Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 December 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6 December 2010[edit]

Evaluated

SCV for 2010-12-06 Edit

2010-12-06 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. PD-oldtext. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permission plausible Article blanked and contributor notified how to proceed. An administrator should delete if permission is not verified within five to seven days of the timestamp. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)[edit]
I originally blanked one section which has now been edited out by the creator, but I've since found further copied material; the Aged Care section is from p16 of the same document, the Volunteering section from p22 and Geelong Hospital Appeal from http://www.barwonhealth.org.au/geelonghospitalappeal/abouttheappeal/default.aspx. I've now blanked the whole thing as it all reads like it's been copied from other promotional material. January (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. There's no resemblance now, anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. I'm tagging this "n" because I believe this is backwards infringement for reasons explained at the article's talk page. There's no doubt there's bigtime COI going on here, and the resistance to verifying notability is concerning, but there is evidence of natural evolution of this content here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious: copyvio template added by IP user with one other, vandalism, edit. No source of copyvio suggested. Article is mainly a list, and seems to have grown organically since 2003, though something of a vandalism magnet (school syllabus?). I don't see a problem. PamD (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source found; copy-paste tag removed and cv-unsure tag placed at article talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section lines up with the source paragraph by paragraph, but I'm not seeing that it follows closely enough to be a problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm removing the template from this one, but am watchlisting the page in case the tagger pops by with an example. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]