Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

15 April 2015[edit]

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2015-04-15 Edit

2015-04-15 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
    • Cut and paste move, history merge requested or needed. Without prejudice to investigation as below CrowCaw 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been deleted three times, now a redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)[edit]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good-faith fork of Scarisbrick by PC78 which was flagged by the Coren Bot. Material in question was added to Scarisbrick in [This] edit in February 2005. Source appears to have been created in January 2004, archived by Wayback in September: [2], with the match at that time looking like This. This artice may now be a G12 if PC78 does not wish to rewrite it, but this also opens the question of 10 years of copyvio in the history of the Scarisbrick article. The copy report between the post-fork article and the Internet source is: [3], so is also needing attention. CrowCaw 22:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very clear, Sherlock Crow! Any particular reason not to have blanked Scarisbrick? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Justlettersandnumbers: The copied text in question was removed from Scarisbrick when being forked off into the new article. It just remains in the history, so a revdel would also hide much attribution. CrowCaw 20:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though there does appear to be hits from Earwig on the current article. 1 or 2 paragraphs, which can be removed or edited without blanking the entire article, I would think. CrowCaw 20:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Both pages have been cleaned. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]