Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

This is the talk page for discussing Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:CP

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is not the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. To do so, list the article on today's entry at the project page after following the appropriate instructions.

On Revolt of 1 Prairial Year III. Please see my comments here Talk:Revolt of 1 Prairial Year III. One of the Lefebvre sources is here [1] Volunteer Marek 22:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio issues here were handled, although the contributions of Nivose (talk · contribs) will need some scrutiny. I'll try to get to that over the next few days. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Convention article also appears to have a lot of verbatim copying from copyrighted sources by same editor. That’s a bit more significant article then the “revolt of…” “events of…” articles. Volunteer Marek 05:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CCI now open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Nivose. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the level-4 sub-headers in Wikipedia:Copyright problems#New listings added by a bot or do they need to be manually added. I'm asking about this because there's no sub-heading for ==== [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 January 25|25 January 2025]] ==== even though the page has been created and two entries are listed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly; manually added, CP has no bot clerk and no plans to add one unfortunately. Usually a clerk will go and backfill it if it wasn't added by the person creating the listing. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. I've added a header to the top of the page in question. It might, though, be a good idea to make this header be automatically added at some point, or at least add guidance about it to those clicking on the "Today's section link" in WP:CP#How to list an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you translate an article from another wiki using WP:CXT, it automatically attributes the original article in the creation edit, as well as citing the correct revision etc. But how should one attribute sections of another article translated from another language and in subsequent edits? Xpander (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution should be done in the edit summary when the translated text is added. See WP:TFOLWP for more info. CMD (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for the info. @Chipmunkdavis Xpander (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, Stefánia Szilárd, uses material copied from a journal article that has a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. I applied a CCBYSA4Source template to our article. Can someone look at the source page's license, our article, the article's talk page discussion and my use of the template to see if I got this right? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good. Nice work! Sennecaster (Chat) 01:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed issues with close paraphrasing when spot-checking a reference during a peer-review of Dacrydium cupressinum. I looked at the user's past contributions and other issues of close-paraphrasing as well as complete word-for-word copies, which the user was warned about in 2023. I worry that the issues however persisted and am unsure of how to address any previous issues, whether revdel is appropriate, what to do with extant issues, how to address offline sources that can't be compared etc.

Certain edits such as these [2] [3] (for which I don't believe any issues exist) show a poor grasp of English whilst other edits show a completely different level of English—with varying styles used—it is these latter edits where I believe the issues of copyright and close-paraphrasing lie.

Diff [4] and source: [5]

Wikipedia: 'The timber has a uniform texture, durability, and resilience, making it easy to season, work with, and paint. It is frequently chosen for decorative purposes, it merges the qualities of a textured hardwood with the accessibility and moderate weight of a common softwood. D. cupressinum's primary roles as a timber include weatherboards, flooring, and joinery for dressing grades, as well as framing for building grades. The heartwood is durable above ground, but the sapwood is prone to decay in damp environments and vulnerable to Anobium punctatum infestation.

Source: 'The timber is even textured, hard, even wearing, easily seasoned, easily worked, paints well, and is very often decorative. Combining as it does the properties of an even textured decorative hardwood and a medium weight, widely available softwood, it is remarkably versatile. It has been used for a wide variety of purposes, but the main uses have been for weatherboards, flooring, and joinery (dressing grades) and framing (building grades). The heartwood is durable above ground but the sapwood is subject to decay in moist situations and to attack by the common house borer Anohiu11l {June/alum. In recent years preservative treatment has extended the uses of sapwood.'

From Nothofagus menziesii (passed GA). Diff: [6] Source: [7]

Wikipedia: 'A growth rate study of N. menziesii revealed most, but not all, seedlings had either exceeded 35 cm (14 in) in height by 13 years or had died, although a small number of suppressed seedlings persisted at less than 35 cm (14 in) tall for up to 25 years'

Source: 'Most N. menziesii seedlings either exceeded 35 cm in height by 13 years or had died. A small proportion of suppressed seedlings persisted at less than 35 cm tall for up to 25 years'

From Haruru Falls. Diff: [8] Source: [9]

Wikipedia: 'The lagoon on the downstream side of the falls was New Zealand's first river port, used by both Māori and early missionaries'

Source: 'The lagoon around the Falls was New Zealand's first river port, used heavily by Māori and missionaries alike.'

From Opawa (has been rewritten) Diff: [10] Source: [11] (page 33)

Wikipedia: In Opawa's early years, the area was primarily a rural dairying locality until further development of Woolston began to urbanise the suburb, initially, with those who wished to escape from Woolston’s industrialisation and then with factory-workers that could not find homes in Woolston itself.

Source: The district, situated south of Linwood and Woolston, was mainly a rural dairying locality until the development of Woolston, was mainly a rural dairying locality until the development of Woolston began to people it, first with those who wished to escape from Woolston's industrialism and then with factory-workers who could not find space for homes in Woolston itself.

From Opawa (has been rewritten) Diff: [12] Source: [13] (access available via Wikipedia Library)

Wikipedia: Opawa was Christchurch's first upper-class suburb, the suburb was established around a loop of the Heathcote River, the subrub still has many noted buildings, many were luxurious houses, with many having deep verandas which were sited on large riverside premises, many of the large estates now subdivided.

Source: Opawa was Christchurch's first high society suburb, says author Noel Gillespie. ... The Opawa settlement, established around a loop of the Heathcote River as far as the Port Hills, still has many historic homes. Among them were some opulent houses, with deep verandas, grand windows, ornate plasterwork, servants' quarters, and set on large riverside properties with grand gardens. ... With most of the large estates now subdivided, more recent homes now hide some of the houses from the street.

From Opawa (has been removed) Diff: [14] Source: [15] (Wikipedia library access) [16] [17]

Wikipedia: The Fownhope, was built in 1868 for Edward Harley, an accountant who had settled from England.

Source: The house was built in 1868 for Edward Harley, an accountant who had arrived from England.

Wikipedia: The Fownhope is a strong link to early pākehā settlement in the area, it is representative of what many houses were at the time.

Source: Despite these changes the house retains its colonial character and is a link to the area's early Pakeha settlement.

Wikipedia: The surroundings of The Hollies consists of the heritage-listed building in a garden setting.

Source: The setting of The Hollies consists of the listed building in a well-established garden setting

From Rangi Ruru Girls' School (removed but for unrelated reasons). Diff: [18] Source: [19]

Wikipedia: A teacher's registration was cancelled after they groomed a 16-year-old student at Rangi Ruru Girls School. Taurapa (formerly known as Connor Taurapa Matthews), had been employed as a Te Reo Māori teacher at Rangi Ruru Girls School from 2018 until April 2019, Taurapa's resignation from Rangi Ruru came in April, 2019 during an ongoing investigation into his conduct. Taurapa had an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old student, nude photographs were exchanged between her and Taurapa, some of these images were taken when she was only 15, and Taurapa was aware of this fact as she had explicitly informed him Taurapa reciprocated by sending explicit videos and photos. Taurapa’s registration as a teacher was later cancelled.

Source: A teacher’s registration has been cancelled after he groomed a 16-year-old student at Christchurch high school. ... Taurapa (formerly known as Connor Taurapa Matthews), had been employed as a Te Reo Māori teacher at Rangi Ruru Girls School from 2018 until April 2019. ... Taurapa’s resignation from Rangi Ruru came in April, 2019 during an ongoing investigation into his conduct. ... Dray further revealed that nude photographs were exchanged between her and Taurapa via messaging after she had turned 16. ... Some of these images were taken when she was only 15, and Taurapa was aware of this fact as she had explicitly informed him. ... Taurapa reciprocated by sending explicit videos and photos, including ones depicting him masturbating.

From Waiwera Hot Springs (this was promptly reverted) [20]

Some passages I am concerned about but cannot find a digital source to compare for (I may be able to obtain copies from the library): [21] [22]

I have informed the user of this discussion. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me. This is not the standard I work up to. This is important and should be addressed. Firstly, with respect to the Nothofagus menziesii article; which was (admittedly) rushed, hence the close paraphrasing, unlike some of my other work. For that I sincerely apologize. When I added some of the content in the article, I did with no forethought, and did not rephrase it thoroughly enough. At the time I was wriiting it, I remember I only had a quick glance at the preview and did not think about it at all, and then clicked save, which is disappointing. Nothofagus menziesii will require some tidying for it to retain its status. Which is an area I am involved in (Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants). Dacrydium cupressinum is what I am working on now, I will revise those parts shortly, which I have worked really hard on. Once again the close paraphrasing is not the standard I work up to, and it is important to avoid.

The last example provided was from Rangi Ruru Girls School, which is similar to the Haruru Falls article, when I did not know any better, and was part of my first few months of editing, hence the unexperienced sort of editing. I would assume revison deletion would be appropriate for these articles, but a more experienced user should decide that. I was also warned around that time. Regarding the Opawa article, another user explained this to me, which then I did try to rephrase the article. Even then, it was important and I did rephrase it and tidied up the article and other bits.

From now on, I will be using sources to get the information itself rather than relying them on content. I will read through Wikipedia's copyright policies again today, and I can assure that I will be more careful and will not repeat the same mistakes. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much experience with copyright clean-up (hence why I posted here) but I am glad you are willing to admit to the issue here and are committed to addressing the issue. One thing that might help is pointing out articles/edits where you may have introduced closely paraphrased/copyright-violating material, although I understand if you simply do not remember any specific articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pittosporum kirkii maybe, this one was sort of rushed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]