MyWiki:Copyright problems/2010 October 14
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)
|
|---|
|
SCV for 2010-10-14 Edit {{Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-10-14 }} |
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit source]- User:Anthonyhcole/Mania (history · last edit) from DSM IV. Hope I'm in the right place. I want to insert a description of "manic episode" per the DSM IV into Mania, so I've paraphrased the DSM text, but I recall a frenzy of DSM deletions a while back, and don't know if there have been any special guidelines developed for using DSM info. Could someone possibly scan what I've done and tell me if I can insert it as is? Sorry for the trouble. I know how ridiculously busy you guys are. Anthony (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is sorted. I found DSM Complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817), looked at what Moonriddengirl and Eubulides did at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and tried to emulate it at Mania. Anthony (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay. :) We don't view these for a full week after listing; for quicker issues, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems is a good place to go. (Though even that can take a day or two! You're very welcome to come by my talk page any time you need a quicker response.) Based on the last advise from Mike Godwin, we're pretty much treating the DSM as any copyrighted text with brief excerpts and sufficient rewriting to avoid close paraphrasing concerns of the rest. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is sorted. I found DSM Complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817), looked at what Moonriddengirl and Eubulides did at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and tried to emulate it at Mania. Anthony (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Francesco Attolico (history · last edit) from see talk. Second paragraph is pretty chancy. Its not polished prose but its not choppy prose either. Also DD's sport bio articles don't often contain second paragraphs. I'm not comfortable leaving it, but I'm not comfortable pulling it either.*Kat* (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Directive 2002/24/EC (history · last edit) from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0024:EN:HTML. I'm really unsure if this is a problem or not, so I'm listing it here just in case. From what I can tell it's definitions from legislation, but the legal notice on the website explicitly claims copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Relisting. Let's give this one a bit more time to see how the discussion plays out on the status of the EU. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Statement of work (history · last edit) from see talk. Nomination completed by VWBot (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cursory review: introduction of disputed text on Wikipedia in 2006 predates both alleged sources (but the second one is a fifth edition with the first one dating back to 2001, not directly accessible). Stylistic evidence (multiple typos when the text first appears, such as "noy", "haedware", "specifc", poor grammar, the capitalization after a comma (expanding from a simple list of terms separated by commas) seems to point to a wikipedia origin. Need another pair of eyes though. MLauba (Talk) 09:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Stupid source being all inaccessible. :P I need to see if I can find somebody who can review it. I'll check at resource exchange or the librarian WikiProject. I've had luck there before. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Asked and relisted, to allow time to (hopefully) get an answer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Failing any definite evidence of copyvio, I've restored this. See article's talk for more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The only open ticket for the day; everything else, including SCV, has been reviewed
[edit source]- Lionel Wendt (history · last edit) from see talk. Relisting from the 6th. I'm not comfortable with the rewrite; some of what I found set out at the contributor's talk page. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think somebody else should review this, with fresh eyes, as I reviewed the last one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Stubbified, rewrite remained unusably close. See examples. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)