[edit] Ennui (sonnet)
The analysis section of the Ennui (sonnet) articthis pagele seem to be pulled from this review on the guardian [1].
"This is wonderfully taut and restless in a manner that recalls Robert Browning or William Empson. That first phrase is probably the best moment in the poem, relishing its own archness."
appears in both, for instance.
[edit] User:Tgarden
I've just discovered that Tgarden (talk · contribs) created No. 50 Squadron RAF and that on creation the article was a copyvio of http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/50squadron.cfm, which is unexpired Crown Copyright. In real life, Tgarden was Timothy Garden, Baron Garden and is now deceased. Therefore no purpose would be served by informing the user that his copyvio has been discovered. A check of his editing history points to this being the only new article created by him, so it's probably not a serial copyvio issue, but I would appreciate another set of eyes on this matter. I've flagged the issue at WT:MILHIST and hopefully those fine folks will write a new article which can replace the existing one. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- And so they did, it seems. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] COPYVIO check
Over at Egyptian Revolution of 2011 we had a massive timeline section that got moved to a separate article. But we needed a short summary in its place. I copied a timeline from an article here, cut out sections, changed the tense, copy-edited, removed extraneous pieces, rephrased where I could, etc. Since this is a timeline, there's not a lot of room for editorial discretion, and there's still similarity between the texts. I realize it would have been better to make edits before putting it on the main page, but hopefully the edits to rework it are sufficient. Can someone check it for 'substantial similarity' or too-close paraphrasing? Ocaasi (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for requesting review of this. I believe it is substantially similar. I've removed the content with some examples at the talk page and further explanation there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Ancient Chinese coinage
- Ancient Chinese coinage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
It has come to my attention that large portions of this article are verbatim copies of text in the copyright book, Cast Chinese Coins by David Hartill, ISBN:9781412054669.
The primary author of the article is Davidhartill (talk · contribs), the author of that book.
Recently, I removed a large portion of the article and placed it on the talk page, trying to sort out referencing. This lead to Davidhartill putting it back, and adding some references. However, it is now very clear that portions are copied.
(Note, that means if text does need removing for (c)-infringements, then make sure the talk page is checked too)
I'm not quite sure how to approach this problem. I suppose we could ask for OTRS permission, but as it is a published book, I forsee difficulty. Hence asking for help here. Thanks, Chzz ► 12:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Fortunately, it should be, since he included his e-mail address in the book (which I note, somewhat worrisomely, is self-published; however, he does seem to have two papers in reliable journals). I've blanked, since we can't disseminate this until it's verified, and left him detailed instructions how to confirm the license for the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
-
[edit] Kirsty Duncan
Kirsty Duncan is identical to this bio from her website. However, the fact that the article has citations while her website does not makes me wonder if she copy and pasted Wikipedia instead of vice versa. --Padraic 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I note that this has been evaluated at the talk page, where a conclusion of reverse infringement was drawn. All settled? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] File:Kingkiss.jpg
One of 2 non-free images used in the relatively small aticle King & King. Having 2 non-free images is excessive. The other is the book cover, which is fine. This image is used to illustrate 2 men kissing. The image is a COPYVIO and fails WP:NFCC #8.Lionel (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't you already start a discussion of the file at Wikipedia:Non-free content review# File:Kingkiss.jpg just a few days ago? Will Beback talk 02:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forum shop, please. Having failed to delete a cartoon image of two men kissing isn't the end of the world. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR is what i'd recommend for this, and it seems like it's already there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forum shop, please. Having failed to delete a cartoon image of two men kissing isn't the end of the world. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Copyrights and translation
I am unsure about the following situation. Gumr51 (talk · contribs) has been in trouble at the Spanish wikipedia because of a bad habit of building articles as patchworks of lines copied directly from copyrighted sources. He has now arrived at the English wikipedia and it seems some of the problems came here before he did. In this case [2] Thelmadatter (talk · contribs) creates the article Cerro de las Minas translated directly from the Spanish version article containing a copyright violation originally inserted by Gumr51 here [3] copied from [4]. In essence what we have now is a translated copyrights violation (and quite possibly a lot more than one), but I am unsure whether the process of translation (which occurred obviously in good faith) affects the seriousness of the copyrights violation, maybe to the degree of it being considered rather a paraphrasing? Please advice and keep a look out for the contributions of Gumr51 (talk · contribs) - I fear that we have a potentially big problem on our on our hands.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- This article by Gumr51 (talk · contribs) El Cerrito (archaeological site) also seems to be a direct translation of this website belonging to the Mexican government.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Translation doesn't somehow vacate copyright. A translation is a derivative work of the original and is therefore bound to the same conditions.
- Translation of an article from a different Wikipedia language is obviously permitted provided it is properly attributed, but regarding the text copied and then translated for a third party, it should be handled like a normal copyright issue here. MLauba (Talk) 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is translated directly from a thirdhand copyrighted website. I have look at a few other of Gumr51's articles and have detected COPYVIO in all this far. This is a potential largescale problem. What to do?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- what is the status of copyright of works of the Mexican government? I presume that, like most non-UScountries, copyright does apply to them. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- I don't know but there are also copyvio's of several non-governmental sources. Another article that was almost fully plagiarized was Las Flores (archaeological site).·Maunus·ƛ· 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- what is the status of copyright of works of the Mexican government? I presume that, like most non-UScountries, copyright does apply to them. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is translated directly from a thirdhand copyrighted website. I have look at a few other of Gumr51's articles and have detected COPYVIO in all this far. This is a potential largescale problem. What to do?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Translation of an article from a different Wikipedia language is obviously permitted provided it is properly attributed, but regarding the text copied and then translated for a third party, it should be handled like a normal copyright issue here. MLauba (Talk) 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm late to this conversation, but I think what you're doing at his talk page is exactly right. If the problem persists after he is properly coached, then we may have to take additional action. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] William Nutt
I was going to tackle this article as a copy edit backlog item, but I'm bringing it here because I don't know what to do with it. This article was created in 2008 by an editor who has not edited since. The entire text appears to be copied directly from this webpage. This webpage predates the Wikipedia article, so it can't be some sort of a mirror. My interpretation of that webpage is that the information was obtained from one of several books listed there and referenced in that webpage as "Vol XXII, No. 36 Natick, Mass., September 1, 1909". I don't know if this constitutes copyright infringement and should be removed, or if it is simply plagiarism that can remain until rewritten. I would appreciate it if somebody who is knowledgeable/experienced in this area could render an opinion. Robsavoie (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- When in doubt, reword, rehash, remove. Phearson (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ordinarily, exactly what we must do. :) Fortunately in this case, I've been able to verify the age of the text by finding the bulk of it published in 1907. I've attributed the sources, both of which assert to be PD-old. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Giasone
I find this article suspicious; If nothing else, the plot summary is all in quotation marks - and is a couple pages long! We surely can't quote several pages like that, unless it's out of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- There were only some sections that were in quotation marks; they were used baldly, without any attempt at transformation, so I've removed them. If you're still concerned, you can add {{cv-unsure}} to the talk page, which may invite other contributors to locate the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] YouTube link may be copyvio
I'm not up-to-speed on what's normally done in these situations, and I couldn't find specifics that covered it, so I've brought the issue here for advice. The Block Parent Program article contained a link to a YouTube copy of a TV news article that may itself represent a copyright violation. For the time being, I simply commented out the link and added "Possible copyright violation" at the beginning of the comment. If further/different action is required, please let me know. – RobinHood70 talk 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- That seems like a legitimate concern and a good response. The person who uploaded it seems to be a journalist, maybe the one narrating the event, but there's no reason to believe that the material was appropriately licensed. Even if he is the newscaster, he's not the guy with the camera. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Moonriddengirl! – RobinHood70 talk 20:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright Violation ?
My articles has been deleted from Ampati, as it has been found to have violated and I have copied and pasted from http://ampatisubdivision.blogspot.com/2010/04/topography-and-ampati-sub-division.html and http://ampatisubdivision.blogspot.com/. I strongly feel that the administrator didn't care to check the Blogs. I am the same person who has started the blogs, i am the owner of that blog. Hence the question of copyright does not arise. Hence I strongly urged the administrator to rectify the error.
Regards Swarup Banai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarup banai (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Camberwell Public Baths
Whilst conducting a GA review of this article I discovered cut and paste and close paraphrasing of material from http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200229/investing_in_leisure/1391/camberwell_leisure_centre. I tagged the section with this edit. Some of this has been removed and the article nominator who claims to be a an OTRS volunteer is affronted that i challenged the apparent copyvio. Could some one else take a look and make sure that it is now OK? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not "affronted" at being asked to fix marginal paraphrasing (not a direct copypaste as was the notice you originally added to the article) and this matter has already been independently discussed with Moonriddengirl. As has been said more than once, I intend to get back to re-writing it within a day so raising as a notice here is unnecessary escalation of what started as my good faith request for an article review. What I considered inappropriate for a GA review I have already explained on your talk page, please do not misrepresent my comments. As for "claiming" to be an OTRS volunteer, you are an experienced editor with a long track record, it does not seem unreasonable for me to expect you to know that you need only go to my user page to confirm my status. --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] EPR paradox article
Pretty well the whole of the EPR paradox article may appear in this book: Quantum Computers by Jon Schiller PhD. The book says "This is a report of the latest research found by searching the internet." It has an ISBN, and is available on Amazon. It also says "No part of this book can be reproduced in any form."
Which came first? I do not know. Myrvin (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Much of it can be seen here: [5]. See Appendix C. Myrvin (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This was also listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 10 and has been resolved as reverse copyvio. Explanation and tag are now at the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Linking to material PD in Australia (but probably not in U.S.) on Australian web server
A. J. Alan died in 1941 having written and published some short stories in Britain. Hence, his work is PD in Australia (50 years p.m.a. prior to January 1, 2005)[6] and, indeed, some of his work is (legitimately) on Project Gutenberg Australia.[7] It looks as if his work is not PD in U.S.[8] Alan's stories will become PD in Britain in 2012 (70 years p.m.a.). I believe what I have said here is correct. Questions: (1) is a citation link to a story on Project Gutenberg Australia a breach of WP:COPYLINK, (2) is an "external link" type of link to a story a breach of WP:ELNEVER, (3) if so, will it be OK in 2012?
Commercial records were made of Alan reading some of his stories which were released in Britain in 1933. Uploads are widely available on the web, even for sale as Apple iTunes material, presumably because British copyright on the recordings only lasted 50 years from 1933. However, it occurs to me that this may be a breach of the "literary" copyright. Could enwiki link to these recordings? Thincat (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, I'm afraid that enwiki can't really link to these. :/ Enwiki is bound by U.S. copyright laws and hence unable to publish anything that is not PD in the U.S. Concerns of contributory infringement are also based on U.S. law, since that's the governing court. If the stories were published in Britain, Australia's stance is immaterial completely. But their entering PD in Britain in 2012 unfortunately does not mean they will be PD in the US then. See Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Duration of restored copyright. See also this chart at Cornell. At this point, unless the material was also published in the US, it will not be PD until 95 years after publication. If it was published in the U.S., it may be public domain depending on when it was published here and under what circumstances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I have been trying hard to find the fatal flaw in your argument but so far I have not succeeded! The U.S. law regarding copyright of sound recordings in the public domain in their "source" countries seems very unsatisfactory. I have no evidence that anything was published in the U.S. and I very much doubt that A.J. Alan would have appealed to anyone outside middle England. Thincat (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Licensing problem
Pamela Evans was originally G12 deleted and has been restored after the creator added licensing to the source [9], but it's CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. I'm sure that needs to be changed to CC BY-SA 3.0, but would I be correct in thinking it also needs to make reference to the GNU free documentation licence? The creator has already been given the impression that the problem is resolved so I want to make absolutely sure before approaching them again. January (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, that needs to be CC-By-SA 3.0. Whether it also needs GFDL depends on whether the person who is adding it here is the sole copyright owner. Under our Terms of Use, in that case, yes, it needs to be co-licensed under GFDL. If copyright is shared or belongs to somebody else, CC-By-SA is sufficient. You can refer them to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials if that will help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've added it to today's listings. January (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Vancouver Voice
I find the conversation about this odd. First of all, it is taking place here: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/2011 March 12. I don't know if creating a subpage is standard procedure here, but I think it would help if more people took a look at this. Second it's mostly taking place between an editor with a fully transparent, declared COI, and someone who has an odd style of interacting, which is kind of muddying the copyvio issue, I think. The question is whether something that someone wrote for the Wikipedia article that is now appearing on the article subject's web page years later is a copyvio. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Daily subpages are standard here just so that we can keep a handle on the backlog. Entries generally aren't reviewed for a week after posting in order to give editors time to rewrite or otherwise remedy the situation when there is an actual copyvio. Please note that I have not looked into this particular case at all, I'm just letting you know why noone who regularly handles copyvio situations has weighed in yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, the Duplicate Detector report indicates that that article still has significant problems. Dcoetzee 21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- See the discussion here and a summary of Moonriddengirl's investigation on the article's talk page. Valfontis (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Timothy Everest
Hi guys. Not sure if I'm in the right place. If not would you let me know where to go please. When I stumbled across Timothy Everest, it consisted of direct copies from articles found on newspapers, magazines and websites. I have completely re-written it now and I think all the copyvios have been dealt with. Would it be possible to run a bot over it though, just to be completely sure? Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Copy-pasting an old version of an article, rather than reverting using the normal tools
As I read Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution, it would seem that if you use a copy-paste of an old version of an article to revert, rather than using the proper revert tool, you would need to explicitly state the source of the copy in the edit summary, to preserve proper authorship history. Is this correct? I ask, because the question has come up here: [10]. Personally, I cannot see any good reason not to use the proper tools in any case, but evidently others think differently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- He was reverting multiple deletions of article sections. Unless he has got Twinkle installed, then each edit has to be manually undone one at a time - and in my experience that sometimes does not always work. He did complain about the user's deletion in his edit summary and only reverted that one user's edits Ronhjones (Talk) 23:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] one sentence
Would copying one sentence and giving the source, but not using quotation marks qualify as plagiarism? --Stone (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unless it is otherwise clearly attributed (e.g., According to John Smith, blah blah blah), yes, even one sentence can be plagiarism. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Outer barrier
In the Outer barrier article, I just found a paragraph that appears to be lifted from the Columbia Encyclopedia as published by Yahoo. The suspect is the introductory section, third paragraph that starts with "The lagoons enclosed...". The end of the paragraph seems to be a direct lift from [11]
Can someone figure out if the Columbia Encyclopedia was first, or did they take it from Wikipedia? Also, I am unclear as to the copyright status of the Columbia Encyclopedia... Can someone take a look at this and give advice?
--Arg342 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Bing not supporting view of copyright violation link
I've identified many copyright violation pages in the past. Now I have a problem that seems to be related to a change in Bing search results.
In abstract, this is my process: I come across a Wiki article that is in a coherent style, but is not Wiki's style. I select a longish phrase in the Wiki article, with distinctive words, such that it is unlikely to be repeated in completely unrelated articles. I do a literal search on the whole phrase. In the past, Bing search results often track down the source article.
Now something has changed, and I would appreciate any interested and informed opinion.
In a concrete example, I came randomly to the Wiki article GRENOUILLE. The article reads very lucidly, but it is not in the Wiki style. I searched on this literal string from the second para "only a few elements, and a cost, weight, and size considerably less than previously available devices", and found a single match in Bing[12]. In the search result item, after expanding it on the right with mouse over, I can see the text I'm looking for. When I click the link, however, I'm directed to this page[13].
Is there something profound here I need to understand, or is this a Bing bug?
Thanks. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- The only match on that search I see besides Wikipedia is wn.com, which is a Wikipedia mirror so it's no use in tracking down possible copyvios. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- Now that I started looking though, I did find a result via Google Books and an academic paper which match the text almost verbatim, so I've blanked it and another article. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for spending some time on this, I was puzzled, and you did catch one thing I missed. 1) The Bing text I'm referring to is at the side of the Wiki mirror search item result you mentioned (!), on a mouse-over pop-up "MORE ON THIS PAGE". In full, it reads, "Grating-eliminated no-nonsense observation of ultrafast incident laser light e-fields( GRENOUILLE) is an ultrashort pulse measurement technique based on frequency-resolved optical gating(FROG). The somewhat frivolous acronym was chosen because of the technique's relationship to FROG; grenouille is French for frog". So you can see something is wacko -- since that isn't the Wiki page you mentioned.
-
-
-
- 2) I noticed that Google returned the page that did suggest the source of the copyright violation, but rather than confuse the issue, I decided to let some other intelligent person spot it. Which obviously you did. Thanks! 98.210.208.107 (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
-
[edit] Alix Strauss possible vios
Have commented out what appear to be copyvios in the article. Links to material are:
We hope (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Articles like this really need a quick G11 headshot, but in absence of that I have had a look at it. The first copyvio is a straight copy paste, but I don't see the second one. Yoenit (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Perrigo
The lead paragraph on the Perrigo article is copied from the company's homepage at http://www.perrigo.com. Much of the about us section has also been copied from http://www.perrigo.com/company/aboutus.aspx?id=306. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- As a start, I removed the long section that listed the management structure in detail. The issue there is not so much copyright violation, since it's just a list of names and positions, but that Wiki is not the place to list employees who are not otherwise Wiki-notable and have no special, unusual, pivotal role in the organization that is not called out by the article. The rest of Wiki material is liable to be from some company source -- but it wouldn't necessarily be published online. And frankly I get bored seaching for it. (How's that for honesty?) So the best approach may be to remove WP:PEACOCK and unencyclopedic, uncited information? 98.210.208.107 (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Klaus Tange
Went to copyedit the article Klaus Tange in response to a copyedit tag, and while doing so found that the unreferenced text was basically word-for-word with the IMDB article. While the text is now quite a bit different after my copyedit, I'm still concerned this is a copyvio: pre-copyedit version of article ... first version of article ... IMDB article.
A possible extenuating circumstance was that both articles may in fact have been created by the same person - the article here was created by the single use account Special:Contributions/Augustdk, while the article at IMDB was created by the single use account August. Can't see any date on the IMDB article to get an idea of which one was first. Having said which, if this is the case I then have some concerns over notability and lack of references as well. --jjron (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)