English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Copyright problems/2012 March 18

From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick

18 March 2012

All these (including SCV) have been addressed

SCV for 2012-03-18 Edit {{Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2012-03-18 }}

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Website now bears CC notice. Attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Probably could get permission, but I think the COI is more urgent here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Confirmed that this was a pastiche of content from journals - for instance, see [1] and [2]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Maybe it's been cleaned up already? I removed one closely paraphrased sentence that was inappropriate anyway but didn't find any content matches from the most used citations. Removed tag with a request for examples if restoring. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a case of over-extensive use of non-free content. I would appreciate it if somebody else could evaluate the article, as I have already addressed the image (uploaded under the wrong license tag under evidently some kind of belief that non-com is as good as CC-by) and don't want the contributors to feel I'm picking on them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If the concern is just with the excessive quoting (mainly in blockquotes) then I've just, hopefully, sorted that and this listing can be closed. If there were other concerns then let me know and I'll take a look at them. Dpmuk (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that's it. Hooray. :) They can bring it back if there's anything more. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article. I've compared the text to both the sources cited as possible "plagiarism". It is not sufficiently similar in wording to either of them to constitute copyvio and both sources are credited in the references. --Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)