Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages which are suspected to be copyright violations. Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure by a copyright problems clerk or administrator. During this time, interested contributors are invited to offer feedback about the problem at the relevant talk page, to propose revisions to the material, or to request copyright permission. After the listing period, a copyright problems board clerk or administrator will review the listing and take what further action may be necessary.

Pages listed for copyright review appear in the bottom section of the page. The top includes information for people who have copyright concerns about pages or images, for those whose pages have been tagged for concerns, for community volunteers who'd like to help resolve concerns and for the clerks and administrators who volunteer here.

If you believe a Wikipedia page has infringed on your copyright, please see special note below.
If a page you created has been marked as a copyright problem and you own copyright in the original publication (or have permission from the owner), please see this section.


Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

Under the United States law that governs Wikipedia, copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any content (text or other media) is created in a physical form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright, for a copyright to exist.

Only one of the following allows works to be reused in Wikimedia projects:

A) Explicit Statement. An explicit statement (by the author, or by the holder of the rights to the work) that the material is either:

B) Public Domain. If the work is inherently in the public domain, due to its age, source or lack of originality (such as Copyright-free logos); or

C) Fair Use. United States law allows for fair use of copyrighted content, and (within limits) Wikipedia does as well. Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only if clearly marked and with full attribution.

Even if a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, material should be properly attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. This is not only a matter of respecting local custom. When content is under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's license, proper attribution may be required. If the terms of the compatible license are not met, use of the content can constitute a violation of copyright even if the license is compatible.

Repeated copyright violations

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material (text or images) may be subject to contributor copyright investigations, to help ensure the removal from the project of all copyrighted material posted in contravention of policy. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing, to protect the project; see 17 United States Code § 512.

Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first

In some instances, it is clear that two pieces of text (one on Wikipedia, and one elsewhere) are copies of each other, but not clear which piece is the original and which is the copy. "Compliant" sites that copy Wikipedia text note that they have done so, but not all of our re-users are compliant.

If you've found such a case, you might first check the discussion page to see if a note has been added to the top of the talk page to allay people's concerns. If not, you can look for clues. Do other pages in the other website copy other Wikipedia articles? Did the content show up on Wikipedia all in once piece, placed by a single editor? If you don't see good evidence that Wikipedia had it first, it's a good idea to bring it up for investigation. You might follow the Instructions for listing below or tag the article {{copy-paste|url=possible source}} so that others can evaluate. If you confirm definitely that the content was on Wikipedia first, please consider adding {{backwardscopy}} to the article's talk page with an explanation of how you know.

If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, you might visit the CC-BY-SA compliance page or Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.

Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns

"WP:CPI" redirects here. For the page that protects extremely high-risk templates, see Wikipedia:Cascade protected items.
Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation. Alternatively, you may contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. You are also welcome to follow the procedures here. See the copyright policy for more information.

Blatant infringement

Pages exhibiting blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:

  • Content was copied from a source which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the content was copied from that source to Wikipedia and not the other way around (Wikipedia has numerous mirrors);
  • The page can neither be restored to a previous revision without infringing content, nor would the page be viable if the infringing content were removed.
  • There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license.

To nominate an article for speedy deletion for copyright concerns, add one of these to the page:

Both of these templates will generate a notice that you should give the contributor of the content. This is important to help ensure that they do not continue to add copyrighted content to Wikipedia. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.

Suspected or complicated infringement

If infringement is not blatant or the speedy deletion criteria do not apply:

  • Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. Please note the reason for removal in the edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{subst:cclean}}). When possible, please identify and alert the contributor of the material to the problem. The template {{Uw-copyright}} may be used for this purpose.
  • However, if all revisions have copyright problems, the removal of the copyright problem is contested, or reversion/removal is otherwise complicated:
  • Replace the text with one of the following:

    {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}}{{subst:copyvio|identify non-web source here}}

  • Go to today's section and add

    * {{subst:article-cv|PageName}} from [insert URL or identify non-web source here] ~~~~

    to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. (This text can be copied from the top of the template after substituting it and the page name and url will be filled for you.) If there is not already a page for the day, as yours would be the first listing, please add a header to the top of the page using the page for another date as an example.
  • Advise the contributor of the material at their talk page. The template on the now blanked page supplies a notice you may use for that purpose.

Instructions for special cases

  • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that a page contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you can't be sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the page's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the page version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)
  • Instances where one contributor has verifiably introduced copyright problems into multiple pages or files and assistance is needed in further review: See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Instructions for handling image copyright concerns

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion.

Image copyright concerns are not handled on this board. For images that are clear copyright violations, follow the procedure for speedy deletion; otherwise list at Files for Discussion. To request assistance with contributors who have infringed copyright in multiple articles or files, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation

Copyright owners and people editing on their behalf or with their permission, please see below.

Any contributor is welcome to help investigate articles listed for copyright concerns, although only administrators, copyright problems board clerks, and OTRS team members should remove {{copyvio}} tags and mark listings resolved.

Assistance might include supplying evidence of non-infringement (or, conversely, of infringement) or obtaining and verifying permission of license. You might also help by rewriting problematic articles.

Supplying evidence of non-infringement

Articles are listed for copyright investigation because contributors have reason to suspect they constitute a copyright concern, but not every article listed here is actually a copyright problem. Sometimes, the content was on Wikipedia first. Sometimes, the article is public domain or compatibly licensed and can be easily fixed by supplying attribution (e.g. through a dummy edit). Sometimes, the person who placed it here is the copyright owner of freely-licensed material and this simply needs to be verified.

If you can provide information to prove license or public domain status of the article, please do. It doesn't matter if you do it under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article; a link or a clear explanation can be very helpful when a clerk or administrator evaluates the matter. (As listings are not immediately addressed on the board, it may take a few days after you make your note before a response is provided.)

If the article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, you should allow an administrator or copyright problems clerk to remove the tag. If the article is tagged for {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrasing}}, you may remove the tag from the article when the problem is addressed (or disproven), but please do not close the listing on the copyright problems board itself.

Obtaining/verifying permission

Sometimes material was placed on Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright owner. Sometimes copyright owners are willing to give permission (and proper license!) even if it was not.

Any contributor can write to the owner of copyright and check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. In either case, unless a statement authorizing the material under compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, permission will need to be confirmed through e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. If a compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, please provide a link to that under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article.

Please note that it may take a few days for letters to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged.

Rewriting content

Any contributor may rewrite articles that are or seem to be copyight problems to exclude duplicated or closely paraphrased text. When articles or sections of articles are blanked as copyright problems, this is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the new material can be copied over the old. (The template blanking the article will link to the specific temporary page.)

Please do not copy over the version of the article that is a copyright problem as your base. All copied content, or material derived from it, should be removed first. Other content from the article can be used, if there is no reason to believe that it may be a copyright issue as well. It is often a good idea - and essential when the content is copied from an inaccessible source such as a book - to locate the point where the material entered the article and eliminate all text added by that contributor. This will help avoid inadvertently continuing the copyright issues in your rewrite. If you use any text at all from the earlier version of the article, please leave a note at the talk page of the article to alert the administrator or clerk who addresses the listing. The history of the old article will then have to be retained. (If the original turns out to be non-infringing, the two versions of the article can be merged.)

Rewrites can be done directly in articles that have been tagged for {{close paraphrasing}} and {{copy-paste}}, with those tags removed after the rewrite is complete.

Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked guidelines and policies within it if necessary to review Wikipedia's practices for handling non-free text. Reviewing Wikipedia:Plagiarism is also helpful, particularly where content is compatibly licensed or public domain. Repairing these issues can sometimes be as simple as supplying proper attribution.

Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf)

If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, then stating on the article's talk page that you are the copyright holder of the work (or acting as his or her agent), while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. To completely resolve copyright concerns, it is sufficient to either:

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

Please note that it may take a bit of time for letters and e-mails to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged. Your e-mail will receive a response whether the permission is usable or not. If you have not received a response to your letter within two weeks, it is a good idea to follow up.

One other factor you should consider, however, is that content that has been previously published elsewhere may not meet Wikipedia's specific guidelines and policies. If you are not familiar with these policies and guidelines, please review especially the core policies that govern the project. This may help prepare you to deal with any other issues with the text that may arise.

Should you choose to rewrite the content rather than release it under the requisite license, please see above.

Information about the people who process copyright problems listed on the board

Copyright problems board clerks

For a more complete description of clerks and their duties, as well as a list of active clerks, please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks.

Copyright problems board clerks are experienced editors on Wikipedia who have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's approach to non-free text and its processes for dealing with them. They are trusted to evaluate and close listings, although their closures may sometimes require completion by administrators, when use of administrative tools is required. Clerks are periodically reviewed by the administrators who work in copyright areas on Wikipedia.

Copyright problems board administrators

For a more complete description of administrators on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Administrators.

Any administrator may work the copyright problems board. Working the copyright problems board may involve evaluating listings personally or using tools as necessary to complete closures by clerks. Clerks have been evaluated in their work, and their recommendations may be implemented without double-checking, although any administrator is welcome to review recommendations and discuss them with the clerks in question.

Closing listings

Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 5 days before they are checked and processed by copyright problems board clerks, 7 days before they are checked or processed by administrators, who close the daily listings. OTRS agents who verify images may close listings at any time.

For advice for resolving listings, see:

The templates collected at Template:CPC may be useful for administrators, clerks and OTRS agents noting resolution.

Listings of possible copyright problems

Very old issues

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 October 25:

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Yikes, Justlettersandnumbers! Do we still need to spot-check other edits? That one was pretty bad. If I had known how widespread it was, I might have stubbed it to begin with. :( I thinkI got it all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I haven't looked at this recently. But the quick off-the-top-of-my-head reply from what I recall is "yes, definitely". I'll try to dig a bit later today. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Justlettersandnumbers, I've found copy-pasting in Ethnicity (album). That was an unsourced copy-paste, so we have plagiarism going on here as well. That means, sadly, that we can't rely on this user to identify where he copied his content from. :( I don't have time to look through it at the moment, but there's definitely copy-pasting in this edit (and close paraphrase) at least from [1] (the epiphany line and subsequent.) We may be heading towards a CCI here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 28:

  • Psychonaut, I'm not managing to access that page, either directly or via Can you provide a different link? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • [2]. That particular section was removed, though there is possibly more to be concerned about. MER-C 12:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 January 13:

  • Shake Hands Forever (history · last edit · rewrite) from I'm really not skilled enough to know who added this and when so I can't inform the original editor. I was (very nicely) requested to stop reporting copyvios until I learnt how to do this and so far I have. But... well... that seems weird to me. Trey Maturin (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. As Trey Maturin has said, the editor wasn't notified; but he/she has been indeffed since 2012, so I don't think that matters. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This editor, Barbara Osgood, may need looking at more carefully. She has text-copyvio warnings going back to 2008 (from Moonriddengirl) and 2011 (from Shirt58), and appears to have copied publisher's blurbs (or descriptions from Amazon or somewhere) as plot summaries in several articles, including the one above and The Killing Doll, partly from the book itself. I'm having some trouble seeing whether there's enough to justify a CCI request. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 May 20:

Looks as if there may be around 234 articles to be checked, Doc James. If you've already identified about five instances of infringement, the next step could be a WP:CCI request. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
User says they will rewrit [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Older than 7 days

Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 7 days. At this point, they may be processed by any administrator (see WP:CPAA). When every ticket on a day is clear, the day may be removed.

18 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Suzi Bass Award (history · last edit · rewrite) from Other contribs by this editor may need to be looked at. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe the above two reports are the result of the editor's failure to exercise proper discretion in the use of the duplicate detector tool. In the case of Jack Mitchell (photographer), the edits in question are over four years old: and include proper nouns, place names and generic statements of fact, which cannot be copyvios. And while it is a newer article, the same applies to Suzi Bass Award. Each article also has several other reliably sourced and properly attributed references listed. So to tag the entire articles, and before discussion on the article's talk pages, is a concern. As is the proposed threat of WP:WIKIHOUNDING my entire 10 year edit history, as has also been hinted at here. X4n6 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Timeheritage - contributions . This editor has been cautioned for copyvio a number of times since he began in 2015. This February (mainly 9-11th) he went on a spree of creating new articles on Ancient Greek monuments and sites, and adding to others, at a rate that would be impossible if he were writing them. I believe he is copying or translating from foreign language works (not all that well) such as site guides, which he gives as refs. This is also suggested by him not formatting the paragraphs correctly. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

7 July 2016

So, what's to be done here? I don't see any substantial overlap with the linkedin page, which may be because it has changed or because I'm not a member of the site so can't see the full listing. On the other hand, the summary for this edit, "J Roberto Trujillo owns this content and has granted permission for it to be used here", seems to confirm that the content was copied from somewhere. This shows every sign of being shameless self-promotion; the person is probably notable based on his scholar cites. If we had a precautionary principle as Commons does, this would probably be a place to invoke it and stub the page – but we don't. Thoughts, anyone? Ping Jo-Jo Eumerus, Nyttend, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Drm310. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I am a LinkedIn member, and can confirm that there is no substantial overlap between the LinkedIn profile and the article content. I checked the copyvio report with the tagged URL, although it registers as 63.4%, the majority of matches seems to be on names of institutions and position titles.
My opinion is that there is not enough evidence of copyvio. However I concur with you about the promotional aspect as well as the following possibilities:
  • DrNatchM and TruBio are the same person and therefore sockpuppets
  • One of them is the subject and the other is an affiliated party
  • The statement by TruBio wasn't a claim of copyright but a mild statement of WP:OWNership
Both accounts look to be stale, so I doubt there would be any traction at WP:SPI. I'd say we should restore and trim it back, and leave {{coi}} warnings for each user, should either return at some point in the future. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Are LinkedIn profiles stable? If not it may have changed in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
If you mean the URL then I'm quite certain that LinkedIn profiles to have static URLs. Many people use links to their social media profiles on other sites, so a static URL seems to be a prerequisite for that to work properly.
If you mean the content of the profile, then the profile owner could change it at any time. It's possible that at the time the copyvio concern was raised, the profile was a match, but has been altered since. Unfortunately, unlike articles here, LinkedIn has no edit history to check. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Thanks for the ping. Agree with Drm310's analysis of the issues here. I agree that with the exception of the sixth paragraph, the copyvios are mostly contained to proper nouns (titles, positions, offices, etc); but since we have a clear case of WP:PROMO (and probably UPE), then I would suggest a stubbing of sorts, under WP:NOTWEBHOST- that would enable the article to be re-written (as noted above, the subject almost certainly meets notability standards), which would mean we would control the language it was written in. We would keep the article, but lose the COI. On a lighter note, sorry about the alphabet soup people- it must be breakfast time!O Fortuna velut luna... 03:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

3 October 2016

  • Clinical social work (history · last edit · rewrite) from Offending text was added here in 2014 (copyvios report) and partially rewritten this past March, though it still shows a 79% match on the copyvios tool ([4]). clpo13(talk) 16:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

14 November 2016

  • Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children (history · last edit · rewrite) The majority of the article seems to be ripped word for word (or close to it) from the hospital's website. The last version of the article without these issues had other issues like not having enough sources or being a stub. I have tagged the article with the ad template, the cleanup-rewrite template, and the copypaste template. Elisfkc (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

20 November 2016

  • Marketing (history · last edit · rewrite) from
Extended content
The first three rows of this table on this page are copied verbatim from the book by Poley and Poley. This case is somewhat complicated because it appears that the material developed by Poley and Poley in their book, has been plagiarised by a commercial provider of Study Notes ( and I suspect that the study notes may actually be the contributor's source. The table structure (headings and sub-headings), some very peculiar wording (e.g. Western European timeframe) and the long slabs of identical prose are all indicators that the material is copied but that different sources, of a more scholarly nature, have fabricated to introduce the table and its contents. It may be useful to consider this content in conjunction with the following content. This notice was previously placed on this page, but appears to have been deleted.BronHiggs (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Marketing (history · last edit · rewrite) from The last row of this table has been copied verbatim from a set of study notes available for sale at This is the only column in the affected table that uses material that is not taken from Poley and Poley's book. This leads me to suspect that the entire table is actually copied from the study notes, but that, in turn, the study notes consist of material taken from two different sources. This notice was previously placed on this page, but appears to have been deleted.BronHiggs (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Marketing (history · last edit · rewrite) from A second table on the Marketing page also consists of content copied verbatim from commercialy available study notes. Please note that this content is quite different from the previously mentioned content although it appears to be from a similar source. This notice was previously placed on this page, but appears to have been deleted.BronHiggs (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Marketing (history · last edit · rewrite) from Opening section appears to be copied verbatim from commercial study notes available at BronHiggs (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Marketing (history · last edit · rewrite) from First two paragraphs of section on 'Customer Orientations appears to be verbatim copy from commercial study notes at Note that the image (diagram) also appears to be from same source, but was added to the page at a much later date
BronHiggs (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • History of marketing (history · last edit · rewrite) from Several long paragraphs, comprising an entire section of the article, are copied verbatim from the named source; only one paragraph uses direct quotation marks. The original page reference, given as a source, was to a different page on the same website, possibly in an attempt to obscure true source of the copied prose. However, I changed the original page reference to the correct page reference before reporting it. This notice was previously placed on this page, but appears to have disappeared, so I am reinstating it. BronHiggs (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The text has since been removed. I agree that it doesn't look like this was appropriate under our rules on fair use. Hut 8.5 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

23 November 2016

  • Also copyvio from Deleted. MER-C 12:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This would be either {{subst:CPC|d2}} or {{subst:CPC|do}} right? Abel (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. Hut 8.5 20:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The text has been in the article since 31 December 2014, those links are both dated from some time after then so I don't think it was copied from there. It certainly smells like it was copied from somewhere else though. Hut 8.5 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Hut 8.5 on all points. I've redirected the page, as the text was without any useful reference and I failed to find enough coverage to support even a stub. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Removed. The rest of the article has been paraphrased from that source but it skirts clear of being a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 22:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg The copyvio version was deleted on December 7, and the current version was cleaned by me today. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Hut 8.5 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No issue here - the tagged page has been deleted, the current content is a redirect to an article which is not a copyright violation, and as a court decision the source is in the public domain in the United States anyway. Hut 8.5 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

29 November 2016

Linguistic performance seems to be fine; I didn't see any problems. Cnilep (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Criticism of Islam (historylast editrewrite) from The article, although has some local violation of copy right, is full of quotes which has turned the whole article into a possible copy right violation. It's a real quote farm!Lstfllw203 (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

4 December 2016

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Out of date clock icon.svg User was not notified, relisting under today's entry. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

14 February 2017

  • Naval Station Norfolk (history · last edit · rewrite) from The text appeared on globalsecurity before the Wikipedia article was written. I seem to recall reading about globalsecurity text appearing on Wikipedia before, but I don't remember the details, so I've sent it here. /wiae 🎄 02:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    Also, if there is found to be a copyright concern, this would also affect the text at Naval Station Norfolk Chambers Field, which was split from Naval Station Norfolk. /wiae 🎄 02:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    • For the record, I am the one who edited the NSN article and created the Naval Station Norfolk Chambers Field one. I had no idea that the information that was already on the page was a blatant copy from the globalsecurity site. Frankly, that data had been there for 12 years (when the article was created in 2004!) without notice, and I'm just now getting into cleaning/sprucing/tweaking alot of Navy articles. Nonetheless, I just wanted to make sure I don't get a copyvio hit or warning. If it turns out to be a vio, I'll work on sourcing new public domain history and add to the article. KevCor360 20:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevCor360 (talkcontribs)
It seems that Wwoods, the creator of the article, wasn't notified of this possible problem. I've asked him/her to comment here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
That's my bad, Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks for catching that. And apologies to Wwoods for not notifying you. /wiae /tlk 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't remember where I got the text, though probably I copied it from the Navy website, the current version of which is here. I may have looked at globalsecurity, but I really doubt I copied it from there, because, duh, not public domain. But maybe they did the same thing? —WWoods (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought the explanation would be, Wwoods; I have a half-memory of other times when globalsecurity has been found to have copied PD content from US government pages and then claimed copyright on it. I think all that's needed here is attribution of the PD source in both the articles. It looks as if {{USNAVY}} fits the case. Will you deal with that, or do you want me to? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Continental Early Warning System (history · last edit · rewrite) from George Ho (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    I notified the person who created the article; I am awaiting the response. George Ho (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    I erred in judgment. The article creator did not copy from the source. It was some other person, whom I later notified. --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Cartel (history · last edit · rewrite) from I will spend some time tonight or this week rewriting the content. Mz7 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

18 February 2017

  • Diamond model (history · last edit · rewrite) from foundational: Bruce Traill, Eamonn Pitts (1998). Competitiveness in the Food Industry, page 18; subsequent: Dong-Sung Cho, Hwy-Chang Moon (2000). From Adam Smith to Michael Porter: Evolution of Competitiveness Theory, pages 113–117. Grochim again, but also another massive copy-paste from a book, by a different editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ralphie the Buffalo (history · last edit · rewrite) from and other pages on that site. Sitush (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The "copied from" page is from 2016. The article was written in 2007. Disclaimer: I heavily wrote the article and pushed for GA. MECUtalk 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems the edit by 11:38, February 15, 2017‎ Johngraves2 perhaps injected most of the 2016 page listed here. Reverting to before that edit may resolve this issue. Also, one of Sitush's edit summary on the page indicated a dislike for these articles. I propose he or she avoid these then. I only mention to show a bias in perhaps wanting the page blanked. MECUtalk 18:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Seems like a simple case of WP:BACKWARDSCOPY Abel (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. This isn't a backwards copy case - three edits over the last year or so have inserted large amounts of material copied from that site, which definitely didn't originate from Wikipedia (you can see from the edit summaries that it was copied). I've reverted to the prior revision and revdeled the intervening revisions. There might still be one or two issues with close paraphrasing in places but the remaining text looks OK to me and wasn't added by these people. --Hut 8.5 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Further to the above: Earwig result for the colorado.rivals page, which seems to be an assemblage of this cubuffs page (archived 4 June 2003) and the five pages linked from it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll have a more in depth look at this later but I'm doubtful that this is a case of massive copyvio - we might well be looking at cases of reverse copyvio (without the benefit of archived links it's hard to be sure with material of this age) and MECU doesn't strike me as a very likely plagiarist. Hut 8.5 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've deleted a few more passages including the material flagged up by the Earwig comparison. I don't think the issues here warrant deletion of the remaining content - if there is much more infringement then I think it must have come from some other source. Hut 8.5 21:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(edit conflict) (posting this without having looked at the most recent changes) As so often in such cases, I'll be nothing but pleased to be shown that I'm wrong here, Hut 8.5. But the evidence seems to say I'm not. Archived sources:

  1. Ralphie the Buffalo, archived 4 June 2003
  2. Pre-Ralphie, 9 June 2003
  3. Ralphie I, 9 June 2003
  4. Ralphie II, 9 June 2003
  5. Ralphie III, 9 June 2003
  6. Ralphie IV, 8 August 2003. Those pages, with slight changes, together make up
  7. this one, dated 22 October 2004. There's also a different
  8. Ralphie I, dated 23 August 2003

All date from before the creation of the article. Content from at least some is present in the article (Earwig percentage for the colorado.rivals page is 74%). The content could not have come from our article; it must therefore be a copyright violation. Example:

Our article Source #7
The calf was the son of Killer, a famed bison at Trails End Ranch in Fort Collins, Colorado. It took the cowboy and four students to keep the calf under control on the sidelines during a 7–0 win at the University of Denver on Thanksgiving Day. The calf was the son of Killer, a famed bison at Trails End Ranch in Fort Collins. It took the cowboy and four students to keep the calf under control on the sidelines, a 7-0 win at the University of Denver on Thanksgiving Day.

Please note that the exact string "It took the cowboy and four students to keep the calf under control on the sidelines, a 7-0 win over the University of Denver on Thanksgiving Day" also appears in source #2 above. WikiBlame result for: "the cowboy and four students".

Our article Source #6
John Parker, who trained and housed both Ralphie II and III, brought her back to Colorado from Montana and supervised all of her early training. Parker retired as Ralphie's caretaker in May 2000. John Parker, who trained and housed both Ralphie II and III, brought her back to Colorado from Montana and supervised all of her early training. Parker retired as Ralphie's caretaker last May.

WikiBlame result for: "trained and housed both Ralphie II and III". Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the recent changes - I've deleted both of those passages. Hut 8.5 22:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • National Capital Area Council#Amangamek-Wipit_Lodge_.23470_-_Order_of_the_Arrow (history · last edit · rewrite) Was finding and adding citations to the article National Capital Area Council and found out that the entire Amangamek-Wipit_Lodge_.23470_-_Order_of_the_Arrow section is a wholesale copy and paste from Lodge Operating Procedures version 02/20/2012 page 2-1.90% Copyvio Detector
    • I should be able to take some time later this week to rewrite the section in question. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It has already been rewritten. Abel (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • With the rewrite only a day younger than the copyright violation report of the blatantly obvious plagiarism, can we just mark this as {{subst:CPC|v}} and move on? Abel (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've moved the rewrite to the main article replacing the copyvio, the rewrite isn't a copyvio AFAICT. The copyvio was added in this edit in 2009, I don't think it's worth doing a revdel. No further action needed. Hut 8.5 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

22 February 2017

  • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Viable rewrite proposed; rewrite on temp page can be used to replace problematic article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sensory processing disorder (history · last edit · rewrite) from At least three separate copyvios by three separate editors, going back at least to 28 February 2013. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Viable rewrite proposed; rewrite on temp page can be used to replace problematic article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Resolved; clerk recommendation implemented. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

23 February 2017

@Justlettersandnumbers: Thanks for your work on dealing with the copyright issues on the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Article cleaned, still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
There is definitely a lot of content in common here with that source but I'm not sure which order the copying occurred in. The source seems to date from September 2010 according to the retrieval dates on the links in the footnotes, at the time the article looked like this and contained a lot of the common material. Some of it goes back to 2006. As the link looks like a student university project it wouldn't be that surprising if some of it was plagiarised. However there is the possibility that some of the more recent content was copied from that source, or that both the source and the article are copied from somewhere else. Hut 8.5 22:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

15 March 2017

19 March 2017

4 April 2017

5 April 2017

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. User had not been notified, but hasn't edited since 2009. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the actual source was this page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this one is more likely to be unattributed WP:CWW, presumably from Sigma-class corvette. Perhaps IndonesiaSocmedController could tell us where the content was taken from? If it's from Wikipedia, we just need to attribute the source – we can show you how to do that for this article and others such as Martadinata-class frigate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

6 April 2017

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Zurich Film Festival (history · last edit · rewrite) - Ugh. Needs a better check than I'm able to do. I removed some content 100% copy/pasted from the main website, but I've not been able to find the exact source of other content. Although as a giant article with zero sources, I guarantee there's more.

8 April 2017

10 April 2017

13 April 2017

14 April 2017

  • Paul Touvier (history · last edit · rewrite) from I would propose to revert to the 17 June 2012 version. Biwom (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Telugu language (history · last edit · rewrite) from and,+some+Telugu+poets+translated+Sanskrit+poems+and+dramas,+while+others%22&source=bl&ots=OF77TklL92&sig=moaeaYVPKjeAC-mms65PzyEvqqc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjgo2mnqTTAhWp3YMKHULdDPMQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=%22During%20this%20period%2C%20some%20Telugu%20poets%20translated%20Sanskrit%20poems%20and%20dramas%2C%20while%20others%22&f=false. Text was introduced in this diff from August 31, 2006. Website says "Copyright 2002", but also "Disclaimer:The content available on the Portal is taken from different sources and Government Department/Organisations". The content also appears to exist in this book, which was published in 2005. /wiae /tlk 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

New listings

Notice:If the links below in this section are broken, it's because there are too many unresolved copyright problems, If enough issues are closed, they'll work again. (So help!)
(Above notice per MER-C.)
WARNING! It also means that some reported problems are not on this page!!!

New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports. To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for adding new listings can be found at Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns. Entries may not be reviewed and are not closed for at least 7 days to give the original authors of the article time to deal with the problem.

Older than 5 days

Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 5 days. At this point, they may be processed by a copyright problems board clerk. After 7 days, they may be closed by an administrator.

20 April 2017

21 April 2017

  • King of the Gypsies (history · last edit · rewrite). Multiple sections. Billy Marshall from [7] (report). John Nicholl Thom from [8] (report). Abram Wood from [9] (report). For more, see this report from Earwig's Copyvio Detector. clpo13(talk) 16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent listings

Below are articles that have been listed here for 5 days or less. Anyone in the community may help clarify the copyright status on these. See the section on responding for more information.

22 April 2017

  • NetMan (history · last edit · rewrite) from Site's half in Arabic or some such language, but i see copy/paste, which makes me suspicious. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

23 April 2017

  • Opala volcano (history · last edit · rewrite) from Note that that website apparently republishes text by others, so this may be a backwardscopy or taken from a common third party. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Under the Hammer (history · last edit · rewrite) from etc. All edits by this new user will need to be checked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Full Stretch (history · last edit · rewrite) from IP editor, but presumably the same as the above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ramon Alexander (history · last edit · rewrite) from Blatant but asserts permission on talk page. Hut 8.5 20:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

25 April 2017

  • New Orleans Police Department (history · last edit · rewrite) from That url is now dead, but has the content as early as 24 July 2013 ( There is also an version of a different url with slightly different wording, apparently dating back to 1 June 2006 (, which would be before the creation of New Orleans Police Department, and certainly before the insertion of the content here. (I seem to recall a project-space discussion about the use of, but I can't remember the outcome, and don't know whether it's considered a reliable "archival source" for copyright purposes.) The article's text closely paraphrases the archived versions at times and outright copies at other times. /wiae /tlk 00:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, a point of order: the text has been removed and reinserted several times over the life of New Orleans Police Department. I've notified the original contributor, but should I notify individually every editor who has reinstated the content at some point? /wiae /tlk 01:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

26 April 2017


Wikipedia's current date is 27 April 2017. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 April 27. Images should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Copyright problems"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA