Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 May 2015

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2015-05-02 Edit

2015-05-02 (Suspected copyright violations)
    • No copyright concern. False positive. Mirror of prod-deleted version from Feb. Checking with TokyoGirl who's working this one to see if histmerge is needed with the deleted version. Crow Caw 22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • History restored, attribution gods are pleased once more. Crow Caw 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I looked at this one yesterday but it wasn't a straightforward case like the Matthews one, though it certainly started with a bunch of copied sentences. There is no doubt that Pilot's regular MO was copy and paste. I'm not familiar with Behel (or at least I don't remember) but that's interesting. Yes, CCI may well be warranted, especially given User_talk:Moonriddengirl#About_copyright. Drmies ( talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DrM, the copyvio was never removed, just fudged about a bit. I remember Lee Behel because of the editor's intransigent and unrepentant remarks on MRG's talk page. Also, a confession/apology: I knew Doug Matthews was bad when I looked at it at SCV , but I seem to have failed to do anything about that at the time. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, further to the above: Drmies, the dupdet reports for the first and second sources I cited above show that there is still substantial direct copying and close paraphrasing, despite the good-faith efforts of Hydrargyrum to turn this into an encyclopaedia article. My favourite bit is the (non-)sentence "Although his father fully supported his decision to become an air racer.[sic]", where the author copied the subordinate clause directly from the second source, but omitted the main clause "Steve was never pressured into racing." This isn't just copy-pasting, it's incompetent copy-pasting. This has been here more than seven days without a rewrite; I recommend consigning it to the round file. The intransigent remarks I mentioned earlier are here, not where I thought they were. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Justlettersandnumbers I was really amused by your message above, about the favourite (non-)sentence bit: "This isn't just copy-pasting, it's incompetent copy-pasting". Justlettersandnumbers and Moonriddengirl this is exactly what I was trying to point out... This, and nothing else. It is indeed it's incompetent copy-pasting he was filling the Signpost with. Lot of work for the others. As Xanthomelanoussprog also pointed out, that some believed that the contributions of others were his, but it surely was a lot of work cleaning it up. Instead of a factual discussion about this, the user chose to take this personally which is so totally wrong. I never attacked him. I was only pointing out the - rather obvious - issues. If anybody would have bothered to check those facts, instead of giving credit to his accusations, it would have been obvious soon enough.‎ They claimed that I never raised those issues with them, but I did raised the issue here... everybody was watching that page. They just chose to ignore it. Hafspajen ( talk) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2015_May_2&oldid=662597983"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 May 2015

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2015-05-02 Edit

2015-05-02 (Suspected copyright violations)
    • No copyright concern. False positive. Mirror of prod-deleted version from Feb. Checking with TokyoGirl who's working this one to see if histmerge is needed with the deleted version. Crow Caw 22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • History restored, attribution gods are pleased once more. Crow Caw 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I looked at this one yesterday but it wasn't a straightforward case like the Matthews one, though it certainly started with a bunch of copied sentences. There is no doubt that Pilot's regular MO was copy and paste. I'm not familiar with Behel (or at least I don't remember) but that's interesting. Yes, CCI may well be warranted, especially given User_talk:Moonriddengirl#About_copyright. Drmies ( talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DrM, the copyvio was never removed, just fudged about a bit. I remember Lee Behel because of the editor's intransigent and unrepentant remarks on MRG's talk page. Also, a confession/apology: I knew Doug Matthews was bad when I looked at it at SCV , but I seem to have failed to do anything about that at the time. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, further to the above: Drmies, the dupdet reports for the first and second sources I cited above show that there is still substantial direct copying and close paraphrasing, despite the good-faith efforts of Hydrargyrum to turn this into an encyclopaedia article. My favourite bit is the (non-)sentence "Although his father fully supported his decision to become an air racer.[sic]", where the author copied the subordinate clause directly from the second source, but omitted the main clause "Steve was never pressured into racing." This isn't just copy-pasting, it's incompetent copy-pasting. This has been here more than seven days without a rewrite; I recommend consigning it to the round file. The intransigent remarks I mentioned earlier are here, not where I thought they were. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Justlettersandnumbers I was really amused by your message above, about the favourite (non-)sentence bit: "This isn't just copy-pasting, it's incompetent copy-pasting". Justlettersandnumbers and Moonriddengirl this is exactly what I was trying to point out... This, and nothing else. It is indeed it's incompetent copy-pasting he was filling the Signpost with. Lot of work for the others. As Xanthomelanoussprog also pointed out, that some believed that the contributions of others were his, but it surely was a lot of work cleaning it up. Instead of a factual discussion about this, the user chose to take this personally which is so totally wrong. I never attacked him. I was only pointing out the - rather obvious - issues. If anybody would have bothered to check those facts, instead of giving credit to his accusations, it would have been obvious soon enough.‎ They claimed that I never raised those issues with them, but I did raised the issue here... everybody was watching that page. They just chose to ignore it. Hafspajen ( talk) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2015_May_2&oldid=662597983"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE