to recognize when other sites copy us without attribution. It's not just a matter of removing duplicated text, but verifying that we need to. :) If you haven't read through it lately,
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks includes a section on recognizing backwards copyright issues. One of the biggest flags for me is when I check early versions of an article and I see some but not all of the duplicated text. That doesn't always prove backwards copying, but it frequently does. It's enough to start me closely evaluating for this.
Reviewing
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks would probably be a good idea in general. For instance, I note you're still addressing articles right after they are tagged. I do appreciate the work you do here. Your help on this board is very welcome - we certainly need it - but please remember that we're supposed to allow the community a minimum of five days before we address the issues ourselves. And please make notes on the daily pages as to what you've done. The procedures are all outlined in that document. :) --
Moonriddengirl(talk)18:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Hi. :) This is a little confusing, since the link to the external source you offer postdates the edits you link on Wikipedia. I just want to be sure you realize that this is a noticeboard for handling copyright problems where we have copied other people. If you've found a case of backwards copying, you should tag the article talk page with {{copyvio}} and, if you'd like, consider contacting to request proper attribution. The procedure is at
Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. I'll check back in case I am not understanding you correctly. :) --
Moonriddengirl(talk)16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for explaining and linking to the book. I've blanked the article and will relist to allow editors of the article time to address it. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)18:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)reply