Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/2012 October 18

wrt: "Indoor cricket (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.cricketromania.com/en/cricket/tipuri-de-meciuri/cricket-ul-in-sala. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 10:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)"

If you actually take the time you look through the page history, you see that the wikipedia content predates the romanian version. If there is a C+V job (which is tenuous) its the other way round. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this incorrect referral is an example of WP:point.

Py0alb (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not tenuous. The article was riddled with copy and paste text from other sources here was a previous removal. Unfortunately when I attempted to communicate with you, you accused me of vandalism. Hence the more official approach needed here. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Officiously copying and pasting generic warning notices does not count as "attempting to communicate". Don't be so disingenuous. Its the exact opposite of polite communication.

There is no single block of text that could be described as cut and paste - I had never even seen that ecb page until you found it - but it does make a good reference for the content I wrote, so thank you for that (although I'm quite sure you didn't mean to be helpful). Pages listing a set of official rules are always going to bear certain similarities. There are only so many ways of saying "if the ball is hit against the boundary wall behind the bowler, four runs are awarded" etc.

The wikipedia content PREDATES the Romanian content you obviously spent some time googling. So unless you suspect the author of possessing a time machine, I fail to see how it could have been cut and paste. Py0alb (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]