![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I added a copypaste banner to St John's Church, Peasedown St John in December, and it appears on this list for 30 December. Should I take any other action to get this looked at?— Rod talk 12:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I found several paragraphs copied word for word from University of Colorado webpage to the wiki page Spider mite. I put a tag on it as explained at WP:DCV which also said to leave a note here. Additional details on Talk:Spider mite. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a newspaper clipping picture I would like to send you about Richard Barry Earl of Barrymore's life... Don't know if it would be of interest to your information? Regards Traci Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.133.109 ( talk) 07:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I got a question about a specific page and a specific issue: The article Jehovah's Witnesses by country is reusing a significant portion of information (a set of numbers) from one copyrighted source, where the source lists the information over several pages. The whole article is build on one specific source, and consists pretty much of a table. The table is reworked by a/some Wikipedia editors, as it lists the country by continent instead of alphabetic, and some of the numbers in the source are not reused, but the selection made seems to depend of interest to the article rather than of deliberately not copying the complete set of numbers. The article is dependent of the exact numbers as they given in the specific source, to be of any value. Is this ok, or could it be considered as violation of 2013 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses (the site linked in the article, jw.org/en, do have it's own term of use as well). Grrahnbahr ( talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
There's a tag on the FIVB article that says it sounds like an advertisement. That's probably because the first section was lifted wholesale from the FIVB website. Compare the FIVB Wiki article to http://www.fivb.org/EN/fivb/FIVB_History.asp . It becomes clear why there's such toadying for a gluttonous snake like Ruben Acosta in the Wiki article.
But it's just that first section. It's not the /entire/ article. I'm kind of a Wikipedia outsider (and I very much wish to remain that way) so I don't know what to do about it. Hopefully someone reading this will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.130.14 ( talk) 01:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Where_to_list_copyright_problem_-_text_from_obit_copied_into_article_space.
I'm not sure where/how to list this.
It looks like the original material in question has since been removed from the article by the editor that added it, but this issue could still use some looking into. — Cirt ( talk) 17:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've recently started patrolling new pages again since NPP has a very large backlog and I regularly find article that set off my alarm for a possible copyright violation. I have my own ways of checking an article for violation but I'm curious to see how others check articles for violation.
When checking for violations, I basically just copy parts of the text and search for that text using Google. If a website seems to share a large portion of that text, I check to make sure that it's not a false positive (Google just searches for each word and can sometimes show a page that shares those words in a different order). I then check that website's copyright claim to make sure that the content is or isn't shared in a way that's compatible with WP's license. How do you search for copyright violations? I'm interested in improving my methods and I'm sure there are many of you whom have methods that might be beneficial to others. OlYeller21 Talktome 05:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I tagged Interpublic Group of Companies with {{ copypaste}} (see Interpublic Group of Companies § Copyvio). While there were clearly some sites that had cribbed from WP, others looked like they had not, and might have been the original sources, possibly from IPG-provided PR material. Do I need to do anything else, or will this come to the attention of those who patrol for these things? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. A user, Nasirir has been deleting copyvio tags on several articles, namely Abe Garm Larijan, Malek Bahman Castle, and Mir Bozorg Tomb. I replaced the tags and warned the user; however, he left a message on my talk page asserting he was the site owner of the site with the material in question. I don't know how to handle this, but thought I should mention it here. Since he reverted the tags again, I haven't redeleted them, although I believe someone else has, as of now. Thanks. Deadbeef (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The image commons:file:Picture_468.jpg might be lifted from an external site, a TinEye search shows several external hits, including http://www.medlibrary.org/medwiki/Veterinarian. However, the commons uploader marked it as self/ownwork/GFDL 1.2. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to report suspected copyvios from Commons; WP:COPYVIO doesn't mention the Commons. CS Miller ( talk) 09:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I've alerted an admin who's offered help with problematic behavior on this talk page before, but I note that, when I posted to the admin's talk page, he/she hadn't edited today. Would someone please review my edits here and intervene if necessary, or slap me with a trout if I'm getting all hyped up over nothing. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the apparent way to report copyvio is braindead. Delete this if you don't like it, but better fix that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rumeli_map.jpg
This is almost certainly a copyvio, as there is no indication that the rights of the map have been secured. -- 91.10.32.201 ( talk) 17:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Can anyone of you please take a look at the article's talk page. I left some comments regarding the last edits made to the page, and one of them seems to be a copyvio issue. Thanks.-- Jetstreamer Talk 13:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I am the owner of www.majorforms.com. I have written several articles for the site and have noticed that some are not included in Wikipedia. I would like the opportunity to contribute our articles to Wikipedia. I would like to copy and paste the articles rather than have to write them over again. I give permission to Wikipedia to use the information. I was attempting to set up an article and the wiki wizard told me to apply here to be able to paste material before I created the article. Here is an example of one of our articles I am seeking permission to add to Wikipedia through a cut and paste.
The Anteaters Club
The Anteaters Club existed from 1940 through the mid 1960s. It was started by the director of the National Zoo (located here), William Mann, and Gordon Leech who had a concession to fine dining at the zoo restaurant (which no longer exists). While dining together one day, Mann half kidding, wondered why buffalo was not on the menu. Leech felt challenged and obtained a side of bison from Oklahoma and invited friends and family to dine. The group decided that it might be nice to meet periodically to further partake in the eating of exotic animals. They christened their club the Anteaters Club because it was the one animal everyone agreed they would not want to eat.
Animals were obtained from various sources (none were taken from zoos unless they had died naturally). Over the years the Club feasted on seal, beaver, turtle, whale, reindeer, elk, eland, wild boar, wild duck, kangaroo, sturgeon, ring-necked pheasant, elephant, Scottish stag, hippo, rattlesnake, alligator, bear, caribou, Canadian geese, iguana, moose, Chukar partridge, and venison to name just a few. Word spread and the Anteaters Club became the toast of the town. Its membership included important politicians, journalists, wealthy businessmen and women, well-known athletes, diplomats, and other distinguished people. The numbers grew into the hundreds. The chef of the restaurant had a special way of preparing the feasts, like cooking elephant in a light wine sauce.
references:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-31/opinions/36874192_1_national-zoo-exotic-animals-iguana
I would also reference our website because I knew several people that went to the meetings and have added pertinent information not found in the reference and we have located the specific site where the anteater club met in the Washington Zoo (the meeting place no longer exists)
http://www.majorforms.com/article_view.php?id=137622
Volcanoman7 ( talk) 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, in what way is it allowed to use public information of motorcycle specifiations? I just started Kawasaki Z800 and User:MadmanBot alerted some little similarities to http://www.kawasaki.eu/Z800/Specifications + http://www.kawasaki-z800.de/#features – is it sufficient to reword the specs (what is a bit difficult to not change them technically)? For example, how can I use the technical info "Bottom-Link Uni-Trak, gas-charged shock with piggyback reservoir and stepless rebound damping and preload adjustability" properly. (That is the longest "phrase", all other info is only a few words) -- Trofobi ( talk) 06:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks. Oceansat-1 was recently deleted as a copyvio, and then recreated by the original author. I blanked a small portion of the recreated article as being a problematic instance of close paraphrasing. The author has now, quite reasonably, asked how they should properly paraphrase densely written technical descriptions of ten to twelve words at a time. They also mention WP:LIMITED. I do realise that in cases like this where the original text is very heavily laden with technical terms, it can be extremely difficult to paraphrase or summarise it properly. (Although I don't agree that it falls under WP:LIMITED.) Can anyone more experienced with properly paraphrasing, suggest how paraphrasing these pieces of sentences would best be done? Many thanks. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 00:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I reported these articles as possible copyright problems on 13 March. The pages these were copied from now have "Re-use of this work is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" but the articles still have the copyvio templates. Is it still necessary for an administrator to check? Peter James ( talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed copyvio while checking this article which is under [ AfD consideration.] I documented two possible instances of cut-and-paste in the AfD discussion and flagged them in the article. However, I presume that it would be problematic to tag the page with outright copyvio and thus blank it while it is under AfD consideration. Could an experienced editor or administrator advise? Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Would the image on these page be considered free content:
...as a depiction of an out-of-copyrighted three-dimensional work?
-- RA ( talk) 11:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it seems like the template transclusion limit's been exceeded for this page, just a heads-up as it's messing up the magic words at the bottom of the page. -- RAN1 ( talk) 20:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a growing trend for some organisations to create books based on Wikipedia articles. These range from well presented, to not much more than a hacked cut and past job which looks like something a ten year old might produce. If it is properly lichened then given the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and terms of use both are legal. However there are a growing number of books which plagiarise Wikipedia content that do not follow the conditions laid out in the licences or the terms of use.
The most recent example I have come across is Charlotte Brontë see Talk:Charlotte Brontë#Backwardscopy. Have sent an email to Google under their " report an issue" link and "File a notice of infringement (US Digital Millennium Copyright Act)". They have replied. Is there any guidance/support about what to do next, as their email reply is designed for authors, publishers or their agents and is difficult to answer simply without possibly being open to accusations of false representation. -- PBS ( talk) 09:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This brief article about a newspaper has been bulked out very nicely, today. I went to check a fact and found the addition is a copy and paste from an official site on the subject of local newspapers. Is the copy and paste OK or an infringement? Eddaido ( talk) 08:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
When using this http://toolserver.org/~earwig/copyvios Copyvio Detector, at what point (percent confidence of a violation) does one take action (i.e., post a warning on the talk page, report the article, etc)? Thanks in advance for your advice.-- Godot13 ( talk) 06:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been helping again cleaning copyright problems and did a few pages of Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I just saw they are also transluded every day on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Is that a good idea? Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations can also be dealt with by non-admins and is always (I think) removed from a page by an admin. WP:Copyright problems is only dealt with by admins. I also am too lazy (and other editors seems to be as well) on suspected copyright problems to write down with every article why I kept it or deleted an article so when dealing with the page here, the admin has to look at it completely again. Garion96 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I would be ok with un-transcluding SCV from here. I understand why it is, but that's allowing only half as many days to transclude, meaning we have a month's worth of backlog we can't even see yet, and as a result the bot is getting confused. I took out some completed SCVs which allowed a few more days to show and I'll try to clear some more of SCV. As for a third place, it would just end up with nobody being able to manage it, unfortunately. Between trying to finish the Darius copyvios and the two processes we're unfortunately out of users. Wizardman 19:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This image seems to be used in violation of copyright at Mike Gatto. I list my reasoning on that article's talk page. I'd appreciate if someone can confirm. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Please check this series of edits. I think at least part of it was copy pasted from Thrikkadavoor or Religion in Kollam District because at one place I can see "[4]" at the end of a sentence, the same as appears in that article. But, it may have originated elsewhere.
Anyway, my question is basically what to do with it. Should I posthumously attribute it somehow or remove it as a copyvio? Please advise. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The copyright holder for a graphic I would include in a related Wikipedia page is willing to grant permission for its use. But when he saw the terms of the Commons license, granting the right for overtly commercial users to use his material, he balked. Is there no way for such an owner to grant a limited permission for the use of his material in a Wikipedia article? If so, how would it work?
As a relative novice, I find the whole matter of use of non-free material to be enormously confusing. There seem to be an endless number of license options. There are clearly multiple places where questions about policy are answered. The answers are often conflicting. I was told (here I think, but now I can't find the response) to use the Upload File link rather than the Commons Upload link and simply declare fair use. I have a hunch that is the way most people deal with problems like the one I've sketched out above, but it seems like a cop-out. Please advise. Camdenmaine ( talk) 12:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Consider a photo whose owner is willing to grant Commons permissions for unlimited use: I fill out the Upload form, indicating that the photo has been given to me by the owner and selecting "The license hasn't yet been forwarded, but I will do so shortly or ask the owner to send it himself." The Upload form tells me that permission are to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but what do I tell the owner? What exact text should he send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Shouldn't this be posted somewhere? If it is posted somewhere, shouldn't it be posted somewhere where it can be found? Camdenmaine ( talk) 12:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I solved this problem myself: Apparently the form to use is Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Might be nice if it were easier to find. According to the Creative Common license, the copyright holder has a right to require attribution; the aforementioned form, however, doesn't include a place to do that. Camdenmaine ( talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This article has had a copyright violation template for about a month now, but the source linked to doesn't appear to be the text used in the latest version of the article. PaulGS ( talk) 21:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
See Template talk:PD-signature and Template talk:PD-ineligible, where we are discussing whether the threshold of originality licensing templates should either match {{ PD-signature}} in requiring an check of the country of origin to see if it complies to the PD standards of that country or not, or match {{ PD-ineligible}} in not caring if the country of origin's rules of the threshold of originality (or special copyright protections) is met or not, only using the US standard, and whether the template should be so named to indicate that only the US standard has been checked. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This article has been tagged and blanked for copyvio since 11 May, and a re-written version (hopefully avoiding copyvio problems) has been sitting at a temporary talk sub-page here since 12 May - this is almost 2 months. Can someone please have a look at the rewritten draft and either restore it to mainspace or put the article out of its misery. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sick of cleaning up plot summary copyvios, particularly on [BT]ollywood movies. There have been no less than eightnine CCIs this year (Snigdhasinghsweet, Tamravidhir, 20130409, 20130424, Arrwiki, Shipz, Madhuric, 20130702, Vlad4) on this subject. This calls for at least some preventative measures.
The idea is, if an article contains a heading "Plot" or "Synopsis" or is titled "List of [...] episodes", an ugly notification will appear above the edit box in a similar manner to Category:Living people. This requires modifying MediaWiki:Common.js, so it will likely need a wider audience. Before I do so, I would like to get some feedback on whether I should proceed and some proposed text. Thanks.
P.S. where is everyone? MER-C 04:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Please do not copy and paste plot summaries from other websites.
Wikipedia policy requires that plot summaries must be expressed in your own words. If you believe a plot summary is copied from elsewhere, either remove it or flag it for further attention using {{
copypaste}}. The
Manual of Style contains advice on how to write a plot summary. For more information, see
Wikipedia:Copy-paste and
the copyright policy. |
Some draft text. MER-C 06:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've gone for an edit filter request for now, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Plot summary copyvios. MER-C 12:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Some users here might be interested in the discussion ive started:
-- Nbound ( talk) 07:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Since the end of July, we do not get bot reports any more, only manual reports. Anybody knows what the problem is?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I've recently come across a lot of cases where a user is copying from off-wiki, freely licensed sources, but without complying with the attribution requirements. I've tentatively blanked the infringing content with {{ copyvio}} but it occurs to me that perhaps I could instead provide the attribution. Do we have a template for this purpose? I'm aware of {{ source-attribution}} but that's only for public domain content. — Psychonaut ( talk) 08:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like Wikipedia:Copyright problems has become a complete mess, so I report my findings here.
The article Kaljo Raid has been copied almost verbatim from Kaljo Raid's biography at the Canadian Music Centre. Sijtze Reurich ( talk) 18:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Capture of Damascus (1918) has been flagged by an ip as copyvio but they haven't completed the process by listing it. (They probably ought to have flagged a section only.) I personally believe at most it's a case of too large a quote from a source, and the text is attributed. What's the correct process for resolving this? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 05:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the procedure is for dealing with convenience links that may involve copyright violations. Is the Copyright Problems page the right place to bring the problem up? The article on Andrés Segovia includes a link to an interview that is hosted on a website which appears to be run by a single person. The interview was conducted by a person (Austin Prichard-Levy) different than the website owner (Ron Payne). There is evidence suggesting that the interview was originally published in a print magazine in the early 1990s; however, I do not know whether the owner of the website has acquired the rights to the interview from the original publication. Although the interview is not an essential source for the Segovia article, it does appear to include valuable information, so it would be preferable to keep the link if possible. Dezastru ( talk) 00:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Possibly a copyright violation. -- Dandelo ( talk) 15:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Vitamin_K#Longstanding_copyright_violations I have written the account of what I discovered and did in response. I'm just trying to make sure everything is done right. The user who added the infringing material ( [1]) has no contributions listed Special:Contributions/Hmh.spronk, so I'm not sure what that means. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I cannot add an entry for Yuko Nii, it says I don't have permission to edit the page to report it. I've already added the copyvio template to the article, so whenever this problem is fixed you can extract the violation link from there. -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 01:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the listings be split up into subpages
These pages would then be transcluded onto this page. A directly-coded non-transcluded {{ main}}-type link would head each section.
Instead of the notice saying that new entries may not appear, the newest pages should appear at the top, with oldest pages at the bottom, so a complexity-overflow would leave new entries visible.
This makes the assumption that backlogged pages have already been inspected by the reviewers who participate on this page, whereas new ones should appear prominently (same as how most XfDs now function, with the new entries at the top and backlog at the bottom) -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 12:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
When using {{ copyvio}}, should the page be manually blanked, or should the auto-hiding behavior of the template be used? Please discuss at Template talk:Copyviocore#Manual blanking versus auto-hiding. Flatscan ( talk) 04:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
is a partial copy of this. Now, I believe Forbes "contributors" are just ordinary people like Wikipedia contributors, so there may not necessarily be infringement here (though I'd argue the tone and the size of verbatim quotes from outside reviews make the section unsuitable for Wiki anyway). Unsure of what the next step is, hopefully someone here can jump in. 173.160.130.14 ( talk) 04:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This developing article seems to contain lots of copyright violations, where sentences or partial sentences and phrases appear to be copy-pasted from the various sources; or are very closely paraphrased.
For example (as of now),
"Indian Air Force choppers were kept on standby in West Bengal to move in for help at short notice."
v. India Today
"It has also kept two C130J aircraft, 18 helicopters, 2 AN-32s aircraft on a standby to move at a short notice"
That's just an example; I suspect there's lots and lots.
Edit: I've removed some, see [2] [3] [4] [5] but it seems to be almost throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.26.129 ( talk) 18:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across a page that on first inspection seemed to be a duplicate of a page that exists on an English Heritage site. The pages are Wikipedia: Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland and English Heritage: timeline: Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland
However on investigation the creation of the Wikipeida page was 2002 and the copyright on the English Heritage site was 2013. The problem is that the English Heritage site will not have a long history for archiving and the copyright may be updated yearly ... bla bla bla.
I think I have have come up with a technique for case such as this which may cut down the time involved in working out who copied whom and proving it. This is by sampling different versions of the Wikpedia page against the other web page:
Comparing the English Heritage page and various generations of the Wikipedia page using the Duplication Detector returns:
So the matches are highest earlier in 2013 ( this edit on 27 April made quite a large change to the Wikipedia page and so decreased the total match) so it looks as if English Heritage copied the Wikipedia article in early 20013.
Of course this does not mean that the page was not created from so other third pary source, but it does show the relationship over copying between these two pages.
I hope this is of some use to others, and if the technique can be of general use perhaps it can be turned into guidance. -- PBS ( talk) 13:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-- PBS ( talk) 13:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Several paragraphs copied straight from the BirdLife International website, a major source for the article, in addition to smaller snippets copied from other sources, were added by an IP editor to one section of the article, and reinstated by 18AA ext2013. I laid out the details on the talk page, and notified the user. This user then added the same text again after my message. I don't think any of 18AA ext2013's edits are copyright violations given how they are written, but I would like it if somebody would check them. Otherwise, I suppose I could revert all this user's additions.
As far as the possible copyright violations in the remaining additions by 18AA ext2013, it doesn't look like any of the options are listed are correct. Also, should I bring this up at an administrator's noticeboard page, after warning the user once and only getting a reinstatement in response? — innotata 00:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a general question, but also a specific one as all revisions up to and including this edit of Greene Street Friends School have text lifted from various parts of the school's web page.
Is there a general noticeboard for this kind of thing? I know that generally requests for revision-deletion are kept hush-hush because they generally surround privacy issues, but here is no privacy issue here.
If there is not a general notice board, I would recommend that one be created for privacy-is-not-an-issue revdelete requests. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Lenghty synopsis section appears to be taken verbatim from here. I am pretty sure this is a copyvio because the 'English' of the text is 'Russian English', not 'English English'.-- Smerus ( talk) 15:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Robert J. Lagomarsino may have a copyvio in the tagged section. Djembayz ( talk) 01:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been doing research on several Burger King related articles and came across this book, Fast Food and Junk Food: An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat, Volume 1 (2011) By Andrew F. Smith, on Google Books here.
As I read through the contents of the book I noticed that a good portion of the book uses barely disguised copy and paste text from articles on Burger King that were written more than two years before the book's publication. In fact a good portion of the section of the book on BK is almost the exact text I wrote in these articles, just mildly reworded. I am now afraid that I may be accused of copyright infringement based on the text's similarity to my contributions on Wikipedia.
The author also utilizes the same sources that I have used in generating content to these articles as well.
What can be done about this issue? -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 07:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to get the community's opinion as to whether or not copied episode summaries are considered copyright violations, or whether they are fair use. Looking at Family Guy (season 12), for example, the episode 8 summary is "When Carter cancels the annual Quahog Christmas carnival out of hatred for the holiday, Peter must turn his Scrooge of a father-in-law into a hometown hero to save the event. Meanwhile, Stewie comes up with a plan to get the one thing he wants for Christmas." This google search shows what the sentence is adapted from, with entries that clearly predate the insertion into Wikipedia.
This kind of very close paraphrasing happens all the time, in lots of different series, and no one seems to be going after it. Is it a problem? If so, what do we do. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the 'Professional Career' section of the Carlos Finlay page appears to have been copied verbatim from http://yellowfever.lib.virginia.edu/reed/finlay.html, a website bearing a copyright notice. The subject of this article features in a Google Doodle today, this page may become very popular immediately. Neildorgan ( talk) 03:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The template for creating new date pages is {{ subst:Cppage}}. This should probably be mentioned somewhere on WP:CP. 63.251.123.2 ( talk) 01:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Prior revisions must be deleted for copyvio. there are too many sources though. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
A delrev request was made at Arachnophobia, see [6], but the case isn't obvious enough and it's been days since the request, so I bring this here for your consideration. Regards, Cenarium ( talk) 12:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
What's the criteria for asking for a revdel in addition to removing the copyright infringement? Does it have to be as blatant as the 1st link Google Search Pages brings up when you type the title into Google? Or if the whole page is infringing (but that's still CSD G12)? TeleComNasSprVen ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Material from http://www.drugs.com/pro/hms.html has been repeatedly added to Medrysone ( history) by User:128.163.8.192 and User:Ambi223, the latter stating "Undid revision 585416429 by Anypodetos (talk) I am in compliance with Drugs.com 's attribution guidelines. Please do not remove again." I can't see that this is allowed from Drug.com's terms of use page, but I don't want to start an edit war. Could someone have a look at this? Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 10:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The revisions of this article still has copyrighted lyrics. Lyrics are unfree under copyright law of Indonesia. The lyricist died in 2010, so the song is still unfree. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The current sandbox is Talk:article X/temp, but they've just launched a new [[Draft:]] namespace ( WP:Drafts), and ae currently discussing its use. As the replacement articles are drafts for replacing a copyvio version, perhaps discussion for using this namespace should be started? -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 21:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just merged two articles Sand Point, Somerset and Middle Hope into a new article at Sand Point and Middle Hope. This caused MadmanBot to slap a copyright notice on the new article as it detected (rightly) that some of the content was the same as this article from U.S.S. Post - a mirror of one of the previous wp articles. Is there any way the Bot can take into account the merging process and take into account that wps articles are copied all over the place?— Rod talk 10:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I had reported this article as problematic yesterday, since it had infringing content since creation yet had some non-infringing content added later. I felt that most of the non-infringing content was not worth keeping due to tone/sourcing in any case, but the article was maybe not a clear-cut G12 so I didn't delete it. I wanted to get a new article up for this subject, though, rather than the blanked page with the copyvio notice, so I went ahead and made a new draft and moved it over the old page. The old edits are deleted, as a result. I hope all of this is in order, and my short-circuiting of the process was ok in this case. Please take a look. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 06:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit copied complete paragraphs and part of the table from this site. There is no copyright notice or date on the site. I deleted it as unsourced, but is also a copyvio? 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 04:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Some revisions, like this and that, copied this source. George Ho ( talk) 02:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording regarding WP:Revision deletion#1, Blatant copyright violations. Flatscan ( talk) 05:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Could we centralize discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Revision_deletion#RD1_wording? NE Ent 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If an article completely comprises of content copied from another article without attribution, what to do in such a case. According to the Copying within Wikipedia guideline it violates Wikipedia's Copyrights policy, so can such an article be considered a CSD#G12 case? And if not how to proceed in such a case? I am talking about Shivani Financial article, I first reduced the content that I found copied from FXCM article but later realized the complete article was copied. -- SMS Talk 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder that as we don't have a working bot at the moment copy and paste taggings aren't being listed here so this category is slowly filling up. Presumably the close paraphrase category is as well. I will try to spend some time on it but as I've just started a new job I'm not sure how much time I'll have. Dpmuk ( talk) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I am seeking assistance on House of Dlamini. I stepped in to try and moderate an edit war that stems from a claim of copyvio which seems to have been going on for years. See Talk:House_of_Dlamini#Edit_warring - it is a long thread and I have only just managed to get an answer about where the infringement stems from [8]. Even then it is complicated, but basically much of the information up to the 1980's may trace back to Burke's Peerage, though the formatting and wording suggests it has been copypasted from the website. More recent information has been researched by the webmaster ( User:Royalty2012).
The question really is where is the fine line between using information from a website and creating a copyright violation? Is it just the layout and wording, or in this case does the extent of the data (99%) used impact the situation. Does User:Royalty2012 have any better claim to the content of the information he has researched and published, or just the layout of it?
I really would appreciate broader assistance with this issue and a way forward. -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Copyright experts: Investigating an old Afc draft led me to this article of the same name which appears to have a large amount of copyvio from:
as well as smaller sections from many other pages on the company's web site. It appears that all of the text was copied from the site and then some parts were edited to be third person, more concise, etc. How much of a web site needs to be in violation of copyright before the whole thing is speedily deeleted? I deleted the Afc draft rather than historymerging it, because it was all copyvio. — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A user requested to RevDelete the revisions of
Aegukka containing the song's lyrics
[9]. I realized, however, that a very large number of revisions contain the lyrics, so it might be unfeasible to RevDelete them all. Posting here for review.
decltype
(
talk)
19:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
A previous editor noted in 2010 that in the article on Durkheim [10]much content is copied from Britannica. After that, some one has edited the page to include a reference to the Britannica article and apparently rephrased some sentences. However, the article seems to contain many complete sentences and paragraphs from the Britannica article. Is this copyvio or not and what should be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.173.46 ( talk) 09:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This article consists entirely of " a list of scholarly, encyclopaedic and other notable definitions of the term pogrom, in chronological order". During a recent AfD (now closed as 'no consensus') I suggested that there might be copyright issues, and accordingly am raising the matter here, where hopefully those familiar with copyright policy and guidelines can give their input. The problem is that it consists to a great extent of direct quotations, largely from sources which are presumably still copyright. It seems to me that this may well exceed what might reasonably be considered 'fair use', in that it isn't extracting part of each definition from each source, but quoting it in full, or substantially so, with no further analysis: effectively just mirroring the source definitions. Are my concerns valid, or am I being over-picky? It certainly isn't normal Wikipedia practice to compile an article or list almost entirely from quotations, and my reading of Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright suggests that there may be legitimate grounds for disallowing such extensive quote-compiliation. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 09:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it a Linking to copyrighted works violation, if Site A let you open Site B inside Site A, apparently without permission from Site B? somewhat like transclusion. I am referring to this site as Site A and this as Site B. -- SMS Talk 18:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone (at "143.231.249.137, is registered to Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives") keep adding data cut and pasted from http://castor.house.gov/biography/. Is the data from this web site PD as US gov? or will they need permission? Ronhjones (Talk) 22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This article appears to take a large amount of data from a single source, and thus I think there may be copyright concerns. See post at article talk page. Eldumpo ( talk) 07:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just left a {{ nothanks}} template on the talk page of CorneliaHTang for her copy-paste copyvio at Sherman Ong. Looking back up her page, I find that it is the sixth time I've left her one of those. She has to date steadfastly ignored all requests to discuss her edits, which are in any case entirely promotional. I'm wondering if it is not time to attract her attention, and perhaps also that of IP 58.185.1.178 or the range 58.185.1.176 - 58.185.1.191, in a more decisive way? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
YogaWP ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YogaWP was blocked briefly in July 2013 for copyright violations. Poking at the SCV backlog, I noticed that Asty Ananta#Career is likely an unattributed translation of id:Asty Ananta. I'm suspicious -- just suspicious, I haven't checked thoroughly -- that this isn't the end of the story, given that the user appears to be under the impression that their talk page is for drafting articles [12] [13], not communicating with other editors. (As an aside, this is exactly the editing pattern I ranted about on AN). MER-C 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why WP:CP and WP:CCI have two different sets of clerks? Should we combine these into one role, given that they have a significant intersection? MER-C 12:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This has been quite a problem for some time, see WP:ANI#Europa Universalis vandalism and copyvio from Charles Esdaile - need range block. Dougweller ( talk) 18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, copyright experts. This draft article was recently deleted for copyright problems and NPOV problems while I was working on it. I had just finished removing the promotional content and rewriting the one short paragraph of the draft in my own words. Apparently that wasn't enough, but I would like to have a chance to continue improving the article, and also have someone point out to me what the remaining copyright problems are so that I can fix them. — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a copyright violation notification in the Gordon Ramsay wiki page. However, it appears to have been resolved as indicated on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_January_4. I hesitate to remove the template from the Ramsay page (not sure if that is ok or not) so I figured a quick note on this talk page is the least I could do (so that people who know more can handle this appropriately). -- gt24 ( talk) 18:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
A noobie user keeps creating articles, based on word-for-word cut-and-paste from his blog. He seems to think he can do that. Can somebody explain this to the user? Bearian ( talk) 16:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors: This is the first time I have come across this, so I want to check before taking action. As part of this Afc submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hayley Brabant, the editor has included a poem written by the subject. There is no indication that this poem is published elsewhere, but I assume that in order for it to be in Wikipedia it would have to be formally donated. Is this correct? What if the author made it up and typed it in just as others add prose? As well as declining the article as about a non-notable person, I plan to remove the poem as a copyright violation. Is this correct? Is this enough to undo the licensing that happens when text is added to Wikipedia? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear copyright experts: Would someone please check the above article? To me it seems that the plot summary is too closely related to the sales pitch text at https://itunes.apple.com/ca/movie/mac-and-devin-go-to-high-school/id617135138 . I have removed it twice some time ago, but it keeps coming back. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the offer of weekends away was just to tease you into reading. Basically I'm too lazy to figure out which form to fill in so I just thought I'd appeal to any passing soft-touch, rule-bending, live-by-the-seat-of-their-pants Wikipedia grandee for advice. I found some plagiarism on Belle (2013 film) (coming hard on the disappointment of discovering I was not the film's inspiration), so I left a note on the article talk page but I don't think that page sees a lot of action. If this is all humdrum run-of-the-mill stuff just pat my virtual head and send me on my way, but I didn't know whether it was a big deal or not, and the 10 or so pages I gave up ploughing my way through on the way here seemed to suggest you (the Wikipedia-mega-entity) got quite cross about this sort of thing. Belle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellemora ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) OK, I've found how to do a proper signature now. Don't hassle me man 14:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Bellemora ( talk) 14:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I wondered if I could get a second opinion before I pursue this further. I've noticed several articles which contain material taken from Who Was Who. The copied material is usually a list of career positions the subject held in chronological order, with little or no attempt at paraphrasing. I put two examples at User:January/Temporary page (so that I can delete it once it has served its purpose, I've had to copy from the source myself to show the problem since access requires a subscription outside the UK), which are representative of the varying degrees of copying I've found; the first is a simple copy, the other has some modifications but is still recognisable. Does WP:NOCREATIVE cover this or are these additions problematic? January ( talk) 14:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A new user added content in a series of edits. He also uploaded a number of images. His username matches the name at his website. He communicated with me at my talk saying he owns the images and content. I believe him. But, I asked him to OTRS the images anyway. As for the content, it appears verbatim at his website, which has a copyright notice at the bottom. I've asked him to remove/reword the content or add a CC to his website. He's been out of touch. Should I just forget about it? Guidance needed.
Links:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear copyright experts: I have several times tried to report copyright problems here, and despite doing my best to follow directions, not once have my entries ended up in the right place. I apologize in advance, since this will likely happen again unless I just don't report any more of these. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, although this photograph of the deceased Alfred Dunhill was taken in 1893, I have not been able to prove that it was published before 1944 or whenever the copyright limitations expire. Upload: [14] Tom ( talk) 17:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The 3rd paragraph of this article is copied from the reference cited for it. Consequently I am also concerned about the 2nd and 4th paragraphs, but I don't have access to the cited work to check them. Lavateraguy ( talk) 16:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure whether this is the right place to start this discussion, but I was led here by a link at Template:copyvio-revdel.
RevDel of a range spanning hundreds of edits of Crimean status referendum, 2014 unrelated to the copyvio has been requested. I oppose the RevDel as this would break the attribution of these edits. Petr Matas 09:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors);
Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website; or
Through a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions).
Still, I think that such RevDel would make to much harm to the article's history, which contains a large amount of information, which would be lost to the public. I think that the removal of the copyvio in a single sourced paragraph reporting on the opinion of the Hungarian ministry is not worth it. Petr Matas 11:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
A newly-registered account alleges that "This article contains copyrighted material from a biography of Ian Huntley, Beyond Evil by Nathan Yates ISBN 1844541428, but without citing the book. I have entered citations and a reference". I don't know if this means entire paragraphs were copy-pasted, but it does appear that even after the new account has entered citations, the copied material is still not enclosed within quotation marks. It looks like the material indicated may have been in the article since at least 2009. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at Template talk:Weather box#Separate templates and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#You wrong. Is Subtropical-man correct and the templates require attribution. Thanks. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Heartbleed has text copied from Stackexchange, since this revision. As it is CC-BY-SA, the text should be attributed properly. Normal CC-BY-SA Attribution can be done by Template:CCBYSASource, however stackexchange requires that nofollow may not be used [15]. What to do? -- Muelleum ( talk) 00:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the SO content in that revision of the heartbleed article. If someone can say where it is, I can probably rewrite it. (Better to use the article talk page for this). 70.36.142.114 ( talk) 10:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL, stackexchange itself serves links with nofollow, including links to wikipedia. [19] And they have a thread about nofollow. [20] 70.36.142.114 ( talk) 15:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I left Jimbo a talk message, but his page mentions that he's unavailable for a week or so. I also wonder if that SE TOU purports to require contributors to enforce that nofollow condition on SE's behalf. That would of course be even crazier than the other parts. 70.36.142.114 ( talk) 15:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I left a message on Mindspillage's user talk (she does legal stuff for CC now). 70.36.142.114 ( talk) 10:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? Anything? Muelleum ( talk) 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, this is Jay from Stack Exchange. Thanks for highlighting this - I'm going to work with our lawyers on how we can clarify our ToS, but here's the gist:
Put another way, assuming you're sure that you're giving attribution for our content in a manner consistent with CC-SA, you should be fine. We love Wikipedia, and one of the main reasons we use CC-SA is the desire to be two-way compatible with your stuff (mostly so our users can post excerpts when needed). JaydlesSE ( talk) 21:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)JaydlesSE
Its great to hear you are working on the issue, and that the CA license supersedes. Muelleum ( talk) 18:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Wondering if everyone here is aware of this effort? The hope is to run new edits over a certain size through Turnitin and flag those which may have likely copyright issues for human follow-up. The plan was initially to launch it for medical articles. Would this tool be useful to this group as well? We have some support from the Wiki Education Foundation as well as a number of other Wikipedians. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor and I had a dispute over a sentence that led to the Charlene, Princess of Monaco article being protected. The administrator who protected it did not bother to check the object of dispute before protecting the article, so now we have blatant copyright violation locked into the article. There is a clear consensus that the sentence should be removed, but requests to edit the still-protected (protected against what, I wonder) article have been ignored. Can someone take a look at the article? The copyvio is the last sentence in the Charlene, Princess of Monaco#Princess of Monaco section. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
What's up with the footer? Templates are not transcluding, and showing up in red. I tried to fix it; in the edit preview pane, they transcluded properly and there were no red links. However, the saved page once again refused to transclude. — Gorthian ( talk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
On the new listings page the size is 1,602,719/2,048,000 bytes:
On this page (without the new listings) it is 1,247,531/2,048,000.
Total 2,850,250 - way over the limit.
Template {{
Laq}}
reduces the size of each transclusion compared with {{
La}}
by about 60% which may be just enough, though I have already used it somewhat for the figures above. I wonder if we should jettison the "Views" field, it was something I introduced in RfD, but I don't see the same value here. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC).
{{
Laq}}
has reduced the total size to 1,799,656 bytes.Medium term one of the following must happen to prevent recurrence (or of course any other fix):
{{
Laq}}
instead of {{
La}}
{{
La}}
is slimmed down either as much as {{
Laq}}
, or almost as much.All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC).
{{
Laq}}
so we can keep our footers. I'm very grateful. :) --
Moonriddengirl
(talk)
11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Could someone add http://hausmieten.potiori.com/ to the list of partial mirrors of Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia articles that match ones in http://hausmieten.potiori.com/ are not flagged as copyvios? Multiregional TransitTelecom was deleted because a Duplication Detector report showed that it was similar to http://hausmieten.potiori.com/Interregional_TransitTelekom.html I created a new stub version of Multiregional TransitTelecom, and then discovered that http://hausmieten.potiori.com/Interregional_TransitTelekom.html had been updated to reflect my new version. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just left a {{ nothanks}} notice on the talk page of editor Krokuss, the third such in a few days. That page is festooned with various kinds of copyright warning, not all of them from me. Is it perhaps time to show this editor that we actually mean it when we say that "persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing"? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just listed Desperate Journey as a copyvio here. The infringing content was added by Bwmoll3, a user who has a huge open CCI, and has another (sandbox) copyvio still listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 19. With regret, I request a block until we can determine with absolute certainty whether the behaviour that led to the CCI is continuing or not. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I may have stepped in something. I want to get my facts straight. Is a copyvio permissible here if it is in hidden text? I'm talking about something like this. Any answer welcomed, but pinging Moonriddengirl, MER-C and Diannaa for their take. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've now posted at WP:COIN about the COI aspect I mentioned above. The thread is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#LA Models. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Mentioned here [22]. Am trying to drum up support for a solution. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been watching User:J.H.McDonnell for some time, and I suspect that he is copy/pasting from The Treatise in Invertebrate Paleontology for the pages as most of his writing is not nearly as sophisticated as the technical description sections added to pages, and the edits usually so relictual formatting from other site. However I do not have access to the volumes of the Treatise that he is using so I am unable to verify for sure.-- Kev min § 00:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This page has landed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded because it is transcluding too much content. I don't know how often this happens, and how long it has been a problem. Someone more familiar with this part of project administration may have better ideas about a solution, but my first inclination is to convert some older transclusions to links, as needed to take the page back under the technical limit for transcluded text. Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried substituting Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header, but that was not enough. the post-expand include size of that sub-page is: 75467/2048000 bytes, of which 42659/2048000 bytes are in turn transcluded by templates on that subpage. In other words, that sub-page transcludes only 3.7% of the transclusion limit. Seems best to leave that page component be. Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... <!--{{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings}} temp subst: we can see progess-->
So, clearly there is not room for both old and new listings: 94% + 35% = 129% and we can't go over 100%.
I see: "This is a
known problem that can only be solved by clearing the backlog."
MER-C 12:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, it could also be solved by reconfiguring the way this system works! Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
VWBot stopped editing Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings for "automatic addition of new listings and archiving of listings older than 7 days" after 30 May 2011. Is that the root of the problem? Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Use Template:La/x instead. I wrote that comment last year when MadmanBot was using that template (something that was never propagated back to the CSB codebase). MER-C 03:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
"Mirror of CorenSearchBot, which has been offline since 31 December 2011. CorenSearchBot has become invaluable to WikiProject Copyright Cleanup and the Suspected Copyright Violations patrollers; unfortunately, no one's been able to contact Coren recently (regarding the bot or even ArbCom matters)."So can I assume that when Coren's bot came back online, Madman's was shut down as redundant? Why is it so hard to contact Coren? Doesn't this guy work for the Foundation? Wbm1058 ( talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
La/x}}
. —
Coren
(talk)
19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This user page User:Swatpig appears to be a verbatim copy and paste of this website copyrighted by a Charles Cazabon. According to the user page's revision history, it was created in 2007 and has not been edited a single time since. There is also no citation provided for to the Cazabon site at all. Since the Cazabon site says "All content copyrighted from 1998–2009 by Charles Cazabon", it's seem unlikely that he would claim a copyright over material that he got off of Wikipedia and his site just mirrors the "Swatpig" page. WP:DCV says that a {{ copypaste}} should be added to the relevant talk page is such cases, but since this is a user page I am not sure if it is appropriate to add such a template. Furthermore, although both WP:G12 and WP:U5 as well as WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:UP#Copyright violations also seem to apply, I am not sure if it is appropriate to tag the page for speedy deletion. I've searched through this talk page's archives for information regarding the "Swatpig" page, but had no luck finding any; Therefore, I am very interested in hearing what others think should be done in this particular case. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The Judgepedia article is up for an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgepedia
The use of Judepedia as a reliable source is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Judgepedia
The Judgepedia website says
Wikipedia on Judgepedia
Wikipedia content should not be added directly to Judgepedia, and Judgepedia content should not be added directly to Wikipedia. The two websites are licensed under different copyright agreements, and have different editorial focuses and different writing and visual style standards. Judgepedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, while Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License ( Judgepedia:How to contribute to Judgepedia#Wikipedia on Judgepedia).
The list of articles that mention to the Judgepedia page is not large ( 158 articles -- when I did the search)
I looked down the list and picked one at random Zoran Popovich it has in it a disclaimer ( from 2 June 2009) that text in the article was copied from Judgepedia.
- Material on this page was initially imported from the Judgepedia article on Zoran Popovich, and has been expressly released under the GFDL per Judgepedia:Copyrights..
Has it ever been OK to import text from Judgepeida and is it still OK to do so? If it was and no longer is when did the change take place? -- PBS ( talk) 12:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The tool is up and running in beta form for only medical articles. The results are here Wikipedia:MED/Copyright. Will likely need a bit of adjusting. I will look at things in detail in a week or two when I make it home. If you are interested please take a look and provide feedback on the talk page / fix copyright issues found. It is still in a rough stage so I imagine there will be a lot of false positive. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a general question regarding an image which has been uploaded to Wikipedia using {{ PD-because}}. The reason given is "official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin". The uploaded image is a jpg file and there is no link to any website, etc. given to show from where the image originated. WP:PD#International aspects says "In other words: a work that is not copyrightable in one country (even if that country is its country of origin) can still be copyrighted in other countries, if the work is copyrightable there." So, my question is: Are things such as symbols of national institutions, etc. exempt from copyright in the country of origin considered to be public domain by other countries? WP:DCV says that a {{ copypaste}} can be added to the article's talk page in there are questions regarding copyright, but not sure if that just applies to text. Please advise whether it's appropriate for me to post the specific file link here or whether I should discuss this on the article's talk page first. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Some months ago I copied an article from another Wiki under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence for an article called 1814 campaign in France, and gave it the appropriate attribution (see see edit February 2014 ).
On 27 August Nikkimaria zapped most of it intending to rewrite it. In doing this Nikkimaria removed the attribution. I have left a message on Nikkimaria's talk page raising a concern that I do not think that the attribution template can be removed unless the article history is zapped and a new article is written from scratch because the article remains a derived work under the terms CC-3.0. This of course is a copyleft licensing issue and is different from removing PD source and PD attribution when no text the original PD source exists in a Wikiepdia article. Nikkimaria reverted my re-attribution edit, so we need more input on whether the attribution template is needed so that a consensus can be reached.
I have suggested to Nikkimaria that if Nikkimaria rewrites the article in a sand box, then we can delete the history, but unless that is done I think that the attribution template should remain on the article because it remains a derived work. What do others think? -- PBS ( talk) 09:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Can a photograph taken in the USA at some indefinite point between 1900 and 1911 still be within copyright. I'm keen to use this image (Cadet Corp in Woodburn Circle) which clearly shows a building completely lacking a wing which was completed in 1911 - Allowing for building and construction time, I put the photo at about 1905. However, the site owner claims this image is copyright. What's the ruling on this? Giano (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've recently received permission from the copyright owner for text on an article that was speedily deleted. How should I note this? Anon126 ( notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 09:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I have tried at add information about our school to supplement what is already on file and recognize the changes within the management. Every time I do it I get a bot deleting my revisions - yet All that I post is true and not violating copytright as it is my copy!! I am an employee of the school.
Please help - I want to enhance in info about the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.149.245 ( talk) 10:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There are currently more than 20,000 pages linked to the lyrics website MetroLyrics, which were added by User:LyricsBot [23]. In researching some song articles for GANs, I noticed a number of problems, which were first brought to the attention of the bot operator, User:Dcoetzee in June 2014 ( User talk:Dcoetzee#MetroLyrics concern). Despite additional comments in July and September, the problems have not been adequately addressed. On September 27, 2014, Dcoetzee announced his semi-retirement. [24] The problems regard copyrighted song lyrics – specifically, a high percentage of the MetroLyrics links list the wrong songwriter (see above talk link for details). Since this is a potential WP:LINKVIO concern, please let me know where I should raise this if not here. — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Not really sure how to handle copyvio issues, but this page: Larry Kusche, may be a copyright violation from this external site: American Skeptics; where the section on Kusche is verbatim as to what is on WP. I did a check using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and got a 97% certainty report. However, it turned up digplanet.com, which I know copies from WP, not vice versa. Not sure what to do, but thought I should bring it to someone's attention. Onel5969 ( talk) 22:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I added a copypaste banner to St John's Church, Peasedown St John in December, and it appears on this list for 30 December. Should I take any other action to get this looked at?— Rod talk 12:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I found several paragraphs copied word for word from University of Colorado webpage to the wiki page Spider mite. I put a tag on it as explained at WP:DCV which also said to leave a note here. Additional details on Talk:Spider mite. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a newspaper clipping picture I would like to send you about Richard Barry Earl of Barrymore's life... Don't know if it would be of interest to your information? Regards Traci Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.133.109 ( talk) 07:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I got a question about a specific page and a specific issue: The article Jehovah's Witnesses by country is reusing a significant portion of information (a set of numbers) from one copyrighted source, where the source lists the information over several pages. The whole article is build on one specific source, and consists pretty much of a table. The table is reworked by a/some Wikipedia editors, as it lists the country by continent instead of alphabetic, and some of the numbers in the source are not reused, but the selection made seems to depend of interest to the article rather than of deliberately not copying the complete set of numbers. The article is dependent of the exact numbers as they given in the specific source, to be of any value. Is this ok, or could it be considered as violation of 2013 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses (the site linked in the article, jw.org/en, do have it's own term of use as well). Grrahnbahr ( talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
There's a tag on the FIVB article that says it sounds like an advertisement. That's probably because the first section was lifted wholesale from the FIVB website. Compare the FIVB Wiki article to http://www.fivb.org/EN/fivb/FIVB_History.asp . It becomes clear why there's such toadying for a gluttonous snake like Ruben Acosta in the Wiki article.
But it's just that first section. It's not the /entire/ article. I'm kind of a Wikipedia outsider (and I very much wish to remain that way) so I don't know what to do about it. Hopefully someone reading this will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.130.14 ( talk) 01:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Where_to_list_copyright_problem_-_text_from_obit_copied_into_article_space.
I'm not sure where/how to list this.
It looks like the original material in question has since been removed from the article by the editor that added it, but this issue could still use some looking into. — Cirt ( talk) 17:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've recently started patrolling new pages again since NPP has a very large backlog and I regularly find article that set off my alarm for a possible copyright violation. I have my own ways of checking an article for violation but I'm curious to see how others check articles for violation.
When checking for violations, I basically just copy parts of the text and search for that text using Google. If a website seems to share a large portion of that text, I check to make sure that it's not a false positive (Google just searches for each word and can sometimes show a page that shares those words in a different order). I then check that website's copyright claim to make sure that the content is or isn't shared in a way that's compatible with WP's license. How do you search for copyright violations? I'm interested in improving my methods and I'm sure there are many of you whom have methods that might be beneficial to others. OlYeller21 Talktome 05:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I tagged Interpublic Group of Companies with {{ copypaste}} (see Interpublic Group of Companies § Copyvio). While there were clearly some sites that had cribbed from WP, others looked like they had not, and might have been the original sources, possibly from IPG-provided PR material. Do I need to do anything else, or will this come to the attention of those who patrol for these things? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. A user, Nasirir has been deleting copyvio tags on several articles, namely Abe Garm Larijan, Malek Bahman Castle, and Mir Bozorg Tomb. I replaced the tags and warned the user; however, he left a message on my talk page asserting he was the site owner of the site with the material in question. I don't know how to handle this, but thought I should mention it here. Since he reverted the tags again, I haven't redeleted them, although I believe someone else has, as of now. Thanks. Deadbeef (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The image commons:file:Picture_468.jpg might be lifted from an external site, a TinEye search shows several external hits, including http://www.medlibrary.org/medwiki/Veterinarian. However, the commons uploader marked it as self/ownwork/GFDL 1.2. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to report suspected copyvios from Commons; WP:COPYVIO doesn't mention the Commons. CS Miller ( talk) 09:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I've alerted an admin who's offered help with problematic behavior on this talk page before, but I note that, when I posted to the admin's talk page, he/she hadn't edited today. Would someone please review my edits here and intervene if necessary, or slap me with a trout if I'm getting all hyped up over nothing. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the apparent way to report copyvio is braindead. Delete this if you don't like it, but better fix that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rumeli_map.jpg
This is almost certainly a copyvio, as there is no indication that the rights of the map have been secured. -- 91.10.32.201 ( talk) 17:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Can anyone of you please take a look at the article's talk page. I left some comments regarding the last edits made to the page, and one of them seems to be a copyvio issue. Thanks.-- Jetstreamer Talk 13:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I am the owner of www.majorforms.com. I have written several articles for the site and have noticed that some are not included in Wikipedia. I would like the opportunity to contribute our articles to Wikipedia. I would like to copy and paste the articles rather than have to write them over again. I give permission to Wikipedia to use the information. I was attempting to set up an article and the wiki wizard told me to apply here to be able to paste material before I created the article. Here is an example of one of our articles I am seeking permission to add to Wikipedia through a cut and paste.
The Anteaters Club
The Anteaters Club existed from 1940 through the mid 1960s. It was started by the director of the National Zoo (located here), William Mann, and Gordon Leech who had a concession to fine dining at the zoo restaurant (which no longer exists). While dining together one day, Mann half kidding, wondered why buffalo was not on the menu. Leech felt challenged and obtained a side of bison from Oklahoma and invited friends and family to dine. The group decided that it might be nice to meet periodically to further partake in the eating of exotic animals. They christened their club the Anteaters Club because it was the one animal everyone agreed they would not want to eat.
Animals were obtained from various sources (none were taken from zoos unless they had died naturally). Over the years the Club feasted on seal, beaver, turtle, whale, reindeer, elk, eland, wild boar, wild duck, kangaroo, sturgeon, ring-necked pheasant, elephant, Scottish stag, hippo, rattlesnake, alligator, bear, caribou, Canadian geese, iguana, moose, Chukar partridge, and venison to name just a few. Word spread and the Anteaters Club became the toast of the town. Its membership included important politicians, journalists, wealthy businessmen and women, well-known athletes, diplomats, and other distinguished people. The numbers grew into the hundreds. The chef of the restaurant had a special way of preparing the feasts, like cooking elephant in a light wine sauce.
references:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-31/opinions/36874192_1_national-zoo-exotic-animals-iguana
I would also reference our website because I knew several people that went to the meetings and have added pertinent information not found in the reference and we have located the specific site where the anteater club met in the Washington Zoo (the meeting place no longer exists)
http://www.majorforms.com/article_view.php?id=137622
Volcanoman7 ( talk) 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, in what way is it allowed to use public information of motorcycle specifiations? I just started Kawasaki Z800 and User:MadmanBot alerted some little similarities to http://www.kawasaki.eu/Z800/Specifications + http://www.kawasaki-z800.de/#features – is it sufficient to reword the specs (what is a bit difficult to not change them technically)? For example, how can I use the technical info "Bottom-Link Uni-Trak, gas-charged shock with piggyback reservoir and stepless rebound damping and preload adjustability" properly. (That is the longest "phrase", all other info is only a few words) -- Trofobi ( talk) 06:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks. Oceansat-1 was recently deleted as a copyvio, and then recreated by the original author. I blanked a small portion of the recreated article as being a problematic instance of close paraphrasing. The author has now, quite reasonably, asked how they should properly paraphrase densely written technical descriptions of ten to twelve words at a time. They also mention WP:LIMITED. I do realise that in cases like this where the original text is very heavily laden with technical terms, it can be extremely difficult to paraphrase or summarise it properly. (Although I don't agree that it falls under WP:LIMITED.) Can anyone more experienced with properly paraphrasing, suggest how paraphrasing these pieces of sentences would best be done? Many thanks. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 00:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I reported these articles as possible copyright problems on 13 March. The pages these were copied from now have "Re-use of this work is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" but the articles still have the copyvio templates. Is it still necessary for an administrator to check? Peter James ( talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed copyvio while checking this article which is under [ AfD consideration.] I documented two possible instances of cut-and-paste in the AfD discussion and flagged them in the article. However, I presume that it would be problematic to tag the page with outright copyvio and thus blank it while it is under AfD consideration. Could an experienced editor or administrator advise? Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Would the image on these page be considered free content:
...as a depiction of an out-of-copyrighted three-dimensional work?
-- RA ( talk) 11:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it seems like the template transclusion limit's been exceeded for this page, just a heads-up as it's messing up the magic words at the bottom of the page. -- RAN1 ( talk) 20:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a growing trend for some organisations to create books based on Wikipedia articles. These range from well presented, to not much more than a hacked cut and past job which looks like something a ten year old might produce. If it is properly lichened then given the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and terms of use both are legal. However there are a growing number of books which plagiarise Wikipedia content that do not follow the conditions laid out in the licences or the terms of use.
The most recent example I have come across is Charlotte Brontë see Talk:Charlotte Brontë#Backwardscopy. Have sent an email to Google under their " report an issue" link and "File a notice of infringement (US Digital Millennium Copyright Act)". They have replied. Is there any guidance/support about what to do next, as their email reply is designed for authors, publishers or their agents and is difficult to answer simply without possibly being open to accusations of false representation. -- PBS ( talk) 09:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This brief article about a newspaper has been bulked out very nicely, today. I went to check a fact and found the addition is a copy and paste from an official site on the subject of local newspapers. Is the copy and paste OK or an infringement? Eddaido ( talk) 08:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
When using this http://toolserver.org/~earwig/copyvios Copyvio Detector, at what point (percent confidence of a violation) does one take action (i.e., post a warning on the talk page, report the article, etc)? Thanks in advance for your advice.-- Godot13 ( talk) 06:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been helping again cleaning copyright problems and did a few pages of Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I just saw they are also transluded every day on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Is that a good idea? Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations can also be dealt with by non-admins and is always (I think) removed from a page by an admin. WP:Copyright problems is only dealt with by admins. I also am too lazy (and other editors seems to be as well) on suspected copyright problems to write down with every article why I kept it or deleted an article so when dealing with the page here, the admin has to look at it completely again. Garion96 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I would be ok with un-transcluding SCV from here. I understand why it is, but that's allowing only half as many days to transclude, meaning we have a month's worth of backlog we can't even see yet, and as a result the bot is getting confused. I took out some completed SCVs which allowed a few more days to show and I'll try to clear some more of SCV. As for a third place, it would just end up with nobody being able to manage it, unfortunately. Between trying to finish the Darius copyvios and the two processes we're unfortunately out of users. Wizardman 19:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This image seems to be used in violation of copyright at Mike Gatto. I list my reasoning on that article's talk page. I'd appreciate if someone can confirm. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Please check this series of edits. I think at least part of it was copy pasted from Thrikkadavoor or Religion in Kollam District because at one place I can see "[4]" at the end of a sentence, the same as appears in that article. But, it may have originated elsewhere.
Anyway, my question is basically what to do with it. Should I posthumously attribute it somehow or remove it as a copyvio? Please advise. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The copyright holder for a graphic I would include in a related Wikipedia page is willing to grant permission for its use. But when he saw the terms of the Commons license, granting the right for overtly commercial users to use his material, he balked. Is there no way for such an owner to grant a limited permission for the use of his material in a Wikipedia article? If so, how would it work?
As a relative novice, I find the whole matter of use of non-free material to be enormously confusing. There seem to be an endless number of license options. There are clearly multiple places where questions about policy are answered. The answers are often conflicting. I was told (here I think, but now I can't find the response) to use the Upload File link rather than the Commons Upload link and simply declare fair use. I have a hunch that is the way most people deal with problems like the one I've sketched out above, but it seems like a cop-out. Please advise. Camdenmaine ( talk) 12:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Consider a photo whose owner is willing to grant Commons permissions for unlimited use: I fill out the Upload form, indicating that the photo has been given to me by the owner and selecting "The license hasn't yet been forwarded, but I will do so shortly or ask the owner to send it himself." The Upload form tells me that permission are to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but what do I tell the owner? What exact text should he send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Shouldn't this be posted somewhere? If it is posted somewhere, shouldn't it be posted somewhere where it can be found? Camdenmaine ( talk) 12:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I solved this problem myself: Apparently the form to use is Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Might be nice if it were easier to find. According to the Creative Common license, the copyright holder has a right to require attribution; the aforementioned form, however, doesn't include a place to do that. Camdenmaine ( talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This article has had a copyright violation template for about a month now, but the source linked to doesn't appear to be the text used in the latest version of the article. PaulGS ( talk) 21:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
See Template talk:PD-signature and Template talk:PD-ineligible, where we are discussing whether the threshold of originality licensing templates should either match {{ PD-signature}} in requiring an check of the country of origin to see if it complies to the PD standards of that country or not, or match {{ PD-ineligible}} in not caring if the country of origin's rules of the threshold of originality (or special copyright protections) is met or not, only using the US standard, and whether the template should be so named to indicate that only the US standard has been checked. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This article has been tagged and blanked for copyvio since 11 May, and a re-written version (hopefully avoiding copyvio problems) has been sitting at a temporary talk sub-page here since 12 May - this is almost 2 months. Can someone please have a look at the rewritten draft and either restore it to mainspace or put the article out of its misery. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sick of cleaning up plot summary copyvios, particularly on [BT]ollywood movies. There have been no less than eightnine CCIs this year (Snigdhasinghsweet, Tamravidhir, 20130409, 20130424, Arrwiki, Shipz, Madhuric, 20130702, Vlad4) on this subject. This calls for at least some preventative measures.
The idea is, if an article contains a heading "Plot" or "Synopsis" or is titled "List of [...] episodes", an ugly notification will appear above the edit box in a similar manner to Category:Living people. This requires modifying MediaWiki:Common.js, so it will likely need a wider audience. Before I do so, I would like to get some feedback on whether I should proceed and some proposed text. Thanks.
P.S. where is everyone? MER-C 04:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Please do not copy and paste plot summaries from other websites.
Wikipedia policy requires that plot summaries must be expressed in your own words. If you believe a plot summary is copied from elsewhere, either remove it or flag it for further attention using {{
copypaste}}. The
Manual of Style contains advice on how to write a plot summary. For more information, see
Wikipedia:Copy-paste and
the copyright policy. |
Some draft text. MER-C 06:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've gone for an edit filter request for now, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Plot summary copyvios. MER-C 12:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Some users here might be interested in the discussion ive started:
-- Nbound ( talk) 07:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Since the end of July, we do not get bot reports any more, only manual reports. Anybody knows what the problem is?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I've recently come across a lot of cases where a user is copying from off-wiki, freely licensed sources, but without complying with the attribution requirements. I've tentatively blanked the infringing content with {{ copyvio}} but it occurs to me that perhaps I could instead provide the attribution. Do we have a template for this purpose? I'm aware of {{ source-attribution}} but that's only for public domain content. — Psychonaut ( talk) 08:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like Wikipedia:Copyright problems has become a complete mess, so I report my findings here.
The article Kaljo Raid has been copied almost verbatim from Kaljo Raid's biography at the Canadian Music Centre. Sijtze Reurich ( talk) 18:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Capture of Damascus (1918) has been flagged by an ip as copyvio but they haven't completed the process by listing it. (They probably ought to have flagged a section only.) I personally believe at most it's a case of too large a quote from a source, and the text is attributed. What's the correct process for resolving this? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 05:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the procedure is for dealing with convenience links that may involve copyright violations. Is the Copyright Problems page the right place to bring the problem up? The article on Andrés Segovia includes a link to an interview that is hosted on a website which appears to be run by a single person. The interview was conducted by a person (Austin Prichard-Levy) different than the website owner (Ron Payne). There is evidence suggesting that the interview was originally published in a print magazine in the early 1990s; however, I do not know whether the owner of the website has acquired the rights to the interview from the original publication. Although the interview is not an essential source for the Segovia article, it does appear to include valuable information, so it would be preferable to keep the link if possible. Dezastru ( talk) 00:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Possibly a copyright violation. -- Dandelo ( talk) 15:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Vitamin_K#Longstanding_copyright_violations I have written the account of what I discovered and did in response. I'm just trying to make sure everything is done right. The user who added the infringing material ( [1]) has no contributions listed Special:Contributions/Hmh.spronk, so I'm not sure what that means. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I cannot add an entry for Yuko Nii, it says I don't have permission to edit the page to report it. I've already added the copyvio template to the article, so whenever this problem is fixed you can extract the violation link from there. -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 01:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the listings be split up into subpages
These pages would then be transcluded onto this page. A directly-coded non-transcluded {{ main}}-type link would head each section.
Instead of the notice saying that new entries may not appear, the newest pages should appear at the top, with oldest pages at the bottom, so a complexity-overflow would leave new entries visible.
This makes the assumption that backlogged pages have already been inspected by the reviewers who participate on this page, whereas new ones should appear prominently (same as how most XfDs now function, with the new entries at the top and backlog at the bottom) -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 12:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
When using {{ copyvio}}, should the page be manually blanked, or should the auto-hiding behavior of the template be used? Please discuss at Template talk:Copyviocore#Manual blanking versus auto-hiding. Flatscan ( talk) 04:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
is a partial copy of this. Now, I believe Forbes "contributors" are just ordinary people like Wikipedia contributors, so there may not necessarily be infringement here (though I'd argue the tone and the size of verbatim quotes from outside reviews make the section unsuitable for Wiki anyway). Unsure of what the next step is, hopefully someone here can jump in. 173.160.130.14 ( talk) 04:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This developing article seems to contain lots of copyright violations, where sentences or partial sentences and phrases appear to be copy-pasted from the various sources; or are very closely paraphrased.
For example (as of now),
"Indian Air Force choppers were kept on standby in West Bengal to move in for help at short notice."
v. India Today
"It has also kept two C130J aircraft, 18 helicopters, 2 AN-32s aircraft on a standby to move at a short notice"
That's just an example; I suspect there's lots and lots.
Edit: I've removed some, see [2] [3] [4] [5] but it seems to be almost throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.26.129 ( talk) 18:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across a page that on first inspection seemed to be a duplicate of a page that exists on an English Heritage site. The pages are Wikipedia: Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland and English Heritage: timeline: Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland
However on investigation the creation of the Wikipeida page was 2002 and the copyright on the English Heritage site was 2013. The problem is that the English Heritage site will not have a long history for archiving and the copyright may be updated yearly ... bla bla bla.
I think I have have come up with a technique for case such as this which may cut down the time involved in working out who copied whom and proving it. This is by sampling different versions of the Wikpedia page against the other web page:
Comparing the English Heritage page and various generations of the Wikipedia page using the Duplication Detector returns:
So the matches are highest earlier in 2013 ( this edit on 27 April made quite a large change to the Wikipedia page and so decreased the total match) so it looks as if English Heritage copied the Wikipedia article in early 20013.
Of course this does not mean that the page was not created from so other third pary source, but it does show the relationship over copying between these two pages.
I hope this is of some use to others, and if the technique can be of general use perhaps it can be turned into guidance. -- PBS ( talk) 13:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-- PBS ( talk) 13:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Several paragraphs copied straight from the BirdLife International website, a major source for the article, in addition to smaller snippets copied from other sources, were added by an IP editor to one section of the article, and reinstated by 18AA ext2013. I laid out the details on the talk page, and notified the user. This user then added the same text again after my message. I don't think any of 18AA ext2013's edits are copyright violations given how they are written, but I would like it if somebody would check them. Otherwise, I suppose I could revert all this user's additions.
As far as the possible copyright violations in the remaining additions by 18AA ext2013, it doesn't look like any of the options are listed are correct. Also, should I bring this up at an administrator's noticeboard page, after warning the user once and only getting a reinstatement in response? — innotata 00:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a general question, but also a specific one as all revisions up to and including this edit of Greene Street Friends School have text lifted from various parts of the school's web page.
Is there a general noticeboard for this kind of thing? I know that generally requests for revision-deletion are kept hush-hush because they generally surround privacy issues, but here is no privacy issue here.
If there is not a general notice board, I would recommend that one be created for privacy-is-not-an-issue revdelete requests. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Lenghty synopsis section appears to be taken verbatim from here. I am pretty sure this is a copyvio because the 'English' of the text is 'Russian English', not 'English English'.-- Smerus ( talk) 15:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Robert J. Lagomarsino may have a copyvio in the tagged section. Djembayz ( talk) 01:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been doing research on several Burger King related articles and came across this book, Fast Food and Junk Food: An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat, Volume 1 (2011) By Andrew F. Smith, on Google Books here.
As I read through the contents of the book I noticed that a good portion of the book uses barely disguised copy and paste text from articles on Burger King that were written more than two years before the book's publication. In fact a good portion of the section of the book on BK is almost the exact text I wrote in these articles, just mildly reworded. I am now afraid that I may be accused of copyright infringement based on the text's similarity to my contributions on Wikipedia.
The author also utilizes the same sources that I have used in generating content to these articles as well.
What can be done about this issue? -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 07:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to get the community's opinion as to whether or not copied episode summaries are considered copyright violations, or whether they are fair use. Looking at Family Guy (season 12), for example, the episode 8 summary is "When Carter cancels the annual Quahog Christmas carnival out of hatred for the holiday, Peter must turn his Scrooge of a father-in-law into a hometown hero to save the event. Meanwhile, Stewie comes up with a plan to get the one thing he wants for Christmas." This google search shows what the sentence is adapted from, with entries that clearly predate the insertion into Wikipedia.
This kind of very close paraphrasing happens all the time, in lots of different series, and no one seems to be going after it. Is it a problem? If so, what do we do. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the 'Professional Career' section of the Carlos Finlay page appears to have been copied verbatim from http://yellowfever.lib.virginia.edu/reed/finlay.html, a website bearing a copyright notice. The subject of this article features in a Google Doodle today, this page may become very popular immediately. Neildorgan ( talk) 03:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The template for creating new date pages is {{ subst:Cppage}}. This should probably be mentioned somewhere on WP:CP. 63.251.123.2 ( talk) 01:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Prior revisions must be deleted for copyvio. there are too many sources though. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
A delrev request was made at Arachnophobia, see [6], but the case isn't obvious enough and it's been days since the request, so I bring this here for your consideration. Regards, Cenarium ( talk) 12:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
What's the criteria for asking for a revdel in addition to removing the copyright infringement? Does it have to be as blatant as the 1st link Google Search Pages brings up when you type the title into Google? Or if the whole page is infringing (but that's still CSD G12)? TeleComNasSprVen ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Material from http://www.drugs.com/pro/hms.html has been repeatedly added to Medrysone ( history) by User:128.163.8.192 and User:Ambi223, the latter stating "Undid revision 585416429 by Anypodetos (talk) I am in compliance with Drugs.com 's attribution guidelines. Please do not remove again." I can't see that this is allowed from Drug.com's terms of use page, but I don't want to start an edit war. Could someone have a look at this? Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 10:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The revisions of this article still has copyrighted lyrics. Lyrics are unfree under copyright law of Indonesia. The lyricist died in 2010, so the song is still unfree. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The current sandbox is Talk:article X/temp, but they've just launched a new [[Draft:]] namespace ( WP:Drafts), and ae currently discussing its use. As the replacement articles are drafts for replacing a copyvio version, perhaps discussion for using this namespace should be started? -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 21:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just merged two articles Sand Point, Somerset and Middle Hope into a new article at Sand Point and Middle Hope. This caused MadmanBot to slap a copyright notice on the new article as it detected (rightly) that some of the content was the same as this article from U.S.S. Post - a mirror of one of the previous wp articles. Is there any way the Bot can take into account the merging process and take into account that wps articles are copied all over the place?— Rod talk 10:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I had reported this article as problematic yesterday, since it had infringing content since creation yet had some non-infringing content added later. I felt that most of the non-infringing content was not worth keeping due to tone/sourcing in any case, but the article was maybe not a clear-cut G12 so I didn't delete it. I wanted to get a new article up for this subject, though, rather than the blanked page with the copyvio notice, so I went ahead and made a new draft and moved it over the old page. The old edits are deleted, as a result. I hope all of this is in order, and my short-circuiting of the process was ok in this case. Please take a look. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 06:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit copied complete paragraphs and part of the table from this site. There is no copyright notice or date on the site. I deleted it as unsourced, but is also a copyvio? 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 04:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Some revisions, like this and that, copied this source. George Ho ( talk) 02:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording regarding WP:Revision deletion#1, Blatant copyright violations. Flatscan ( talk) 05:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Could we centralize discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Revision_deletion#RD1_wording? NE Ent 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If an article completely comprises of content copied from another article without attribution, what to do in such a case. According to the Copying within Wikipedia guideline it violates Wikipedia's Copyrights policy, so can such an article be considered a CSD#G12 case? And if not how to proceed in such a case? I am talking about Shivani Financial article, I first reduced the content that I found copied from FXCM article but later realized the complete article was copied. -- SMS Talk 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder that as we don't have a working bot at the moment copy and paste taggings aren't being listed here so this category is slowly filling up. Presumably the close paraphrase category is as well. I will try to spend some time on it but as I've just started a new job I'm not sure how much time I'll have. Dpmuk ( talk) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I am seeking assistance on House of Dlamini. I stepped in to try and moderate an edit war that stems from a claim of copyvio which seems to have been going on for years. See Talk:House_of_Dlamini#Edit_warring - it is a long thread and I have only just managed to get an answer about where the infringement stems from [8]. Even then it is complicated, but basically much of the information up to the 1980's may trace back to Burke's Peerage, though the formatting and wording suggests it has been copypasted from the website. More recent information has been researched by the webmaster ( User:Royalty2012).
The question really is where is the fine line between using information from a website and creating a copyright violation? Is it just the layout and wording, or in this case does the extent of the data (99%) used impact the situation. Does User:Royalty2012 have any better claim to the content of the information he has researched and published, or just the layout of it?
I really would appreciate broader assistance with this issue and a way forward. -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Copyright experts: Investigating an old Afc draft led me to this article of the same name which appears to have a large amount of copyvio from:
as well as smaller sections from many other pages on the company's web site. It appears that all of the text was copied from the site and then some parts were edited to be third person, more concise, etc. How much of a web site needs to be in violation of copyright before the whole thing is speedily deeleted? I deleted the Afc draft rather than historymerging it, because it was all copyvio. — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A user requested to RevDelete the revisions of
Aegukka containing the song's lyrics
[9]. I realized, however, that a very large number of revisions contain the lyrics, so it might be unfeasible to RevDelete them all. Posting here for review.
decltype
(
talk)
19:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
A previous editor noted in 2010 that in the article on Durkheim [10]much content is copied from Britannica. After that, some one has edited the page to include a reference to the Britannica article and apparently rephrased some sentences. However, the article seems to contain many complete sentences and paragraphs from the Britannica article. Is this copyvio or not and what should be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.173.46 ( talk) 09:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This article consists entirely of " a list of scholarly, encyclopaedic and other notable definitions of the term pogrom, in chronological order". During a recent AfD (now closed as 'no consensus') I suggested that there might be copyright issues, and accordingly am raising the matter here, where hopefully those familiar with copyright policy and guidelines can give their input. The problem is that it consists to a great extent of direct quotations, largely from sources which are presumably still copyright. It seems to me that this may well exceed what might reasonably be considered 'fair use', in that it isn't extracting part of each definition from each source, but quoting it in full, or substantially so, with no further analysis: effectively just mirroring the source definitions. Are my concerns valid, or am I being over-picky? It certainly isn't normal Wikipedia practice to compile an article or list almost entirely from quotations, and my reading of Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright suggests that there may be legitimate grounds for disallowing such extensive quote-compiliation. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 09:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it a Linking to copyrighted works violation, if Site A let you open Site B inside Site A, apparently without permission from Site B? somewhat like transclusion. I am referring to this site as Site A and this as Site B. -- SMS Talk 18:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone (at "143.231.249.137, is registered to Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives") keep adding data cut and pasted from http://castor.house.gov/biography/. Is the data from this web site PD as US gov? or will they need permission? Ronhjones (Talk) 22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This article appears to take a large amount of data from a single source, and thus I think there may be copyright concerns. See post at article talk page. Eldumpo ( talk) 07:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just left a {{ nothanks}} template on the talk page of CorneliaHTang for her copy-paste copyvio at Sherman Ong. Looking back up her page, I find that it is the sixth time I've left her one of those. She has to date steadfastly ignored all requests to discuss her edits, which are in any case entirely promotional. I'm wondering if it is not time to attract her attention, and perhaps also that of IP 58.185.1.178 or the range 58.185.1.176 - 58.185.1.191, in a more decisive way? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
YogaWP ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YogaWP was blocked briefly in July 2013 for copyright violations. Poking at the SCV backlog, I noticed that Asty Ananta#Career is likely an unattributed translation of id:Asty Ananta. I'm suspicious -- just suspicious, I haven't checked thoroughly -- that this isn't the end of the story, given that the user appears to be under the impression that their talk page is for drafting articles [12] [13], not communicating with other editors. (As an aside, this is exactly the editing pattern I ranted about on AN). MER-C 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why WP:CP and WP:CCI have two different sets of clerks? Should we combine these into one role, given that they have a significant intersection? MER-C 12:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This has been quite a problem for some time, see WP:ANI#Europa Universalis vandalism and copyvio from Charles Esdaile - need range block. Dougweller ( talk) 18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, copyright experts. This draft article was recently deleted for copyright problems and NPOV problems while I was working on it. I had just finished removing the promotional content and rewriting the one short paragraph of the draft in my own words. Apparently that wasn't enough, but I would like to have a chance to continue improving the article, and also have someone point out to me what the remaining copyright problems are so that I can fix them. — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a copyright violation notification in the Gordon Ramsay wiki page. However, it appears to have been resolved as indicated on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_January_4. I hesitate to remove the template from the Ramsay page (not sure if that is ok or not) so I figured a quick note on this talk page is the least I could do (so that people who know more can handle this appropriately). -- gt24 ( talk) 18:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
A noobie user keeps creating articles, based on word-for-word cut-and-paste from his blog. He seems to think he can do that. Can somebody explain this to the user? Bearian ( talk) 16:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors: This is the first time I have come across this, so I want to check before taking action. As part of this Afc submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hayley Brabant, the editor has included a poem written by the subject. There is no indication that this poem is published elsewhere, but I assume that in order for it to be in Wikipedia it would have to be formally donated. Is this correct? What if the author made it up and typed it in just as others add prose? As well as declining the article as about a non-notable person, I plan to remove the poem as a copyright violation. Is this correct? Is this enough to undo the licensing that happens when text is added to Wikipedia? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear copyright experts: Would someone please check the above article? To me it seems that the plot summary is too closely related to the sales pitch text at https://itunes.apple.com/ca/movie/mac-and-devin-go-to-high-school/id617135138 . I have removed it twice some time ago, but it keeps coming back. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the offer of weekends away was just to tease you into reading. Basically I'm too lazy to figure out which form to fill in so I just thought I'd appeal to any passing soft-touch, rule-bending, live-by-the-seat-of-their-pants Wikipedia grandee for advice. I found some plagiarism on Belle (2013 film) (coming hard on the disappointment of discovering I was not the film's inspiration), so I left a note on the article talk page but I don't think that page sees a lot of action. If this is all humdrum run-of-the-mill stuff just pat my virtual head and send me on my way, but I didn't know whether it was a big deal or not, and the 10 or so pages I gave up ploughing my way through on the way here seemed to suggest you (the Wikipedia-mega-entity) got quite cross about this sort of thing. Belle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellemora ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) OK, I've found how to do a proper signature now. Don't hassle me man 14:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Bellemora ( talk) 14:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I wondered if I could get a second opinion before I pursue this further. I've noticed several articles which contain material taken from Who Was Who. The copied material is usually a list of career positions the subject held in chronological order, with little or no attempt at paraphrasing. I put two examples at User:January/Temporary page (so that I can delete it once it has served its purpose, I've had to copy from the source myself to show the problem since access requires a subscription outside the UK), which are representative of the varying degrees of copying I've found; the first is a simple copy, the other has some modifications but is still recognisable. Does WP:NOCREATIVE cover this or are these additions problematic? January ( talk) 14:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A new user added content in a series of edits. He also uploaded a number of images. His username matches the name at his website. He communicated with me at my talk saying he owns the images and content. I believe him. But, I asked him to OTRS the images anyway. As for the content, it appears verbatim at his website, which has a copyright notice at the bottom. I've asked him to remove/reword the content or add a CC to his website. He's been out of touch. Should I just forget about it? Guidance needed.
Links:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear copyright experts: I have several times tried to report copyright problems here, and despite doing my best to follow directions, not once have my entries ended up in the right place. I apologize in advance, since this will likely happen again unless I just don't report any more of these. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, although this photograph of the deceased Alfred Dunhill was taken in 1893, I have not been able to prove that it was published before 1944 or whenever the copyright limitations expire. Upload: [14] Tom ( talk) 17:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The 3rd paragraph of this article is copied from the reference cited for it. Consequently I am also concerned about the 2nd and 4th paragraphs, but I don't have access to the cited work to check them. Lavateraguy ( talk) 16:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure whether this is the right place to start this discussion, but I was led here by a link at Template:copyvio-revdel.
RevDel of a range spanning hundreds of edits of Crimean status referendum, 2014 unrelated to the copyvio has been requested. I oppose the RevDel as this would break the attribution of these edits. Petr Matas 09:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors);
Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website; or
Through a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions).
Still, I think that such RevDel would make to much harm to the article's history, which contains a large amount of information, which would be lost to the public. I think that the removal of the copyvio in a single sourced paragraph reporting on the opinion of the Hungarian ministry is not worth it. Petr Matas 11:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
A newly-registered account alleges that "This article contains copyrighted material from a biography of Ian Huntley, Beyond Evil by Nathan Yates ISBN 1844541428, but without citing the book. I have entered citations and a reference". I don't know if this means entire paragraphs were copy-pasted, but it does appear that even after the new account has entered citations, the copied material is still not enclosed within quotation marks. It looks like the material indicated may have been in the article since at least 2009. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at Template talk:Weather box#Separate templates and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#You wrong. Is Subtropical-man correct and the templates require attribution. Thanks. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Heartbleed has text copied from Stackexchange, since this revision. As it is CC-BY-SA, the text should be attributed properly. Normal CC-BY-SA Attribution can be done by Template:CCBYSASource, however stackexchange requires that nofollow may not be used [15]. What to do? -- Muelleum ( talk) 00:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the SO content in that revision of the heartbleed article. If someone can say where it is, I can probably rewrite it. (Better to use the article talk page for this). 70.36.142.114 ( talk) 10:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL, stackexchange itself serves links with nofollow, including links to wikipedia. [19] And they have a thread about nofollow. [20] 70.36.142.114 ( talk) 15:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I left Jimbo a talk message, but his page mentions that he's unavailable for a week or so. I also wonder if that SE TOU purports to require contributors to enforce that nofollow condition on SE's behalf. That would of course be even crazier than the other parts. 70.36.142.114 ( talk) 15:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I left a message on Mindspillage's user talk (she does legal stuff for CC now). 70.36.142.114 ( talk) 10:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? Anything? Muelleum ( talk) 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, this is Jay from Stack Exchange. Thanks for highlighting this - I'm going to work with our lawyers on how we can clarify our ToS, but here's the gist:
Put another way, assuming you're sure that you're giving attribution for our content in a manner consistent with CC-SA, you should be fine. We love Wikipedia, and one of the main reasons we use CC-SA is the desire to be two-way compatible with your stuff (mostly so our users can post excerpts when needed). JaydlesSE ( talk) 21:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)JaydlesSE
Its great to hear you are working on the issue, and that the CA license supersedes. Muelleum ( talk) 18:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Wondering if everyone here is aware of this effort? The hope is to run new edits over a certain size through Turnitin and flag those which may have likely copyright issues for human follow-up. The plan was initially to launch it for medical articles. Would this tool be useful to this group as well? We have some support from the Wiki Education Foundation as well as a number of other Wikipedians. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor and I had a dispute over a sentence that led to the Charlene, Princess of Monaco article being protected. The administrator who protected it did not bother to check the object of dispute before protecting the article, so now we have blatant copyright violation locked into the article. There is a clear consensus that the sentence should be removed, but requests to edit the still-protected (protected against what, I wonder) article have been ignored. Can someone take a look at the article? The copyvio is the last sentence in the Charlene, Princess of Monaco#Princess of Monaco section. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
What's up with the footer? Templates are not transcluding, and showing up in red. I tried to fix it; in the edit preview pane, they transcluded properly and there were no red links. However, the saved page once again refused to transclude. — Gorthian ( talk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
On the new listings page the size is 1,602,719/2,048,000 bytes:
On this page (without the new listings) it is 1,247,531/2,048,000.
Total 2,850,250 - way over the limit.
Template {{
Laq}}
reduces the size of each transclusion compared with {{
La}}
by about 60% which may be just enough, though I have already used it somewhat for the figures above. I wonder if we should jettison the "Views" field, it was something I introduced in RfD, but I don't see the same value here. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC).
{{
Laq}}
has reduced the total size to 1,799,656 bytes.Medium term one of the following must happen to prevent recurrence (or of course any other fix):
{{
Laq}}
instead of {{
La}}
{{
La}}
is slimmed down either as much as {{
Laq}}
, or almost as much.All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC).
{{
Laq}}
so we can keep our footers. I'm very grateful. :) --
Moonriddengirl
(talk)
11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Could someone add http://hausmieten.potiori.com/ to the list of partial mirrors of Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia articles that match ones in http://hausmieten.potiori.com/ are not flagged as copyvios? Multiregional TransitTelecom was deleted because a Duplication Detector report showed that it was similar to http://hausmieten.potiori.com/Interregional_TransitTelekom.html I created a new stub version of Multiregional TransitTelecom, and then discovered that http://hausmieten.potiori.com/Interregional_TransitTelekom.html had been updated to reflect my new version. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just left a {{ nothanks}} notice on the talk page of editor Krokuss, the third such in a few days. That page is festooned with various kinds of copyright warning, not all of them from me. Is it perhaps time to show this editor that we actually mean it when we say that "persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing"? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just listed Desperate Journey as a copyvio here. The infringing content was added by Bwmoll3, a user who has a huge open CCI, and has another (sandbox) copyvio still listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 19. With regret, I request a block until we can determine with absolute certainty whether the behaviour that led to the CCI is continuing or not. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I may have stepped in something. I want to get my facts straight. Is a copyvio permissible here if it is in hidden text? I'm talking about something like this. Any answer welcomed, but pinging Moonriddengirl, MER-C and Diannaa for their take. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've now posted at WP:COIN about the COI aspect I mentioned above. The thread is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#LA Models. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Mentioned here [22]. Am trying to drum up support for a solution. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been watching User:J.H.McDonnell for some time, and I suspect that he is copy/pasting from The Treatise in Invertebrate Paleontology for the pages as most of his writing is not nearly as sophisticated as the technical description sections added to pages, and the edits usually so relictual formatting from other site. However I do not have access to the volumes of the Treatise that he is using so I am unable to verify for sure.-- Kev min § 00:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This page has landed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded because it is transcluding too much content. I don't know how often this happens, and how long it has been a problem. Someone more familiar with this part of project administration may have better ideas about a solution, but my first inclination is to convert some older transclusions to links, as needed to take the page back under the technical limit for transcluded text. Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried substituting Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header, but that was not enough. the post-expand include size of that sub-page is: 75467/2048000 bytes, of which 42659/2048000 bytes are in turn transcluded by templates on that subpage. In other words, that sub-page transcludes only 3.7% of the transclusion limit. Seems best to leave that page component be. Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... <!--{{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings}} temp subst: we can see progess-->
So, clearly there is not room for both old and new listings: 94% + 35% = 129% and we can't go over 100%.
I see: "This is a
known problem that can only be solved by clearing the backlog."
MER-C 12:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, it could also be solved by reconfiguring the way this system works! Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
VWBot stopped editing Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings for "automatic addition of new listings and archiving of listings older than 7 days" after 30 May 2011. Is that the root of the problem? Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Use Template:La/x instead. I wrote that comment last year when MadmanBot was using that template (something that was never propagated back to the CSB codebase). MER-C 03:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
"Mirror of CorenSearchBot, which has been offline since 31 December 2011. CorenSearchBot has become invaluable to WikiProject Copyright Cleanup and the Suspected Copyright Violations patrollers; unfortunately, no one's been able to contact Coren recently (regarding the bot or even ArbCom matters)."So can I assume that when Coren's bot came back online, Madman's was shut down as redundant? Why is it so hard to contact Coren? Doesn't this guy work for the Foundation? Wbm1058 ( talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
La/x}}
. —
Coren
(talk)
19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This user page User:Swatpig appears to be a verbatim copy and paste of this website copyrighted by a Charles Cazabon. According to the user page's revision history, it was created in 2007 and has not been edited a single time since. There is also no citation provided for to the Cazabon site at all. Since the Cazabon site says "All content copyrighted from 1998–2009 by Charles Cazabon", it's seem unlikely that he would claim a copyright over material that he got off of Wikipedia and his site just mirrors the "Swatpig" page. WP:DCV says that a {{ copypaste}} should be added to the relevant talk page is such cases, but since this is a user page I am not sure if it is appropriate to add such a template. Furthermore, although both WP:G12 and WP:U5 as well as WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:UP#Copyright violations also seem to apply, I am not sure if it is appropriate to tag the page for speedy deletion. I've searched through this talk page's archives for information regarding the "Swatpig" page, but had no luck finding any; Therefore, I am very interested in hearing what others think should be done in this particular case. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The Judgepedia article is up for an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgepedia
The use of Judepedia as a reliable source is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Judgepedia
The Judgepedia website says
Wikipedia on Judgepedia
Wikipedia content should not be added directly to Judgepedia, and Judgepedia content should not be added directly to Wikipedia. The two websites are licensed under different copyright agreements, and have different editorial focuses and different writing and visual style standards. Judgepedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, while Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License ( Judgepedia:How to contribute to Judgepedia#Wikipedia on Judgepedia).
The list of articles that mention to the Judgepedia page is not large ( 158 articles -- when I did the search)
I looked down the list and picked one at random Zoran Popovich it has in it a disclaimer ( from 2 June 2009) that text in the article was copied from Judgepedia.
- Material on this page was initially imported from the Judgepedia article on Zoran Popovich, and has been expressly released under the GFDL per Judgepedia:Copyrights..
Has it ever been OK to import text from Judgepeida and is it still OK to do so? If it was and no longer is when did the change take place? -- PBS ( talk) 12:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The tool is up and running in beta form for only medical articles. The results are here Wikipedia:MED/Copyright. Will likely need a bit of adjusting. I will look at things in detail in a week or two when I make it home. If you are interested please take a look and provide feedback on the talk page / fix copyright issues found. It is still in a rough stage so I imagine there will be a lot of false positive. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a general question regarding an image which has been uploaded to Wikipedia using {{ PD-because}}. The reason given is "official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin". The uploaded image is a jpg file and there is no link to any website, etc. given to show from where the image originated. WP:PD#International aspects says "In other words: a work that is not copyrightable in one country (even if that country is its country of origin) can still be copyrighted in other countries, if the work is copyrightable there." So, my question is: Are things such as symbols of national institutions, etc. exempt from copyright in the country of origin considered to be public domain by other countries? WP:DCV says that a {{ copypaste}} can be added to the article's talk page in there are questions regarding copyright, but not sure if that just applies to text. Please advise whether it's appropriate for me to post the specific file link here or whether I should discuss this on the article's talk page first. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Some months ago I copied an article from another Wiki under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence for an article called 1814 campaign in France, and gave it the appropriate attribution (see see edit February 2014 ).
On 27 August Nikkimaria zapped most of it intending to rewrite it. In doing this Nikkimaria removed the attribution. I have left a message on Nikkimaria's talk page raising a concern that I do not think that the attribution template can be removed unless the article history is zapped and a new article is written from scratch because the article remains a derived work under the terms CC-3.0. This of course is a copyleft licensing issue and is different from removing PD source and PD attribution when no text the original PD source exists in a Wikiepdia article. Nikkimaria reverted my re-attribution edit, so we need more input on whether the attribution template is needed so that a consensus can be reached.
I have suggested to Nikkimaria that if Nikkimaria rewrites the article in a sand box, then we can delete the history, but unless that is done I think that the attribution template should remain on the article because it remains a derived work. What do others think? -- PBS ( talk) 09:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Can a photograph taken in the USA at some indefinite point between 1900 and 1911 still be within copyright. I'm keen to use this image (Cadet Corp in Woodburn Circle) which clearly shows a building completely lacking a wing which was completed in 1911 - Allowing for building and construction time, I put the photo at about 1905. However, the site owner claims this image is copyright. What's the ruling on this? Giano (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've recently received permission from the copyright owner for text on an article that was speedily deleted. How should I note this? Anon126 ( notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 09:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I have tried at add information about our school to supplement what is already on file and recognize the changes within the management. Every time I do it I get a bot deleting my revisions - yet All that I post is true and not violating copytright as it is my copy!! I am an employee of the school.
Please help - I want to enhance in info about the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.149.245 ( talk) 10:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There are currently more than 20,000 pages linked to the lyrics website MetroLyrics, which were added by User:LyricsBot [23]. In researching some song articles for GANs, I noticed a number of problems, which were first brought to the attention of the bot operator, User:Dcoetzee in June 2014 ( User talk:Dcoetzee#MetroLyrics concern). Despite additional comments in July and September, the problems have not been adequately addressed. On September 27, 2014, Dcoetzee announced his semi-retirement. [24] The problems regard copyrighted song lyrics – specifically, a high percentage of the MetroLyrics links list the wrong songwriter (see above talk link for details). Since this is a potential WP:LINKVIO concern, please let me know where I should raise this if not here. — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Not really sure how to handle copyvio issues, but this page: Larry Kusche, may be a copyright violation from this external site: American Skeptics; where the section on Kusche is verbatim as to what is on WP. I did a check using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and got a 97% certainty report. However, it turned up digplanet.com, which I know copies from WP, not vice versa. Not sure what to do, but thought I should bring it to someone's attention. Onel5969 ( talk) 22:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)