Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 September 22
Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)
|
|---|
|
SCV for 2011-09-22 Edit Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2011-09-22 |
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit]- Sixty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly (history · last edit) from http://www.afghanistan-un.org/2011/06/nassir-abdulaziz-al-nasser-of-qatar-elected-president-of-general-assembly%E2%80%99s/.
- There may be more from other sources used. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- the copyvio tag should only remove the content that is copyvio. the other issues is not a copyvio of anything. the only thign copied and DULY cited is a list format which is the issue/theme. However, on concern it can cetainly be reworded. Much easier to TALK on the page then resort first to this. Check the duplication detector report too.
- Why blindly remove EVERY THING including that cited to other links not complained about here?
- Complainant user has alredy said in other words that there is no need for a tag. Talk:Sixty-sixth_session_of_the_United_Nations_General_Assembly#Copyright blanked the whole page without saying why and also admitted as much that the "Copyvio" was attributed in qupoteds and he could have been BOLD to change what he didnt like.Lihaas (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Created Talk:Sixty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly/Temp though it seems less of copy vio as people's words are quoted and the lists, though reworded, almost have to include the proper noun for context. the majority of the article is NOT copyvio. Per that tag, only the controversial bits and not the whole article ought to be removed.Lihaas (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. There are problems with this (which I am addressing at the talk page), but I don't believe there are outstanding copyright issues. (Current problems relate to misattribution of quotes, as we are attributing to Al-Nasser words which were actually said by somebody else.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Final Destination 6: The Final Stand (history · last edit). Article is under AfD, but author has complained about the article (with wording which might imply copyvio) on AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Destination 6: The Final Stand, see post by User:GDGS). As I understand, even if article is deleted per AfD, there is a difference if it is deleted per WP:GNG or as a copyvio. Overall, the whole matter is far beyond my humble understanding of copyright and interactions with authors, so I prefer to pass it to professionals here. Ipsign (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- update: author has confirmed it is indeed a copyright complaint [1]. I left a short notice on author's talk page, referring him to Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Information for copyright owners and to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright, but I hope that somebody who's better qualified than me, can take it from here. Ipsign (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- If it ever comes back, we'll have to ask him to supply evidence to OTRS. This one is pretty confusing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Battle of Alamance (history · last edit). Issue raised first by by User: Jim Sweeney on the article's talk & at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've deleted the copyvio revisions and restored the pre-copyvio text. Should be ready to go. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Still some issues with this. A user has restored text from [2], one of the suspected copyvio sources, believing it to be a backwards copyvio on the basis that it doesn't appear in the Wayback machine until 2008 (it was added here in one edit in 2005 [3]) – how reliable a guide is that? If it is a backwards copyvio, the history will need restoring (the removal was done using the pre-revdel method of deletion and selective restoration). January (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've restored the history and investigated, and it does seem to be a backwards copyvio. Wayback is not definitive, but it is substantiated by the fact that the bulk of the content was added on 4 November 2005, but the external source includes these changes. I have no idea what the triple xxxs mean there, but in any event, it does look like we didn't copy from that source. Looking into the other source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Still some issues with this. A user has restored text from [2], one of the suspected copyvio sources, believing it to be a backwards copyvio on the basis that it doesn't appear in the Wayback machine until 2008 (it was added here in one edit in 2005 [3]) – how reliable a guide is that? If it is a backwards copyvio, the history will need restoring (the removal was done using the pre-revdel method of deletion and selective restoration). January (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've deleted the copyvio revisions and restored the pre-copyvio text. Should be ready to go. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. The other source is PD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Irfan S. Günsel (history · last edit) from http://www.ydu.edu.tr/node/1409. --Lambiam 06:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Suat Günsel (history · last edit) from http://www.ydu.edu.tr/node/1410. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind, there was an earlier version to restore. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)