Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 August 18

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)
SCV for 2010-08-18 Edit Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-08-18

addressed

Contributor blocked, but permission plausible, so leaving this for the rest of the investigation period. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sport-related concussion (history · last edit) from Solomon, Gary S.; Karen M. Johnston; Mark R. Lovell (2006). The heads-up on sport concussion. Human Kinetics. ISBN 9780736060080. http://books.google.com/books?id=B01qwcnzDrQC. . Tagged as close paraphrase; I believe it may cross the line based on the preview of the book. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trevdawg33 (history · last edit) from Solomon, Gary S.; Karen M. Johnston; Mark R. Lovell (2006). The heads-up on sport concussion. Human Kinetics. ISBN 9780736060080. http://books.google.com/books?id=B01qwcnzDrQC. . Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. This close paraphrase was actually the remnant of a text dump several years old. The copyrighted content has been excised. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Blanked and relisted. I think this is unusable as written. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Looks good enough to me. --VernoWhitney (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if a different admin would review this rewrite. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it's not close to being ok. Key words and sentence structures are still lifted straight from [1] and [2]. Words are changed and sentences re-arranged here and there, but it's essentially the same ideas and method of expression. The difficulty it seems is that the re-write has used the problematic text as its basis, so it suffers the same core problems. I think it needs to be rewritten from scratch without the problematic text being available. I'd propose to delete the original and the rewrite unless anyone has any views? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would be my opinion as well, but since I tagged the article and since the rewrite was a different contributor, I didn't think it would be a good idea for me to pass judgment on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is deleted, with an explanation at the rewriter's talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]