Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 20

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2012-05-20 Edit

  • Content is clearly copied. Source has an unusual license [1], it could be interpreted as placing all the contents in the public domain, but it is less then clear. Monty845 22:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Thank you for keeping an eye out for this issue. :) In this case, we're okay. New World Encyclopedia acknowledges that they copied from us: "New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article...." It's the way they work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the talk page, there is close paraphrase from this book. However the degree of "closeness" in my view is not severe and some of it I'd argue is OK. If there is any verbatim copying, it is almost surely only parts of sentences and scattered about in a few places. I'm not going to mark this closed, but I think it should be given very low priority given the backlog here. Possibly re-list? Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI concur, The ideal reviewer may be someone with GA credits, and looking for another. This article is close to GA, and a nice --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)clean rewrite of the relevant section would clear up this entry, and earn credit for assistance in a GA.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted 7 JulySPhilbrick(Talk) 15:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 20, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.