Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 14
- Directed attention fatigue (history · last edit) from [1]. madewokherd (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Reverse infringement. See article talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Zamboanga City (history · last edit) from e.g. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ru9/R9tourism/zambo_facts.htm http://www.zamboangaarchdiocese.com/events.php and probably others. Related to an ongoing CCI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Matthew06 87. Images need looking at too. MER-C 10:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes. :/ Okay, some of the content entered on July 6 2007. We are almost certainly okay with [2], since other content was already present that is duplicated from that source at that time, and one of the changes ("the Immaculate Conception Parish" -> "the Immaculate Conception Cathedral Parish" is also at that site. It seems likely that they copied from us, rather than the other way around, and this material predates logged in contributions by Matthew06. The government website archives to 2002: [3]. Infringement entered the article right here, in November 2008. It was an IP who introduced that text, but this contributory also pasted text into the article, including from [4]. I do not know if User:Upmatthew06 87 is an obvious sock or an account created in opposition to this contributor. I have restored to the last version before the original copyvio and am going to run what's there against my plagiarism checker. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Plagiarism checker doesn't find any obvious, except a US government source which I've attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes. :/ Okay, some of the content entered on July 6 2007. We are almost certainly okay with [2], since other content was already present that is duplicated from that source at that time, and one of the changes ("the Immaculate Conception Parish" -> "the Immaculate Conception Cathedral Parish" is also at that site. It seems likely that they copied from us, rather than the other way around, and this material predates logged in contributions by Matthew06. The government website archives to 2002: [3]. Infringement entered the article right here, in November 2008. It was an IP who introduced that text, but this contributory also pasted text into the article, including from [4]. I do not know if User:Upmatthew06 87 is an obvious sock or an account created in opposition to this contributor. I have restored to the last version before the original copyvio and am going to run what's there against my plagiarism checker. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- File:Branch Lines Around Chard and Yeovil Book.jpg (history · last edit) from http://www.middletonpress.co.uk/details.php?bdetails=978%201%20901706%2030%207&PHPSESSID=d6b123a9f944b658482382231603556f. Pyrotec (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- GBLUR Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity (history · last edit) from http://www.gblur.ca/about.php. — CactusWriter | needles 12:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
OTRS pending but not yet verified, relisting under today's entry. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Asiatrust Bank (history · last edit) from http://www.asiatrustbank.com/AboutUs_05.asp. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Tagged a week ago, but not blanked. Remedied, notified contributor. Relisting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Manny Villar (history · last edit) from http://www.mannyvillar.com.ph/theman.php. JL 09 q?c 14:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nasty. Infringement went all the way back to 2006. Deleted to last clean and edit by edit restored as much valid content as I could. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- A.Y.P. Garnett (history · last edit) from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526780/?page=1. While it is undoubtedly copied from this page, and the website has a copyright notice, the document reproduced there was originally published in 1891. Have reverted article to a short stub pending resolution of this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding the copyright notice, you're very right to have doubts that it was a copyvio. :) It's PD by age. Restored & attributed, to meet WP:Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Kawasaki KDX200 (history · last edit) from [5] and [6]. It's obviously copied and pasted, but it's a list of technical data - every source about those motorcycles will of course give the same data. Does that count as a copyright violation? Huon (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, yes, quite likely. While this kind of information may be common, the creative presentation is copyrightable, even if it isn't very creative. The list was copied in all its particulars--same order, same structure, same language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)