Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 December 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

28 December 2011[edit]

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2011-12-28 Edit

2011-12-28 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. NortyNort (Holla) 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. NortyNort (Holla) 23:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned, still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. Recreated twice after being G11'd, likely the text may return. NortyNort (Holla) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. False positive. MER-C 03:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Cleaned by creator; a few instances of degrees and universities, unavoidable. NortyNort (Holla) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. NortyNort (Holla) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. NortyNort (Holla) 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. False positive. Attribution given. NortyNort (Holla) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. PD tag added NortyNort (Holla) 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. False positive. Source cites Wikipedia NortyNort (Holla) 23:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. NortyNort (Holla) 23:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article redirected to non-infringing article. Text was PD, but subject non-notable for a stand-alone. NortyNort (Holla) 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)[edit]
I'm not seeing duplication? IMDb is copyrighted, but I don't see any similar here aside from a few words. Can you supply specifics, or can somebody else see an issue? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you want more source, but here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0681195/ and more at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)#References). Too many links there, so here you go. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, let's look at that. The page you link to says, if you press more: "Panic is breaking loose at Perma One as The Head summons Palindrome, Quark, and other starship commanders to tell them that they will soon do battle with their arch enemies - the dreaded Gorgons. The Head orders Quark to seek out and destroy the Gorgon's doomsday ship down to Quark's last breath of life! Upon further orders from The Head, Palindrome gives Quark the United Galaxies greatest weapon - The Source; a weapon with great powers and the ability to wage a fight between good and evil! Together with The Source, Quark finds himself able to vanquish the Gorgons and save the United Galaxies for another day. When Quark returns to Perma One, The Head promotes him to commander of his own starship, but when Quark finds that he cannot take his loyal crew with him, he refuses the promotion only to find The Head elated to comply with Quark's dumb request." The episode summary for that day says, "Perma One is in a state of emergency, as the Gorgons have created the ultimate weapon to defeat the United Galaxy. Palindrome gives Quark the secret weapon, "The Source" (voiced by Hans Conreid). Quark must believe completely in the Source in order to defeat the Gorgons. A spoof of Star Wars. (NOTE: In the Spanish language version the scene where the Bettys compare Quark to a god was removed so as not to offend Catholic viewers.)" I don't see any similarity there at all beyond what you would expect to see in two people describing the same object. I'm restoring the content. If you find duplication, please drop by my talk page to discuss it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]