Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 September 29

2007-09-29

edit

Articles

Orana Park (history · last edit) from [1]. Gimme danger 01:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao (history · last edit) from [2]. Pig^man 06:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)~~ removed offending versions from article history. - KrakatoaKatie 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dashing Away with the Smoothing Iron (history · last edit) from [3]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT 12:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (history · last edit) from [4]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT 12:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)~~ Library of Congress work is in the public domain. KrakatoaKatie 18:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Magic of Life Butterfly House (history · last edit) from [5]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT 12:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)~~ no copyright problems I can see. - KrakatoaKatie 18:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hamavayan ensemble (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT 12:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)~~ deleted history back to 2007-04-11 to remove offending versions. - KrakatoaKatie 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silver Thursday (history · last edit) from [6]. Oboeaaron 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sonic Rush Adventure (history · last edit) from [7]. The story, gameplay, and characters sections are all plagiarized from the game's official site. Guess Who 14:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)~~ resolved by Deskana. KrakatoaKatie 18:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doktor Nauk (history · last edit) from [8]. Permission asserted, note left on article talk page and article blanked pending confirmation of permission. But|seriously|folks 17:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved, see Talk:Doktor nauk. `'Míkka 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ICD-10 (history · last edit) from [9] - ICD-10 is copyrighted by WHO as clearly stated on their website!. Here is the copyright notice [10] and information on licensing [11] both not compatible with GDFL ro|3ek 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Robek. However, Arcadian has removed the copyvio tag twice, saying that a talk page comment from an alleged WHO administrator gives permission. The comment, however, does not license under the GFDL but says "no publisher may change content or structure of the classification". I see no evidence of OTRS involvement or steps taken to give permission through the normal channels. When someone gets around to dealing with this one, let me know what you think. I'm reluctant to get involved in a wheel war. - KrakatoaKatie 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]