Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 February 8

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

• Soholt Castle (history · last edit) from http://www.søholt.dk/artikel.asp?menuID=3&subMenuID=0&subSubMenuID=0&artikel=16 apparently. This was tagged copypaste (without a url) in November but according to a message on the talk page, from June 2010, it is an online translation of the source. Unfortunately the source isn't available any more, I can't get waybackmachine to like the ø in the url and I can't find where the source may have moved to. Bringing here to see if anyone else has any luck. Dpmuk (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Deleted. Only way to be sure. Danger ^{High voltage!} 15:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Jesus' Promise and the Task of Discipleship (history · last edit) from Jesus of Nazareth by Günther Bornkamm. Much of the text appears to be taken verbatim from various parts of the book. older ≠ wiser 13:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Deleted by Dpmuk. Danger ^{High voltage!} 15:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Mourning Bride (Tragedy) (history · last edit) from The Oxford companion to English literature and another article created recently by Smintheus Fellin (talk · contribs). older ≠ wiser 13:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Dpmuk (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  

• Legends In Concert (history · last edit) from here, here, etc. The Press Comments section is excessive copy-paste too. I say nuke it. It's the only way to be sure. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. One helping of copyvio by a serial violator, one helping lazy commercial copywriting. --Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  

• Mirai Suenaga (history · last edit) from http://www.dannychoo.com/post/en/26269/About+Mirai+Suenaga.html. — madman 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Lead paragraph copied from http://www.dannychoo.com/post/en/26269/About+Mirai+Suenaga.html, very little content otherwise. Has been nominated for speedy deletion a7 multiple times but contributor keeps removing templates (and mistakes them for the original CSB notification besides). Attempting to engage contributor and have him request permission on talk page. — madman 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've deleted this. I'd agree that there would be nothing usable left after the removal of the copyvio information, I could find no where to redirect to and stubfying didn't appear to be an option as it would have linked no where and I could find no independent sources. Dpmuk (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Economy of Vellore (history · last edit) from http://www.velloreonline.com/Economy.php. — madman 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  This article was tagged for copyright investigation on November 17 (!) but was never listed at WP:CP. Relisting today. — madman 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Issue resolved. Redirected article to Vellore as this was an unattributed copypaste and all the material was still in that article. From the evidence at the talk page and my own investigation it would appear the source copied from us not the other way around. --Dpmuk (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  

• Targeted killing user:Justiceinlaw has reverted an edit after I reverted it as "rv last edit. copyright violation (see talk page)" Here is the comparison I used. When I reverted again with "rv copyright violation see talk page Justiceinlaw you will have to talk about this on the talk page and convince people that it is not so." user:Justiceinlaw inserted the text again but slightly modified with other citations. Comparing the new text shows several strings the longest of which is 21 words long and another of 13 words. The 2 paragraphs are a report about a court case and there are only so many ways this can be written. However I do not want to get in to an edit war over this. So can someone else have a look and decide if the text should be reverted out or if the copying is acceptable. To check if this is a one off. I checked an earlier edit on the article Center for Constitutional Rights. An addition to the article by user:Justiceinlaw on 7 February 2012 added a paragraph on the Vatican and a citation to support it . The paragraph is largely a copy, however there is a single double quote at the end of the paragraph and it may have been user:Justiceinlaw intention to place the copied text in double quotes (assuming good faith). So given this has happened before--either intentionally, or unintentionally--can someone else please look at these edits and explain that user:Justiceinlaw must respond to concerns about copyright violations before reverting to the same text again. -- PBS (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the text for now (as it was still in the article), as this seemed less extreme than using the copyvio tag, and have left the editor concerned a note on their talk page. Hopefully they shall respond and this one can be quickly sorted. Off to look at the editor's other edits now. Dpmuk (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Having looked at their other edits most of them have copyright concerns. The notes on their talk page has grown accordingly. I think Center for Constitutional Rights is OK, if a bit closely paraphased in places, but would quite like someone to take a second look as I haven't investigated quite as completely as I'd have liked as I've run out of time. Dpmuk (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm running a little mini CCI --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Center for Constitutional Rights: Y Cleaned. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Targeted killing: (4 edits, 4 major, +1579) Cleaned. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Catholic sex abuse cases: (1 edits, 1 major, +1271) Cleaned. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests: (1 edits, 1 major, +979) Cleaned. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Roberto Micheletti: (1 edits, 1 major, +926) Cleaned. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Bradley Manning: (1 edits, 1 major, +839) Reverted by other for non-copyright reason. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: (1 edits, 1 major, +559) Cleaned. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• CCR: (1 edits, 1 major, +223) Looks clear to me. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add that following conversations with the user in question I'm confident that this was due to them not realising that we couldn't accept "No commercial" works and I think they're aware of copyright law. Although I think there may be WP:NPOV and WP:COI concerns there I don't think we'll have any more copyright problems. Dpmuk (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. :) I thought I'd be coming back from lunch to finish this up. :D I agree with you; no reason to assume ongoing issues. I'm content to leave it to you unless you ask for help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I'd done them ages ago when I first investigated this - I just hadn't made that very clear obviously. They've not edited in a while but I've got their talk page watchlisted and I'll check their contributions every now and again just to be on the safe side. Dpmuk (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And I thank you both for the support. -- PBS (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)