Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Archive 5

Hello again WikiProject Copyright Cleanup members, including my good friend Moonriddengirl. Today I came across another new editor who has created a number of new articles that have copy violations in them. I left a note on the user's talk page explaining what the problem is. He/She already got three deletion notices about this type of problem. I wanted to give you guys a "heads up" because I may not be able to keep a close eye on the person's work from now on, as I am busy with stuff IRL. The user's name is User:Deadmonkey8984. Many thanks to you all for your very important work, Invertzoo (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam started out as a copy of an article in Vietnam Magazine by Robert Ankony, the text of which can be found on his website. The talk page of this article contains claims that Ankony is the editor who created our article, and states that he releases the material according to some CC license. there are other reasons why I have nominated this for deletion but given that the text of the article, even after some editing, is still Ankony's original text, I continue to have doubts about the copyright status of this article. Can anyone give guidance here? Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• comment I've been going back through both this article and some of this editor's other contributions and think that the issue isn't just related to this particular article. I did bring up primary source concerns on his talk (icemanwcs) and asked that he make wider use of reliable secondary sources. Intothatdarkness 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC

Dear Mangoe and Intothatdarkness please be advised the Battle of Signal Hill is a very notable battle and the article as posted is a starting point in continuing research on this and other subjects. The purpose of citing Lurps is ten years of intense research was spent documenting both editions and the U.S Army Center for Military History, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Army Ranger School, Fort Benning, Georgia, have recognized the research and dedication to this work. It is authoritative and I plan to add more detail, secondary sources, and photos, but unfortunately it all takes time, I'm only one person. Delete the work if you must, but please be aware you are throwing away accurate history and the sacrifice of many men who gave their lives to secure a remote mountaintop outpost so thousands of other men could have vital radio communication in the most heavily fortified enemy location in South Vietnam, A Shau Valley. Thank you very much, Dr. Robert C. Ankony User talk: Icemanwcs

I think you're misunderstanding the comments here. If the Battle of Signal Hill is noteable, you should be able to demonstrate this based on reliable secondary sources. Your works are not secondary sources. I suspect that both the CMH and Ranger School use them as primary sources. Also, I've found errors in some of the material you've quoted. I've been working this article off and on, and I wouldn't do that if I didn't think it had value. But it needs some work to get it to Wikipedia standards. Simply copying your own articles from Vietnam magazine isn't the way to do that work. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at this article? The primary author has presented large blocks of text as direct quotes, but has indicated that some of them are "abridged" or "rearranged" (their words) without any indication what the changes were, via ellipses, etc. Also, many (perhaps all) of the texts quoted are no longer copyrighted, but the amount quoted still seems excessive to me, since much of the information can easily be synopsized, rephrased or paraphrased. My understanding is that we discourage large blocks of quotation even from non-copyrighted text. (There's no problem with the material being credited, the author seems to have done quite a good job there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Beyond My Ken. :) We do discourage articles constructed from large blocks of quotation, but as far as I can see all of the sources are out of copyright. I've dropped the {{over-quotation}} tag on the article and left a note on its talkpage explaining the issue, but those who are more into MOS matters may be better to weigh in or assist with cleanup. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Hot Rize features a scan of one of the band's album covers, File:1986 traditionalties.jpg. It is my reading of the non-free media rationale that album covers are used to illustrate Wikipedia pages about albums under fair use, but what about bands? Is that still OK?

Related question: I found this picture of the band on Flickr, marked CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (attribution, non-commerical, no derivative use). Would that be a more appropriate (or less appropriate) way to get an image? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your system doesn't seem to have a place to report an apparent copyright problem without assuming that I must be a lawyer, so I'll try it here. The Culture article closely matches Multiculturalism by Syed Ali Raza (links and details at talk:Culture#Copyright). That book says "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0." but I didn't find where it mentions Wikipedia. The book must have been copied from Wikipedia because it has the same captions, but they don't always make sense without the pictures. So should we worry about it? Art LaPella (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, the newly created Anna Akana article appears to be mostly, if not completely, copied and pasted from the two reference URLs. Can someone please check it out and see if it needs to be nominated for speedy deletion? Thank you very much, --momoricks 21:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted. Best, --momoricks 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear copyright experts: This draft: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edmund A. Boniface, Jr. has a large section copied from a patent document. Are these copyrighted? Or are they considered government documents. Google seems to be publishing them. I intend to redirect this inventor's page to his invention, but not if it's mostly a copyvio. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To judge from Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution it seems that the text of US patents aren't copyrighted unless a notice is included in the patent. Hut 8.5 10:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Because NOAA is a US federal government agency, and I am in the US, is it OK for me to copy images from their site? I could use a couple for the article on Rip current. And if it is OK to do, what do I say when I upload them with the upload wizard onto Commons? Invertzoo (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

-- It would seem that since NOAA is a federal agency, items created by/for/under them would fall under public domain unless otherwise indicated.

Most NOAA photos and slides are in the public domain and CANNOT be copyrighted. There is no fee for downloading any images on the NOAA Photo Library. Educational use is encouraged as the primary goal of the NOAA Photo Library is to help all understand our oceans and atmosphere so as to be better stewards of our environment for future generations. A few photos in the NOAA Photo Library that are known to have copyright restrictions are so noted in the caption information associated with those images. Credit MUST be given to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department of Commerce. Where a photographer is noted, please credit the photographer and his/her affiliated organization as well http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/about.html

§ 403 . Notice of copyright: Publications incorporating United States Government works Sections 401(d) and 402(d) shall not apply to a work published in copies or phonorecords consisting predominantly of one or more works of the United States Government unless the notice of copyright appearing on the published copies or phonorecords to which a defendant in the copyright infringement suit had access includes a statement identifying, either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of the copies or phonorecords embodying any work or works protected under this title. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#403 Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

In doing category cleanup I've come across Category:WikiAfrica new articles which currently contains 131 pages that relate to Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Incubator. The sample I've looked at appear to contain a lot of material that is an exact copy of material elsewhere on the internet - e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Mlozi the Slaver and . Some pages have already been moved from this incubator to mainspace - e.g. Elson Aaron Kambalu (which has material identical to ). Can anyone advise on how I should proceed regarding this (copyvio is not an area I specialise in). DexDor ^(talk) 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If there are widespread problems here then the best approach may be to open a contributor copyright investigation. That's what was done with the India Education Program, a Foundation project to get people editing in a developing country that turned out to have been responsible for huge numbers of copyright violations. Hut 8.5 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A useful tool for investigating such issues is the Duplication Detector. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In the article about the 2000 film, Requiem for a Dream, it shows a clip of the film and part of the soundtrack of Clint Mansell's score. I thought this should be worth mentioning since the film is not in the public domain nor is it under the Creative Commons license (the rights to the film are owned by Lionsgate).

In addition, I saw that the soundtrack of the Chinatown score was found below the infobox of the Jerry Goldsmith article. I wasn't sure if Goldsmith's score to that film is also currently under copyright. I know film is (the rights are owned by Paramount Pictures).Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there is enough critical commentary for the Requiem for a Dream clip to be acceptable as a non-free media file, which is how it is now with a completed WP:FURG but the Jerry Goldsmith file c:File:Chinatown Goldsmith.ogg is on the commons claimed to be the work of the uploader which is obviously false, so I have nominated it for deletion there. It too could likely be used as non-free in the current article in an appropriate section where there is commentary about the music of the film, so maybe transfer it here as non-free before it get deleted on the commons. BTW a better place for this type of post would be at the media copyright questions page or possibly unfree files page. ww2censor (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I know that there's a bot that goes around to check for copyright violations--I can't remember the bot's name and I also don't know if it can be asked to look for copyvios on specific pages. I just manually cleaned out a bunch of copyvios at List of Cyberchase episodes. I'd like to see if the episode summaries have all been copied from various PBS websites, but I don't have the time to check all of them manually. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The bot is User:CorenSearchBot, it is possible to get it to do manual searches here. The bot appears to be down at the moment though, and pages which have existed for a while tend to get lots of false positives due to Wikipedia mirrors reusing the content. Hut 8.5 19:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Hut 8.5. Do you have any thoughts for how to best deal with television articles that contain episode summaries copy/pasted from other sources? It's infuriating to have to keep manually checking these. I just found out that List of Wild Kratts episodes appears to swipe content found at PBS-related websites and/or IMDb. I wish there were a way to loosen up copyright restrictions somewhat, since it seems that everybody can reprint official episode synopses (TV Guide, Zap2It, Amazon, DVD collections, etc) somehow without violating copyright laws. Anyhow, I ramble... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Alas, Cyphoidbomb, they may be violating copyright laws, but just not caring. One of our core movement values is free content, so we do care. (That said, some of them don't have to care because they have license from the copyright holders. DVD collections, for instance, are unlikely to misuse proprietary content and professional publications may have permission.

Because unless we mark it as fair use everything we print is essentially a promise to users - "You can use this however you want and change it however you want with permission of the owner" - your best bet for relaxing standards on English Wikipedia would be to seek an exception to permit the use of these as quotations at WT:NFC. I think that's a real long-shot, to be honest, because we can describe the episodes ourselves and have no issues. We would also have to keep the fair use summaries in quotations and source them. But I think it's the only chance at all for getting these allowed on Wikipedia aside from getting individual show licenses from the copyright owners themselves.

In terms of what to do in the current environment, television episode summaries are a massive pain. I've tried using hidden comments in episode boxes and using edit notices for pages. I routinely use {{Plot2}} on talk pages, but nobody ever sees those. I think a combo of hidden comments and edit notices seem to have best success. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I'm just whining out of frustration. :) Press releases, for instance, are reprintable because they are prepared so that other venues will promote the content. It would seem that episode loglines are released for the same reason, and using them drives people to watch the series. It's beneficial to the studio. Anyhow, I know the deal. I just keep running into editors who paste summaries over my <!--Do not copy or closely paraphrase summaries--> notes and it's starting to irritate me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Press releases aren't accepted on Wikipedia, either, based on long-consensus in copyright areas. :) It's in the WP:FAQ for copyright, the shortcut of which I forget. Same issue - these companies may be find spreading the word, but that doesn't mean they consent to modification. (Or necessarily commercial use.) And re: the summaries and the hidden text, I feel your pain. :/ I have dealt with that many, many times. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There's another bot checking full text of articles each time they are edited. Reports of suspected matches are generated at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc but there's a need for more eyes checking the reports on these matches to distinguish false positives from true ones, then follow up as needed. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Originally asked at user talk page for Moonriddengirl, posting here for additional eyes, please:

• Talk:Dump months/GA1
• Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/GA2

So, I've been reviewing a lot of GA candidates lately, and noticing a lot of nominators like to use a huge amount of both in-paragraph quotations and extremely large blockquoting.

There is now a handy-dandy tool in use as linked on GA Review subpages -- called Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox.

I've been recommending in my GA Reviews that nominators cut/trim/remove, or paraphrase quotations, so that when I revisit, each source with that Copyvio Detector tool gets below a 30 percent confidence value.

I'm getting some initial resistance at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/GA2 regarding my review of Avengers: Age of Ultron -- see Copyvio Detector results at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Avengers%3A+Age+of+Ultron&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1

(Update: Also now getting some resistance to my recommendations of quotation removal, at Talk:Dump months/GA1.)

This is the version of the article at time of my initial GA Review, placing it as GA on Hold and asking for quotes and blockquotes to be removed.

Am I right in my GA Reviews to strongly recommend cutting down on amount of quotations, even if they are indeed properly cited with in-line citations?

Can too much liberal quoting and blockquoting be a form of straying towards copyvio?

Just wanted your expertise before I revisit that particular GA Review again -- and going forwards with how I approach large amounts of quotations on other GA Reviews in the future.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Got a great response from Moonriddengirl, at DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On May 27th 2015, an editor named "Fidacknp" replaced the content of the article Central Karakoram National Park with the contents of this webpage, which states "Copyright 2014" at the foot. The editor concerned has made no further edits in Wikipedia but his name suggests to me that he may be linked to the website. I have been BOLD and reversed this copyright violation by returning the article to its position prior to the violation, and intend to work further on expanding and improving the article. Is there anything further I need to do like tagging the talk page? Should I proceed in some other way if I find such a violation again? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cwmhiraeth. :) You did exactly the right thing; thank you! There is a tag for the talk page, {{cclean}}, and if you don't mind please leave a note for the editor. Under the circumstances, I recommend {{uw-copyright-new}}. That way he will know what happened and why. If he is linked to the website, he can license the text at site if he wishes. And, importantly, if he keeps putting copied content on Wikipedia, we will know that he knows better and can handle him with a block as appropriate.

Sometimes it's a good idea to get an administrator to revision delete the edits, but that's not mandatory. I myself tend to do it where copy-pasting is huge or only involves an edit or two, to help protect against restoration of the material. In this case, I went ahead, because the person replaced the entire text of the article. :) If you ever want to request that, you can use {{copyvio-revdel}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I was hoping someone could help me out. A user with whom I've been having some judgment and competence issues added these episode summaries at List of Dragnet (radio series) episodes. Much of what he added looks like it was copy/pasted from this open wiki, which doesn't have a clear copyright policy (CC-SA and such). Now on the one hand, if this site is copying the opening lines from public domain Dragnets, I think we might be able to use that content. However, the user has also copied some of the "Extended plot" details from the OTRR page, for instance, "Then the robber escapes from the lockup and must be recaptured again." He's done this a number of times as you'll notice. It's not clear whether these extended plots were user-contributed or if they are attached in some way to the original Dragnet promo documents. Anyone have any thoughts about this? It seems like we should be erring on the side of caution. If there are any admins who are familiar with copyright matters, I'd like to get some intervention because I think I'm involved. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

May also be worth looking at oldtimeradiodownloads. I can't add the link because it's blacklisted, but it ends with .com/crime/dragnet/the-big-threat-1951-04-12. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like a plagiarism than an outright copyvio issue. Plagiarism is also not accepted on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Plagiarism, although it does not put the project as a whole at risk of lawsuits. Hope this helps.Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. Anyone who is going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello copyright cleaners! You may enjoy CopyPatrol, a new tool from Community Tech, powered by EranBot. The tool monitors recent changes and identifies possible copyright violations. Login with your Wikimedia account to get started. Use "Page fixed" after removing the copyright violation (or tagging for speedy deletion, if needed), or "No action needed" if there is no violation or it has already been resolved. You can provide feedback here. Look forward to neat features like rollback, CSD tagging, issuing of user talk page templates, and admin functions like page deletion and revdel. Hope you all find this useful! Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings MusikAnimal (WMF) – Thanks for this info. Today at Tip-of-the-day talk page I posted above info for a new tip as part of on-going improvements for TOTD. Wondering if there are any statisics about CopyPatrol usage? For example, number of editors using, number of updates? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Awesome! Glad to be featured as a Tip-of-the-day! We currently have about 35 users who have done reviews, totaling around 7200 reviews. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story is an article I'm concerned might be heavily copied from other sources. I had to indef Josephlalrinhlua786, one of the article's major contributors, because he was a serial plagiarist. I don't have tons of time to get into it at present, so I was hoping someone from this WikiProject might be able to take a look. "After months of training, Rajput had internalised Dhoni’s every move." is copied from here, so is content like "Throughout the filming process, Rajput’s weight gain and loss stretched to around 16 kg. At some point, he either lost weight to look like a teen, or gained some to play a 30-year-old team captain." It really is a shambles. Any help that could be donated would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I came across this article today and googled the text because the tone seems odd and it turned out that most of the article prose was copied pretty much verbatim from and , and I suspect the rest comes from someplace on that site as well. It seems to have been mostly added in this edit, citing permission from the site owners, although the website pages bear a standard copyright notice. If this was a short text, I would have rewritten it myself just to be on the safe side, but this is a pretty big page and I don't know what to do with it. Daß Wölf (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: I have reverted to the last clean version. We would need to have an OTRS ticket on file to use the text since the webpages are not compatibly licensed for use on Wikipedia. You are free to rewrite the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears it up. Daß Wölf (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Could someone just tell me procedure for the significant text added to the Blackdom, New Mexico page? Indications are that a ph.d. recipient copy and pasted part of his/her dissertation to the page. It obviously needs to be edited per a number of policies, but should it be removed instantly for copyvio? I assume he can release his copyright, but simply adding it to the article isn't the way to do that. Do I delete all of it now (or if someone with roll-back wants to help, that would be great), contact him about releasing his copyright, and then work with him on re-adding the content? Thanks: any help appreciated from this experienced cabal. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't really assist but you may want to consider this deletion nomination: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blackdom Townsite 1911.jpg. However, very little of the added prose by that editor has citations and those that are there are totally buried, so don't comply with our citation style. He also has not been active for quite some time so unless he has an email connected to his enwiki username you have little chance of a discussion. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If it has been copied from a PhD dissertation then it is a copyvio and should be removed. If the editor who added it is the person who has the copyright then they could release the copyright, yes, but we'd need the editor to supply some kind of evidence that they own the copyright to the material, such as this, and that they aren't some random person claiming to have copyright. Do explain this to the editor who added the material if you remove it. To remove it I'd suggest just reverting to the version prior to his additions (which is easy) and then re-adding the few minor adjustments that have been made to the article since the material was added. Rollback isn't going to be any help with that. Hut 8.5 15:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. Exactly what I needed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question about commons:File:AContinentIsBridged.png. I took it out of the Franklin Booth article when I realized that it was made in 1940+. But, then saw it has the {{PD-US-not_renewed}} license. It was made in 1940 and the author died in 1948. I am unfamiliar with this licensing tag. Is this image in the public domain and free to use?—CaroleHenson (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - You may want to ask this question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions - Whpq (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I moved it there.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we as individual Wikipedia editors really have any recourse in situations like this: WT:MED#Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy (permalinked revision: Special:Permalink/798806111#Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy)? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello copyvio project, I would be interested to know if you believe this article constitutes a copyvio or not. I just found out today that it had been copypasted from another website and unnoticed for 13 years, but I am not sure whether the copypasted content is PD or not, it says it is from the "Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress" and AFAIK federal works from the US tend to be PD. Details and links are on the talk.

The page looks like a fairly reliable source, so if it is not a copyright issue I will get to work cleaning the page up and adding cites. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_and_copyright_law. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Good day,

I had a bit of free time this morning and started looking at some RD1 requests, and I was quickly struck by the fact that some of the requests appear to be to redact very minor copy / pasta - eg I declined the redaction request over this: , reasoning that first, nobody has been warring to reinstate the content, and single sentences copied strike me as too minute to warrant use of tools. Any thoughts? Am I being too conservative here? MLauba ^(Talk) 09:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, @Justlettersandnumbers: for your opinion. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, MLauba! As you may have noticed, I'm a fairly dedicated RD1-requester in general, but I agree we shouldn't normally hide substantial amounts of page history for minor or trivial amounts of copyvio; I saw that MER-C recently declined a similar request here. "A single sentence" (or less) seems a reasonable definition of what I'd consider minor or trivial. I think you'd have been right to decline this one ... if the original copyvio had not been so substantial. If you agree, I'll now blank and list it in case there are other similar edits by the same person (Diannaa dealt with Jinah Kim yesterday). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Duh - my mistake, hadn't noticed the original issue, which I revdeleted up to Hut8.5's rewrite. Guess long term inactivity isn't really great for getting all that rust off. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• We do get some requests to nuke an article's entire edit history for minor copyright violations, I've seen people ask for thousands of edits in high profile articles to be hidden to get rid of a paragraph or two. This policy section is helpful, is says that revdel is intended for "simple use and fairly recent material". I think it's reasonable to delete large numbers of edits if the copyvio is very extensive, especially if virtually all the text from those revisions has been removed for copyvio reasons. But you're perfectly justified in declining this type of request. Hut 8.5 14:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

MLauba, Hut 8.5, unless the source I mentioned is PD (and I don't see that it is), we're not out of the woods yet – I don't think Hut got quite all of it: the first visible revision of that article seems to have substantial problems, and I believe that much of the current version is derived from it. It looks to me as if it needs to be rewritten pretty much from scratch. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)