Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Update this page

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.

To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for dealing with copyright concerns can be found at Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns.


Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

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. There are well documented cases of plagiarism from Wikipedia by external publications.

Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns

Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation by emailing us at Please provide the address or title of the page, and evidence to show that you are the legitimate copyright holder. 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 or rewrite the infringing text avoiding violations of copyright or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons (allowing evaluation by non-administrative editors) unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. After determination that it is a copyvio, it should be 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

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)
  • Here is a link to all contributions. I didn't immediately see other copyright violations but I didn't look thoroughly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2017 (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:

  • 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)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 July 21:

  • To complicate things, the official listings are now licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0-IGO. MER-C 12:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See e.g. [4]. The tentative listings do not have this license. MER-C 03:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Older than 7 days

27 January 2019

Multiple issues on this page, see here for the multiple issues found on this page. TheMesquitobuzz 02:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello I am happy to help. Regarding the copyright issues. I believe the issues can be corrected. However the page has been taken down and reverted. Regarding the cited material - I can remove it. However: this link is the breed standard for the CFA-relevant to the page/topic and properly used and cited. Please tell me how to proceed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talkcontribs) 03:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, TheMesquito, I'm glad you checked the text. The copyvio detector report you linked shows at least four specific paragraphs which were lifted nearly wholesale from a mypetMD page. – Athaenara 04:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion
I think you are correct. I used "block-quotes for several of the above mentioned paragraphs, however that apparently does not excuse it. I will need to rework those areas
I can erase/redo
(Lubbad85 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)).
I have uploaded the project here and will work on it along with other contributors. I have begun the clean up. Thank you
(Lubbad85 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

Apart from the obvious copyright issues that have been outlined which I am in complete agreement with, Valid and Factual sources were removed by Lubbad85 with reasons such as' information being sourced by Bengal breeders' and 'Personal Blogs' only for the same editor (Lubbad85) to add information given by Bengal breeders on a personal blog ( which was written by the Bengal breeder (

Example being sources such as which has been near copied over from.

Example - which has also been added (private company who asks for a $59 fee for advice), which has thinly added content and information on the Bengal Cat breed

Example - Which has articles written by the founders and could come under a 'Primary source' ( )

Example - Hawwai news is a reliable source ?

The Bengal Cat wiki page had credible links and information which have now been removed and sources added that are clearly similar and copy pasted from websites that are guilty of being the same 'type' of websites that the editor gave the reason for the original sources removal.

I'm certain Lubbad85 is not vandalizing the page, however removal of information and links for sources that have been contributed to over the last 10 years + that still remain relevant today for reasons given but replaced with same or lesser informative websites!

I am not a wiki-expert so apologies if I am contributing to this incorrectly, but these are my genuine thoughts.

I really do believe the edit from yourself @Athaenara on 23:39, 25 January 2019 was the correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:1480:fe00:8d9b:2fab:58d7:dd47 (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello again: please sign your posts: Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes
we should all know who we are talking to.
The previous version cited blogs and breeder web sites - not primary sources. For instance AuroraLights cattery was quoted several times. Regarding catteries: there is no empirical method used when creating a web site for a a cattery. In other multiple areas administrators had posted (citation needed)
And as I have stated this page revert was NOT the opinion of Athaenara- she has stated that in her talk page she "over-reacted" in deleting another page about the New Zealand Cat Fancy.
My efforts on wikipedia (as evidenced by my many contributions) are to improve the pages and reference the pages properly-also upload photographs which are relevant to wikimedia commons for the whole community to use. If there is some information that I have removed or changed that is relevant and can be referenced, Wikipedia will have no objections to the addition on the Bengal Cat page.
On the previous version I will illustrate two areas that were changed
One area about HCM stated that "There is a lot of controversy over whether to screen for this disease or not, and it seems the breed has a very large divide, with about half of the breeders screening, and the other half not." There was no reference for this information. It is opinion and conjecture.
In anther section regarding Blood Type, the study was referenced but misquoted. I corrected the section to reflect the actual study results
These are just two examples but there are many more. I agree that the changes were extensive, but I would argue they were needed to make the page encyclopedic and scholarly. I encourage all to help correct and maintain the page.
What this situation is about now - is several the sources i found were "overquoted" or I used too much material - however it was not improperly cited - or plagiarized. I have not quoted any breeder catteries, or blogs, and I have tried to use news, and primary sources when available. Believe me this takes more time than anyone should spend on a project. It is being corrected at the moment. I am giving my best effort, and I believe I have removed the offending "overquuoting" Please check it out.
All my best
(Lubbad85 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC))
Hello again
I am removing those sources that you have raised objections to now. Thank you for the information. It was quite laborious hunting down references, which is probably why it was so poorly referenced before this time.
(Lubbad85 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC))
Regarding the Bengalsillustrated HCm reference: Mark D. Kittleson, DVM, PhD is a renown HCM researched, and I will locate a better reference for his recommendation
(Lubbad85 (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lubbad85 Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasons, Looking through, may I ask you why you removed a reference to the Bengal cat liking water from a website which is entirely dedicated to the breed and explaining in more detail about that reference (Bengal cat and water) ( with a similar website with less information on the subject and coming from a website that generalizes all breeds with thin and not terribly accurate content ?

and another here that was used as a valid and useful reference on information on the 'journey'From Asian Leopard Cat to Bengal

I would very much appreciate it if you could re-add that website as a reference for that material as it has been for many years and explains both sets of information in great detail.

I am continuing to look through and will update anything else I may contribute with as I do not wish to 'overwrite' anything you are working on right now.

Thank you for the work you are adding to this page, as I can see you are trying to help and not being a vandal of any kind...I also have the page's best interest at heart (as you do). 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:8D9B:2FAB:58D7:DD47 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I think once the offending copyright issues are addressed the admins will put the page back online. And then much more work will be needed to get the page up to Encyclopedic standards. The references you pointed out were poor ones, and I am sure I used some as a placeholder. But it was not for lack of trying to improve. Hopefully, it will resolve. It seemed that not many Wikipedians edited the page. And it had nearly all the Breed standard PDF's mis-referenced. and there was no mention of CFA, and as I said, quoting pages of breeder catteries and conjecture with false estimates. My hope is that we can work together to make this page a primary source.
(Lubbad85 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

I sincerely hope we can Lubbad85,I was just concerned that (some) valid informative websites were being removed in place of lesser sources. A lot of the work you have added are good changes and I understand the complications.

I can edit, remove and replace some sources myself if it would be easier (the ones I truly believe did not need to be removed and replaced with poor sources). 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:8D9B:2FAB:58D7:DD47 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this one: I cannot see how it is a proper reference. It is without author and seems to be a cat sale site. The information is all opinion and possibly lifted from other breeder sites. this is from the same site: '
Maybe the admins could weigh in on those two.
(Lubbad85 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

It is absolutely not information that had been lifted from other breeder sites, in fact after looking into it, this website has it's contents copied to other websites, it is a website referenced by the BBC and the Daily Telegraph and goes back much further which proves it's originality (check way back when machine as I just did), it is not a "cat sale site" it provides potential Bengal cat owners with a list of Trusted pedigree registered breeders...and you really believe this website gives more accurate information on the subject? - it's a website with 'general' information on the breed, thin information on the subject and actually giving false information and seems to be a merchandise selling site. (referencing "some states consider them an exotic breed and forbid residents from owning them - f4 and onwards Bengals!.") (Admins please check) 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:8D9B:2FAB:58D7:DD47 (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I also see you removed the source to ! you feel that the International Bengal Cat Society is also not a reliable source?

It seems you are removing some websites which include some very detailed AND valuable information on the breed. 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:8D9B:2FAB:58D7:DD47 (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Another removed by you - Lubbad85 this is a Confirmed UK Government website listing The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) Order 2007 which needed to be written about due to it's important explanation on when The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, removed the previous licensing requirements for the keeping of Bengal cats in the United Kingdom in 2007 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:8D9B:2FAB:58D7:DD47 (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:8D9B:2FAB:58D7:DD47 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I am not wishing to be difficult in any way but those websites I mentioned above provide absolutely valuable information on the breed and I feel did not need to be removed (especially with what they were replaced with!)

That is all I disagree with as far as I can tell.

I’m sure we can get this sorted out. Getting the proper sources in order, that’s the main problem at this moment. The page wasn’t under administrative scrutiny until they had cars to examine the New Zealand cat fancy page and delete it. Now they’re looking at the whole thing with fresh eyes. (Lubbad85 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

There are some sites in question that may be referenced by other sources. However those sites may not be considered encyclopedic. Generally we need an author, and verifiable sources. A few of those sites there’s no way to Determine where the information is from. As you pointed out I also had trouble finding some information and so used the same type of websites in some cases. This is the opportunity to make the whole thing encyclopedic and bulletproof (Lubbad85 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

Lubbad85 Due to the nature of this particular breed and how relatively new it is (compared to most other breeds), finding what you look for in terms of "encyclopedic and bulletproof" references are simply not found in the way they may usually be..the websites I listed above (such as are written by people who actually had experience with the breed and were part of the Bengal community when the breed was at it's earliest stages and were in contact with the founders, for example , they are actually linked to and used as reference for others all over the world by a mixture of registered bengal breeders who wish to educate those looking for information on the breed, BBC News, Major National Daily Telegraph, both of which are Highly trusted sources. also lists the website ( @Lubbad85 Please see here as to the contributors to these VERY important articles which have helped many people for over 20 years (website was live from 1997) - All major websites who wish to find information on the Bengal cat, use the information from the sources such as this..why remove it to replace with websites who are simply re-hashing same content, in a less informative way?

I still do not understand fully why you also removed important and valuable information from the International Bengal Cat Society website and a UK gov website when used as a reference to the explanation on when The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, removed the previous licensing requirements for the keeping of Bengal cats in the United Kingdom in 2007.

@Lubbad85 The time you have taken to help the page although has helped in certain sections I fear have also actually hindered it too and I really feel those sources should be replaced back into the page for others to benefit from them. (apologies it seems I have been signing at the start of my post, I shall sign at the end as advised) 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:D9B0:7636:ADE2:1D16 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I spent the majority of the day cleaning up the draft of the article and removing the improper and overused references. We await a review of the material.

Finding the "valuable" information that you spoke about can be done. I did manage to find an amazing amount of credible-source information. I also had to change a few references. Same information but better references. Like the Willard Centerwall reference. The original link was a dead hot-link

I erased all questionable or hard to validate sites. ie. petmd, CFA, etc. and I erased the references that you and rightly pointed to as questionable - like Hawaii News etc. In most cases I retained the information with a News. a journal, or other credible .edu or government source.

Also: I went back to see why the reference to : The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA was removed. As a reader I was confused by the addition of this...So I learned from reading your thoughts on my talk page. My opinion was originally the reference was just hanging out there like an unexplained reference. I added an introduction/explanation to this version which improves readability.

Format of some of the areas in PK Def, In PRA-B and in HCM were were clearly opinions - so I did my best to clean those up.

I also carefully examined the sources of " and other similar sites. My opinion is there is no way to validate their information. The site has no editors, No references, no article creation dates, no authors of articles. I have no doubt the many sites have great information, I am just not sure it meets the rigid academic standards of Wikipedia. We can work together to improve the readability of the article as well.

TIBCS is a useable source when we can find authors and article creation information. In most cases we can see their authors and they have a publication. It is not anonymous. I do have TIBCS quoted twice in the article draft. Citation 11 and 13. Each one has an author and relevant dates etc.

Below is the edited version. Each section has a large heading just for the purposes of page creation (we can remove those later). I went through each section and cleaned up the references. Have a look - especially at the references.

I would like to ask the admins to look over the page as well.

All my best! (Lubbad85 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC))

Good morning I am hoping that someone can check out the page edits. I am hoping to get the "Bengal Cat" page up soon. The edits are posted here:

I ran a Copyvios report. Please tell me if there are any more steps in the process.

All my best Lubbad85 (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lubbad85 Thank you for working with me on multiple concerns I had, although we can agree to disagree with one particular website ( I have provided 100% proof as to the originality of the articles), I'm happy with the majority of the changes and it seems to have now made an improvement to the Bengal Cat page overall. I did not want to make any changes to what you worked on, as I truly did not wish to cause some type of edit war, instead discussing it here with you in a mature way was far better in my opinion.

I completely respect all those who put their free time into helping others and although I have no experience at all with wiki (I'm very passionate on this particular subject), I will now look into learning how to contribute to pages I feel I could possibly help with too.

@Lubbad85 I see you have been a Bengal breeder for a relatively short amount of time yourself (2012) and that gives me confidence in your objective. The pictures you added to the wiki page of your Bengal cats are truly beautiful.

Thanks again for listening to my concerns and the time you placed into the article. 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:682E:7CBD:DFA:BC5C (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

30 January 2019

5 March 2019

Tulsa race riot Talk:Tulsa_race_riot#extreme_plagiarism comparison

11 May 2019

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Author (User talk:Tony Marshall) claims they are the original author of the content on the source page. I left info and instructions on how to proceed with freely licensing the content and confirming ownership of the copyright. CrowCaw 22:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

13 May 2019

18 May 2019

Not forgotten so much as did not know. Thank you Dianna. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

19 May 2019

26 May 2019

27 May 2019

29 May 2019

30 May 2019

The deletion review was closed, but non-admins can't remove the copyrighted material, given the revision deletion --DannyS712 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

31 May 2019

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. MER-C 19:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

3 June 2019

9 June 2019

Indeed, Winged Blades of Godric, I did see it – the domain was created five days after our page, so wherever the content came from, it wasn't there. I tried without success to find any readable version, archived or not, of [ this document]; please let me know if you have more luck! Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

15 June 2019

Link pending allowance by whitelist (link to request).MJLTalk 04:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Request denied. I've gone ahead and replaced the second (non-)link with a link to that conversation. It's inconvenient, but this is out of my control. –MJLTalk 18:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems that much of the content has been removed since this CP thread was first opened. Seasons 2 and 3 still report as copyvio, but as the source appears to be user-generated some investigation is required to determine the true origin of the affected material. Unfortunately, I cannot include a link to the alleged source as it is on the blacklist, but I can link to the Earwig report. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

17 June 2019

1 July 2019

We have over 400 pages of Meanings of minor planet names that may have the same issue, so I picked the 100001–101000 example at random. For most of the entries, the description in the This minor planet was named for... column was copied or very closely paraphrased from the "JPL" source linked in the Ref · Catalog column. This was previously discussed at a tangentially related AfD where some editors felt it was a copyright violation while others argued that the data was "freely available from NASA" and not subject to copyright. JPL's copyright statements [11] [12] may be of use. –dlthewave 21:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Simple phrases such as "This minor planet was named for <name>" cannot be copyrighted. I don't know how many entries fall outside this "simple" phrasing, but it's something to consider. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Closely related to the above entry, List of minor planets consists of over 400 pages that attempt to reproduce the Minor Planet Center database. See copyright statements from sources JPL [13] [14] and MPL [15]. This was also discussed at AfD where some editors argued that raw data is not subject to copyright and that it comes from public-domain government sources. Please note that the data may have originated from private contractors and was not necessarily produced by NASA employees. –dlthewave 21:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Not only is this an obvious copyright violation, but many of the entries we have copy-pasted are inaccurate and contradict our existing, better-written articles. NASA and other such bodies are not reliable sources for, for instance, classical Japanese literature and mythology.[16] The poor English on some of those entries implies NASA just took copy that had written by the planets' discoverers and regurgitated without any form of copy-editing, so we should definitely not be following suit. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if a site is "public-domain government sources" and not subject to copyright there seems to be copy/paste issues that, as mentioned by @Primefac: as possibly falling "outside this "simple" phrasing", could mean there are unintended attrition issues and could still be considered plagiarism, that does need to be examined?. Otr500 (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be about the "Meanings of minor planet names" lists, not the lists of minor planets. Peter James (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

2 July 2019

Can someone tell me why this enitre article was deleted? I had contributed on the article in the past, but now it's gone. I think there has been some kind of a mistake here. Sf46 (talk)

10 July 2019

  • There is significant overlap between the Britannica link provided above, and the Wikipedia article. What I am unsure about, and why I brought it here rather than taking further action myself is a) what license Britannica operates under and therefore whether we are free to use its material and b) whether there is any possibility that the Britannica content is in fact taken from Wikipedia. If you are content there are no copyright violations, however, then I'm happy to carry on my efforts to improve the article. Hugsyrup 10:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, there most definitely appears to be copyright violations; not sure what version of the article I was looking at, sorry. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

12 July 2019

29 July 2019

  • Draft:Patricia Driscoll (history · last edit · rewrite) A decent amount of the content seems to be copied from [18]. Not sure if it's worth cleaning a draft or just deleting it and if another editor wants to create a non-infringing version re-create it. Sakura CarteletTalk 17:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 15:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Or could it be from Adam9007 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    I did a comparison of the blinded section to the abstract of the thesis - the only part available on the web - using WinMerge and punctuation-slicing, and the passages are almost identical but for exchanges of a handful of words, such as "Experimental studies" vs. "studies", "in" vs. "within", "results produced show" vs. "results that were produced showed". The changes are a sign of willful plagerism with intent to fool computational comparisons - unfortunately. I'll work on removing the passage from the article+history shortly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)
Pictogram voting support.svg Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC) (93 historical versions deleted)
  • Also, the history also seems to contain various copyvios of scientific various papers. Adam9007 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    If you have guideposts as to what to look for, would be useful to share those - would save a lot of time. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

31 July 2019

  • St Catherine's College, Oxford (history · last edit · rewrite) from [19] The section Theatre was copied from the college website, I have deleted it, but consider revision deleting from Revision as of 12:25, 30 July 2019 to Revision as of 09:16, 31 July 2019. TSventon (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. There were various other pieces of text copied from the college website by the same editor, they've all been removed now. Hut 8.5 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

4 August 2019

17 August 2019

19 August 2019

20 August 2019

24 August 2019

27 August 2019

Audio Video Bridging (history · last edit · rewrite) from ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no need to blank the entire article, only a few paragraphs are affected by now. Anyway I've created a clean version at Talk:Audio Video Bridging/Temp. Dmitry (talkcontibs) 10:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually there is no salvageable content or edit history. As per WP:CPAA, please replace the original article with the clean version. --Dmitry (talkcontibs) 19:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

3 September 2019

6 September 2019

9 September 2019

New listings

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

13 September 2019

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 September 14

Recent listings

15 September 2019

16 September 2019

17 September 2019

18 September 2019

💵Money💵emoji💵💸 12:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 September 20


Wikipedia's current date is 20 September 2019. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 September 20. Files should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.