Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 March 22
Appearance
- Inishkea Islands (history · last edit · rewrite) from this Mayo News article. This is part of the Comhar CCI, The entire text of the Mayo News piece was pasted verbatim in this diff and the article is still riddled with copyvio to this day (earwig). I have not added templates to the article or updated the CCI page, since I have no idea what to do with copyvio of this scale that has been around for this long. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've removed some issues; there's still probably more copyvio. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Country Roads Board (history · last edit · rewrite) from [1] [2]. CCI:Enthusiast01. I'm not sure if this is in the public domain or was written about something that happened in the early 1900s. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Perception limit (history · last edit · rewrite) There appear to be many instances of WP:CLOP copyright violation in this article - sometimes quite blatant, sometimes more subtle. An LLM appears to have been used to smooth over rewording, giving a patina of plausibility to the text as a whole. Generally, copyvio appears to happen on a paragraph by paragraph basis, from the referenced sources cited inline at the end of each paragraph. I have previously removed one instance of infringing text and had relevant versions revdel'ed but there are certainly more instances, and I do not have the capacity to go through it all given the article's length. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Proposed deletion as the article has more problems to its existence than plagiarism. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- @MimirIsSmart (as prod) @Bearian (as prod2) I have no objection at all to the article's being deleted. However, I am concerned that if the article ends up being soft-deleted via PROD, it may be restored in the future, along with the WP:CLOP infringements that it probably still contains. But I don't want to waste editors' / admins' time trying to tease out those infringements and doing revdels. Is it possible to ensure that the article is hard-deleted after PROD, or must we take it to AfD? Alternatively, is there a process that we might use to initiate presumptive deletion, on the basis that at least another of the creating editor's articles Breast milk oversupply also contained copyright infringements? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- As I wrote, "Article issues of this gravity are not additive, but multiplicative." I said what I meant. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know how clearer I can be that I agree with you. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- As I wrote, "Article issues of this gravity are not additive, but multiplicative." I said what I meant. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- @MimirIsSmart (as prod) @Bearian (as prod2) I have no objection at all to the article's being deleted. However, I am concerned that if the article ends up being soft-deleted via PROD, it may be restored in the future, along with the WP:CLOP infringements that it probably still contains. But I don't want to waste editors' / admins' time trying to tease out those infringements and doing revdels. Is it possible to ensure that the article is hard-deleted after PROD, or must we take it to AfD? Alternatively, is there a process that we might use to initiate presumptive deletion, on the basis that at least another of the creating editor's articles Breast milk oversupply also contained copyright infringements? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Article deleted for a reason other than copyright concerns. MER-C 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Proposed deletion as the article has more problems to its existence than plagiarism. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)