Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
rm 20 February, done (!)
+2
Line 27: Line 27:
{{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 28}}
{{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 28}}
{{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 1}}
{{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 1}}
{{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 2}}
{{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 3}}


==New listings==
==New listings==

Revision as of 00:00, 11 April 2015

"WP:CP" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:CP (disambiguation).
Skip to listings
    Wikipedia copyright
    Policy
    Guidelines
    Advice
    Processes
    Resources
    Shortcuts

    This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages suspected to be copyright violations. Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure by a copyright problems clerk or administrator. During this time, interested contributors are invited to offer feedback, propose revisions, or request copyright permission.

    Listed pages appear in the bottom section of the page. For additional guidance, see Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns.

    To add a new listing, go to today's section.

    Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal by following these instructions.

    Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

    Further information: Wikipedia:Copy-paste

    Under the United States law that governs Wikipedia, copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any content (text or other media) is created in a physical form. An author does not need to apply for or claim copyright, for a copyright to exist.

    Only one of the following allows works to be reused in Wikimedia projects:

    A) Explicit Statement. An explicit statement (by the author, or by the holder of the rights to the work) that the material is either:

    B) Public Domain. If the work is inherently in the public domain, due to its age, source or lack of originality; or

    C) Fair Use. United States law allows for fair use of copyrighted content, and (within limits) Wikipedia does as well. Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only if clearly marked and with full attribution.

    Even if a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, material should be properly attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism in respect of local customs and attribution requirements of compatible licenses. If the terms of the compatible license are not met, use of the content can constitute a violation of copyright even if the license is compatible.

    Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted text or images may be subject to contributor copyright investigations, to ensure the removal from the project of all copyright infringement. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing, to protect the project; see 17 United States Code § 512.

    Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns

    "WP:CPI" redirects here. For the page that protects extremely high-risk templates, see Wikipedia:Cascade protected items.
    Shortcut

    Blatant infringement

    Pages exhibiting blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:

    • Content was copied from a source which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and was not copied from a mirror source.
    • The page can neither be restored to a previous revision without infringing content, nor would the page be viable if the infringing content were removed.
    • There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license.

    To nominate an article for speedy deletion for copyright concerns, add one of these to the page:

    Both of these templates will generate a notice that you should give the contributor of the content. This is important to help ensure that they do not continue to add copyrighted content to Wikipedia. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.

    Suspected or complicated infringement

    If infringement is not blatant or the speedy deletion criteria do not apply:

    • Remove or rewrite the infringing text avoiding copyright violations or revert the page to before the text was added.
      The infringing text will remain in the page history, and it may be tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. Administrators hold discretion on the appropriateness of revision deletion for each case. Please note the reason for removal in the edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{subst:cclean}}). Please identify and alert the contributor of the material to the problem, unless advised not to. The template {{Uw-copyright}} may be used for this purpose.
    • However, if all revisions have copyright problems, the removal of the copyright problem is contested, reversion/removal is otherwise complicated, or the article is eligible for presumptive deletion:
    to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. (This text can be copied from the top of the template after substituting it and the page name and url will be filled for you.) If there is not already a page for the day, as yours would be the first listing, please add a header to the top of the page using the page for another date as an example.
    • Advise the contributor of the listing at their talk page. The template on the now blanked page supplies a notice you may use for that purpose.

    Instructions for special cases

    • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that a page contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you can't be sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the page's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the page version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)
    • One contributor has verifiably introduced copyright problems into multiple pages or files and assistance is needed in further review: See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.
    Further information: Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion

    Image copyright concerns are not handled on this board. For images that are clear copyright violations, follow the procedure for speedy deletion; otherwise list at Files for Discussion. To request assistance with contributors who have infringed copyright in multiple articles or files, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

    Copyright owners and people editing on their behalf or with their permission, please see below.

    Any contributor is welcome to help investigate articles listed for copyright concerns, although only administrators, copyright problems board clerks, and VRT (formerly OTRS) agents should remove {{copyvio}} tags and mark listings resolved.

    Assistance might include supplying evidence of non-infringement (or, conversely, of infringement) or obtaining and verifying permission of license. You might also help by rewriting problematic articles or removing infringing text (without removing {{copyvio}}).

    Supplying evidence of non-infringement

    Articles listed here are suspect of copyright concern, but not every article contains infringement. The content may be on Wikipedia first, in the public domain, compatibly licensed, or falls below threshold of originality for copyright. Sometimes, the person who placed it here is the copyright owner of freely-licensed material and this simply needs to be verified.

    Information can be provided to prove compatible licensing or public domain status under the listing of the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article. A link or a clear explanation can be very helpful when a clerk or administrator evaluates the matter. As listings are not immediately addressed on the board, it may take a few days after you make your note before a response is provided.

    If the article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, you should allow an administrator or copyright problems clerk to remove the tag. If the article is tagged for {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrasing}}, you may remove the tag from the article when the problem is addressed (or disproven), but please do not close the listing on the copyright problems board itself.

    Obtaining/verifying permission

    Sometimes material was placed on Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright owner. Sometimes copyright owners are willing to give permission (and proper license!) even if it was not.

    Any contributor can write to the owner of copyright and check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. In either case, unless a statement authorizing the material under compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, permission will need to be confirmed through e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. If a compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, please provide a link to that under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article.

    Please note that it may take a few days for letters to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged.

    Rewriting content

    Any contributor may rewrite articles that are or seem to be copyight problems to exclude duplicated or closely paraphrased text. When articles or sections of articles are blanked as copyright problems, rewriting is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the new material can be copied over the old. (The template blanking the article will link to the specific temporary page.)

    Please do not copy over the version of the article that is a copyright problem as your base. All copied content, or material derived from it, should be removed first. Other content from the article can be used, if there is no reason to believe that it may be a copyright issue as well. It is often a good idea – and essential when the content is copied from an inaccessible source such as a book – to locate the point where the material entered the article and eliminate all text added by that contributor. This will help avoid inadvertently continuing the copyright issues in your rewrite. If you use any text at all from the earlier version of the article, please leave a note on the listing to alert the administrator or clerk who review the rewrite. The history of the old article will then have to be retained. (If the original turns out to be non-infringing, the two versions of the article can be merged.)

    Rewrites can be done directly in articles that have been tagged for {{close paraphrasing}} and {{copy-paste}}, with those tags removed after the rewrite is complete.

    Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked guidelines and policies within it if necessary to review Wikipedia's practices for handling non-free text. Reviewing Wikipedia:Plagiarism is also helpful, particularly where content is compatibly licensed or public domain. Repairing these issues can sometimes be as simple as supplying proper attribution.

    Shortcut

    If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, then stating on the article's talk page that you are the copyright holder of the work (or acting as his or her agent), while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. To completely resolve copyright concerns, it is sufficient to either:

    See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

    Please note that it may take a bit of time for letters and e-mails to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged. Your e-mail will receive a response whether the permission is usable or not. If you have not received a response to your letter within two weeks, it is a good idea to follow up.

    One other factor you should consider, however, is that content that has been previously published elsewhere may not meet Wikipedia's specific guidelines and policies. If you are not familiar with these policies and guidelines, please review especially the core policies that govern the project. This may help prepare you to deal with any other issues with the text that may arise.

    Should you choose to rewrite the content rather than release it under the requisite license, please see above.

    Clerks and patrolling administrators

    For a more complete description of clerks and their duties, as well as a list of active clerks, please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks.

    Copyright clerks are experienced editors on Wikipedia who are familiar with copyright and non-free content policies and its enforcement. They are trusted to evaluate and close listings and request administrative actions when necessary. Clerks are periodically reviewed by other clerks and patrolling administrators.

    For a more complete description of administrators on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Administrators.

    Any administrator may work the copyright problems board. Working the copyright problems board may involve evaluating listings personally or using tools as necessary to complete closures by clerks. Clerks have been evaluated in their work, and their recommendations may be implemented without double-checking, although any administrator is welcome to review recommendations and discuss them with the clerks in question.

    Closing listings

    Pages can be processed at any time by anyone, but are not formally closed until a clerk or administrator verifies that all problems are resolved. Pages listed for presumptive deletion stay open for a minimum of 7 days before being processed. VRT agents may close listings at any time.

    For advice for resolving listings, see:

    {{CPC}} may be used to denote resolutions of listings by administrators, clerks and VRT agents.

    Listings of possible copyright problems

    Older than 7 days

    Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 7 days. At this point, they may be processed by any administrator (see WP:CPAA). When every ticket on a day is clear, the day may be removed.

    21 December 2014

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    • No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article. --—Darkwind (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been here a long time and it would be good be shot of it; I don't believe a CCI is needed, but am adding the other contribs here to allow a quick check.
    Contributions

    Diana He819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    This report covers contributions to 17 articles from timestamp 2014-09-25 05:51:10 UTC to timestamp 2014-11-20 16:48:26 UTC.

    • Possible violation here, in the Other Strategies section. Several phrases appear copied from this paper. I do not know enough about this subject to rewrite the material out. I'll re-post this here at CP separately under today's date. —Darkwind (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, after looking more closely, there are maybe three sentences that were copied, and not even whole sentences at that. I think we can call it clean. —Darkwind (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2015-05-11T23:31:24+00:00 in 0.05 sec.

    Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    31 December 2014

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    MER-C, Moonriddengirl, I had a quick look at this to see if there was any chance it could be closed now. I didn't much like what I found. I'm not happy that the earthquake stuff is completely OK: I found some limited copying from the Manila Standard, which appears in its turn to be copied from here. My main worry is that the many large edits by Briarfallen may contain other copied material (see Michael de Aozaraza, listed today). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Justlettersandnumbers, this is Briarfallen. Please maybe you should restrain yourself a little bit and treat other editors with respect. We unselfishly contribute our time here to help Wikipedia as I believe in its purpose. There is nothing personal to gain here. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Instead of treating me like a criminal first, maybe you should checked my contributions first one by one, and if you find any, maybe we can work together on it and help improve it. I am aware and try to follow Wikipedia rules including about copyrights. Yes, I used to contribute a lot in Wikipedia especially improving Philippine articles, but not starting this year because of a new job. Thanks.
    Maybe this is the reason why some people don't add references. You are more like HOUNDS that hunt copyright violators instead of fixing those articles that you think have violated. It is easy to find faults on others, but is it harder for you to help others? Why don't you just wait till the original sources complain about infringement as some, I believe, would just let it go. If you think about it, this is also beneficial for them as this is like free advertising if their articles were added as references. In my opinion, not only you are wasting your time, but you are also teaching others NOT to add references, instead of being honest and follow Wikipedia rules. This is akin to bad parenting. Yes, you could erase it but would you, if the article is actually true just unreferenced? Wikipedia rule is only leaving a template on top about searching and adding references. In addition, this is not personal opinion or personal research, which Wikipedia is more strict about.
    I'm just trying to find the rationale of what you guys are doing, as you could use your time in something more fruitful for Wikipedia. As for myself, I always try to follow Wikipedia rules ever since, not unless I'm unaware of it. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded at Briarfallen's talk page. a CCI check is probably necessary here, but I won't have time to do a broader check for probably a few days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Moonriddengirl. Did you check my revised version of the article following from instructions from the template? Could you please tell me what CCI stands for? Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have checked and have made several articles compliant with WP:Plagiarism where content was copied form public domain sources. The copying was not acknowledged as per our requirements, although the sources were cited. Some content in Balete tree was a problem, as it was taken from WikiPilipinas. WikiPilipinas is not compatibly licensed with Wikipedia, but even if it were copying would have to be explicitly acknowledged to meet the license. For my own notes, I have looked at articles 14-20 on the contribution surveyor. I did not look as deeply as I would if this were a CCI. It's more of an in-depth spot-check to see if one is needed so we can close this listing out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    19 February 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    Note The article may contain some instances of close paraphrasing from Disaster at the Colorado: Beale's wagon road and the first emigrant party by Charles W. Baley. Utah State University Press, 2002. I'm not sure that it rises to the level of a copyright violation. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    21 February 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    24 February 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    25 February 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    6 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    8 March 2015

    Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

    SCV for 2015-03-08 Edit

    • Cleaned best as I can tell. The source page doesn't load, and the comparison to the latest Wayback version [3] showed some copied content on the original version, later cleaned so current version is ok wrt the 2013 version of the source page. Thoughts/comments? CrowCaw 22:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yes, MRG! That had slipped my mind. So apart from the obvious problem, what bothered me there – and still does, to be honest – is the last section, Work. The stuff about "joyous utopianism" doesn't have the ring of new content, but I drew a complete blank searching for possible sources. Oh well, that may have to be the one that got away. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this a good deal too close for comfort. I'd be grateful for a second opinion here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me, Crow! Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    9 March 2015

    Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

    SCV for 2015-03-09 Edit

    Deleted (twice); third version is clean. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut-and-paste move with trivial edit history. Hut 8.5 22:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    10 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    17 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    18 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    A lot of copyvio from various sources has been removed from Mampi; all edits by this user definitely need to be checked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    20 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Hi, GabrielF. I've taken care of all copyright problems I found in the article. For other issues, you may wish to follow up in other forums or flag your concerns on the article itself. Thanks for finding this problem! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the right call to me, sroc. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    21 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    Miguel de Cervantes (history · last edit · rewrite)

    • In reading this article much of it began to appear as a literary essay. I googled the text "It is stated again and again that he wrote it" and found that it not only appears in our article, it appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia without attribution. A source from 2008 is attributed, but there is no statement to the effect "The Catholic encyclopedia as quoted in, and no quote marks are given. The entire article is problematic from many respects, and I doubt this is the entire extent of the cut-and-pasting. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03543a.htm for the same quote. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      As stated in response to Medeis on the talk page, the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1917 and is, therefore, in the public domain. It would best for the text to be attributed to the original source, but that doesn't make this a copyright violation. This September 2005 edit is responsible for this quote (and probably several other 'copyright violations'), but I'm not sure how much of that text remains in the article. There's a sourcing problem, which isn't news, not a copyright violation. -- tariqabjotu 05:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    26 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    27 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. And also compatibly licensed. :) Some of it is; some of it is not. I think it was probably just partially closely paraphrased at that source, which has TWO Terms of Use. Because why not complicate things? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    28 March 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    Not clear to me whether the English translation of the text of the is likely to be PD or not; France is unaccountably missing from Official text copyright. But WP:ISNOT seems to apply, so I believe the removal should stand. Comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1 April 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    "Under the terms of the Creative Commons licence described below, you may re-use most text and some images for non-commercial purposes as long as you credit the website."
    Is there a way to pull this off? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you asking if it is OK to use that content, Zeke Essiestudy? That licence is not compatible here, so basically, no. If the site wants to change its licence, or release the content of that page under a licence compatible with ours, then it could be used. It's almost certainly simpler to rewrite the page. If you do so, please be careful not to copy over any compromised content from the previous version (as that rather defeats the object). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ....mmm....alright. Are the infobox, references, external links, and categories still allowed to be retained? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, absolutely; as is any running text that you are quite certain is not copied. It's just important not to contaminate the new page by inadvertently transferring tainted text from the old version. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually removed seemingly the only two copied sentences from the page. Is it allowed to be restored now?... Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, Fuhghettaboutit. That second source is almost always copied from Wikipedia without attribution. Their footer suggests that they think all they have to do is namecheck the WMF and they're done, which is total BS, of course. :/ I'm told they've ignored contacts attempting to correct them. Banglapedia is an ongoing problem, I'm afraid. We've done (or maybe even are still doing) a CCI because copying from it is so widespread, and it just keeps coming back. Unless we can get somebody to create a bot to compare, I really don't know what to do about it. :( Anyway, this one is cleaned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only so many hours in a day. Another way of saying, we would need 20, 50, 100? more times as many looking and abating copyvios to actually address the real scope we are confronted with across the pedia. I do try when I stumble across a nest of them while doing other things but it's so time consuming!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    2 April 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    • Okay, Justlettersandnumbers, as we have just entered into another month that starts with "A", I have stopped running from the hard stuff and taken a look at this, and it makes me uneasy. I see issues, yes, but I'm not sure about a CCI. I've found issues in Port Bonython oil spill, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, Silex Systems, Smith & Nasht, and Ian Henschke - a high percentage of articles I looked at, but some of the issues were quite minor and others were potentially a one-off misunderstanding of government copyright. :( I could use a second opinion here. I hate to list it at WP:CCI if it's not really necessary, given the backlog there. I'm not sure who best to ask right now; any suggestions? (I went straight down the contribution surveyor to Brian Jeffries, checking Earwig Copyvio Bot compares to sources.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Moonriddengirl, I did see this but forgot to reply... I thought there was enough of concern to mention it here, and I see that you at least partly share that concern; whether it's enough to justify requesting a CCI I just don't know – I do note that the editor is aware of past problems and intends to mend his/her ways. For another opinion on the CCI question I personally would choose to ask Diannaa, who's been battling so valiantly with the CCI backlog. It certainly would be good to be shot of this day. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to look, Diannaa; and that's good news. What continues to bother me is that even if he/she has stopped, there may be quite a number of problems in the past. I've just now chosen one single article at random from the contribs: David Klingberg; I found an unacceptable level of copying, and have listed it here under today's date. Taken with the other problems already identified, that has convinced me that a CCI would be advisable. In that light, do you and/or Moonriddengirl agree? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there is enough to open a case, but I cannot commit to working on it anytime soon. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't heard from the editor after I asked him about which articles were likely violations, so it looks like we're going to have to do this the hard way. MER-C 12:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, MER-C. CCI requested here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. I've gone through most of this editor's non-trivial edits, and removed copyvio in a good number of recent articles. I think I got it all, but would be happy if someone would take a quick look to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    3 April 2015

    Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

    New listings

    Notice:If the links below in this section are broken, it's because there are too many unresolved copyright problems, If enough issues are closed, they'll work again. (So help!)
    (Above notice per MER-C.)
    WARNING! It also means that some reported problems are not on this page!!!

    New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports. To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for adding new listings can be found at Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns. Entries may not be reviewed and are not closed for at least 7 days to give the original authors of the article time to deal with the problem.

    Older than 5 days

    Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 5 days. At this point, they may be processed by a copyright problems board clerk. After 7 days, they may be closed by an administrator.

    27 July 2024

    Low-dose naltrexone (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://dispensariesltd.ca/health-hub/compounding-low-dose-naltrexone-ldn/. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 July 28

    Recent listings

    Below are articles that have been listed here for 5 days or less. Anyone in the community may help clarify the copyright status on these. See the section on responding for more information.

    29 July 2024

    30 July 2024

    Kolongongo War (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://africanculturalgroup-mbunda.weebly.com/the-history.html Wowzers122 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 July 31 Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 August 1 Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 August 2

    Wikipedia's current date is 3 August 2024. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 August 3. Images should be handled by speedy deletion, possibly unfree files or Wikipedia:Non-free content review.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=655903506"