Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2015-05-06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2015-05-06 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
    • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Remaining hits are long factual sentences: "straight-4 common rail diesel engine with a variable geometry turbocharger and Intercooler. It has 16 valves and a DOHC (double overhead camshaft) design", etc CrowCaw 21:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, just my 2¢, Crow: I can't see any reason why that sentence couldn't have been written in different language ('it is a 16-valve four-cylinder diesel engine with double overhead camshafts ...". I think I'd have removed any and all content that started out as copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pondering that for a while, which is why I called it out here specifically. I guess it is a borderline case of "how creatively is it presented", and how convoluted would a re-write come out. Granted your version is just as meaningful, so Point Taken! I just want to be careful not to cross into an example I saw a few weeks ago, now CSD'ed, where an annoyed editor went nuts with re-writing factual statements ("he emerged from his female parent's womb in the year of our lord one thousand nine hundred and..." ). CrowCaw 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose portion of the Boobpedia article appears to be copied from a now-deleted Wikipedia article. This will be a G4 speedy if it is ever moved to article space. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned the dupe hits. I suspect the 5 Elements section may fall under WP:CIL, as being essentially the formula that the author concluded from his observations, albeit paraphrased (maybe, would have to read the book to be sure). Pinging Moonriddengirl and Justlettersandnumbers for second opinion, as well as any other passer-by to chime in here. CrowCaw 22:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it happens, I looked at this a couple of days ago; I was perplexed. I found no overlap with the book. I believe we must assume that this edit by a reputable editor was original work, it seems to have been expanded in the new article. Unless MRG has a better idea, I think the way forward here might be to politely ask the contributor (an academic and course instructor) where it came from. It may be that we just need to explain CWW. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]