10 February 2010

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2010-02-10 Edit

2010-02-10 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
  • Permission granted via OTRS. MER-C 08:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten. MER-C 08:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permission plausible Article blanked and contributor notified how to proceed. An administrator should delete if permission is not verified within five to seven days of the timestamp. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PD quotations. MER-C 08:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten. MER-C 08:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten. MER-C 08:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permission plausible Article blanked and contributor notified how to proceed. An administrator should delete if permission is not verified within five to seven days of the timestamp. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Seems to have been a single sentence. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Someone has now changed the URL to http://www.satsahib.org/mbgtrust.htm -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it was bot-reported on the previous day - strike my manual report. -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've relisted this one. I think we should let the new AfD run its course, and it is quite plausible that the content can be relicensed under CC-By-SA, since evidently first copyright concerns resulted in its being licensed under GFDL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. MLauba (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. MLauba (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording of the first line (apparently the offending content) to a suitably different alternative. However, this still needs administrative review per policy to make sure. Octane [improve me?] 17.02.10 0358 (UTC)
  • Hi. Thank you both for working on the issue. If the source is another Wikipedia article, the attribution is sufficient to eliminate copyright concerns. I've added ((copied)) to both articles' talk pages. I can merge Talk:Outline_of_England/Temp in to that article or delete it, if you think there's no further use. What would you prefer? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've no further use for it. Unless anyone else speaks up, it can be deleted, as far as I'm concerned. Octane [improve me?] 17.02.10 2356 (UTC)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thermodynamic temperature

Sorry for the unconventional format I’m using. Can someone please take a look at the image at the top of this page on Thermodynamic temperature. The discussion thread is here at Talk:Thermodynamic_temperature#Fair_use_for_picture. It is my view that, given the copyright reasons and permissions granted here File:Z-machine480.jpg, it is permissible. The editor who is deleting it is edit warring over this and I am not convinced he is expert enough on the matter. I would prefer to receive an expert opinion here. Greg L (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this board does not handle images. Moreover, material is usually not reviewed by an administrator for a full seven days after listing, so it is not a good forum for matters needing quick response. The only reason I noticed this was the header level you used, which put it out of synch with other days. If you want feedback on an image, you might wish to request it at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More