Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 April 7

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

7 April 2010

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2010-04-07 Edit

2010-04-07 (Suspected copyright violations)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Split attributed in edit summary. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Attributed split. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MLauba (Talk) 10:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTRS pending but not yet verified, relisting under today's entry. Relist from SCV 27 March --MLauba (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • OTRS Ticket received, article now licensed and compatible with CC-BY-SA. --MLauba (Talk) 10:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --VernoWhitney (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright concerns remain. Article deleted or tagged for speedy deletion. Noting that es.wiki deleted on copyvio grounds, while I could not form a definite opinion on whether wikipedia or the other site came first, the introduction of the text, as a fully-formed machine translation, leads me to delete per the precautionary principle. MLauba (Talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article. Compared against 2nd edition of the book. --VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MLauba (Talk) 11:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]