Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 August 31

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

No copyright concern. False positive. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article redirected to non-infringing article. Hut 8.5 10:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author created a significant number of other unattributed dupes of existing language articles which need to be redirected. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article redirected to non-infringing article. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article redirected to non-infringing article. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Single author cut/paste move. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. -- DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I think this is all okay now. I found substantial copying in the version that was tagged, but the tag was long removed (note by probably the editor who placed the content) and the content seems to be all gone as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Dpmuk (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be much too closely translated from this source, but we really need somebody with better French than mine to assess it. :/ Compare: "Les Puller (issus des Fleckenstein) apparaissent en 1236 ; ils se disent, à partir de 1262, Puller de Hohenbourg." and "The Pullers (descendants of the Fleckensteins) appeared in 1236, calling themselves from 1262 the Pullers of Hohenbourg." for instance. This may be severe enough to require blanking and starting over, but I'm not sure if it extends through the whole article. Does not seem to be compatibly licensed: [1]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Flash of light! I think User:Dcoetzee numbers French amongst his many accomplishments. :) I'll ask him if he can take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire history and description sections (the entire article) are a direct, word-for-word translation, and even match up to the "historique" and "description" fields that all Ministry of Culture database entries possess, but reverse copyvio remains a strong possibility. User:Emeraude, an established user with over 30,000 edits, added the information in March 2007, including wikilinks, and linked to their source, which appears to be an older version of the same record not including this info. They've written dozens of other articles in this area (see User:Emeraude#Articles_created), suggesting expertise in that area, and their work on modern UK topics such as Priscilla Coleman exhibits a similar style of writing. I've inquired about this on their talk page - their last edit was 30 minutes ago, so I would expect a response. Dcoetzee 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor confirms that their publication predates hers. The article is blanked and listed under today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has written dozens of articles in this topic area. I fear the problem will require a lot of effort to fix, and possibly more effort to explain to the user, since they're still active. Dcoetzee 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]