This template was considered for deletion on 2006 December 13. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
This template was considered for deletion on 2012 April 18. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
The includeonly section of this template uses this line
{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections]]}}}
shouldn't it simply be
[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections]]
instead? — dv82matt 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Displaying {{ copypaste}} shows "Copyright maintenance templates" as a category to which this template belongs, yet visiting that category doesn't show it among the templates listed there. Wdfarmer ( talk) 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The template's displayed message includes references to WP:LAYOUT and WP:STYLE, but it seems to me that a reference to WP:NPS would be even more relevant. Or is there a better template than {{ copypaste}} to annotate sections that include lengthy quotations from published books? For context, see my usage of the template in Antichrist#Dispensational (Christian) beliefs. Wdfarmer ( talk) 08:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Add the date by replacing with the following:
<noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude> {{ambox | type = content | image = [[Image:Copyright-problem paste.svg|50px]] | text = '''This {{{2|article or section}}} appears to have been [[Cut, copy, and paste|copied and pasted]] from {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{url}}}|a source}}, ''possibly'' in violation of a copyright.'''<br /><small>Please edit this article to remove any nonfree copyrighted content, attribute free content correctly, and be an original source. Follow the [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout|Guide to layout]] and the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]. Remove this template after editing. {{#if:{{{1|{{{date|}}}}}}|''({{{1|{{{date}}}}}})''}}</small> }}<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections]]}}} {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided]]}}}{{{category|[[Category:Possible copyright violations]]}}}|}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{Documentation}} <!-- PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE, THANKS --> </noinclude>
Gary King ( talk) 01:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Template:Copypaste that the first sentence of the advice be reworded to take out the phrase "original source" as this is unclear and might even be confused with legitimising Original Research. The following alternative wording has been suggested:
"Please edit this article to replace or remove any nonfree copyrighted content and attribute free content correctly."
What do we think? Is this wording acceptable/optimal? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit gobsmacked to find that this template exists.
Let me explain. Our content policy requires that material that isn't the work of the author must not ever be edited into an article. The action taken on finding such illegally copied text is outlined in our Copyright violations policy (WP:COPYVIO)). In extreme cases the problematic content is replaced with a {{ copyvio}} template which, unlike this one, requires the tagging editor to identify the copypaste source he has identified. The article is then rewritten and the history is purged.
That this template has been used for so long has caused a lot of damage, because if now we find a tagged article it may be impossible to identify what the source of the copypaste was.
This template must be deprecated at once. Those mistakenly using a broken process instead of the ones described in our Copyright violations policy (WP:COPYVIO)) should immediately switch to using those tried and tested processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway ( talk • contribs)
The template is showing in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided. Is there anyway to remove this? -- MWOAP ( talk) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
According to AnomieBOT, hard at work yesterday, the current syntax is {{Copypaste|date=December 2010|section|<url>}},
however, both this page and /doc are still recommending the classic Gregorian Calendar syntax:
{{Copypaste|January 1, 2007|...
Merry Christmas,
Varlaam (
talk) 20:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I just added a warning to the documentation, that when a url is provided, it must be as the last parameter. All parameters following the url will be considered by the template to be part of the url. Can that be fixed? Debresser ( talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}}
The category handling can be significantly improved.
Please replace <includeonly>{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided]]}}}}}</includeonly>
by {{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections{{#if:{{{url|}}}|&-#-32-;with url provided}}|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}
.
Note that 1. the includeonly tags are not needed in the new code 2. "&-#-32-;" should be written without the dashes. 3. The new code removes the double categorization when a url is provided, which was superfluous and, in all likelihood, unintended by the editor who created the "url provided" category. Debresser ( talk) 12:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've created a sandbox with some significant reworking of this template. Changes include using type=speedy
to emphasise the seriousness of the problem, a link to
WP:CV101 as a copyvio tutorial, and a comment about deletion. Thoughts?
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't understand why this template is here. I have reviewed the website and this content and there is no copy/paste infringement going on here. What is the process of getting the template removed, and how soon can this be completed. Tdpunkyb1 ( talk) 01:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm often torn about the existence of this template but use it myself for short term tagging when I'm deciding whether or not the article can be saved or not.
My issue with this template is that it's sometimes used by editors who don't indicate what portion of text seems to be a copyright violation and don't indicate where they think the text has been taken from. I realize that there are cases where one may feel that the text has been copy/pasted onto WP but can't find a source but I think this template should be applied based on a "gut feeling" (personally, I think another template should exist for that).
What do you think about requiring an original source to be listed when using this template? It obviously doesn't have to be an online source that the duplicate detector can check but I feel that applying this template with no indication of what text "may" be a violation or where it came from defeats the purpose of using it. OlYeller21 Talktome 20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have nominated the template for deletion (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Template:Copypaste). The {{ Tfd}} tag should be added to the template. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Any idea why the template placed on User:MKindy/sandbox is not adding it to the tracking category? Monty 845 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel this template needs more granularity in being able to be applied to part of a section. Instead of just being placed at the start of a section, it would be useful to place the template mid-section with text like "This Text may have been copied and pasted...". I realise the report shows duplicate text, but being placed just above the suspicious text would do a better job of warning the readers, and drawing attention to the text which editors need to address. Cheers. GFHandel ♬ 06:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have frequently encountered a situation where the source is almost certainly a particular printed book, but this template cannot accommodate the situation--it only accepts urls. Perhaps the easiest way to accommodate this would be a fourth parameter. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace icon with this file. -- Rezonansowy ( talk) 09:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since the Earwig copyvio checker also works without an URL, I thought that adding it to the template (like so: <sup>([https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title={{{2|{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}}}}}&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 CopyVio Search])</sup>) might render it more useful; see the template sandbox for the sandboxed code and how it displays. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{1|{{{url|}}}}}}|CURRENT CONTENT OF THIS TEMPLATE|{{cv-unsure|date={{{date|}}}|section={{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|section|yes|}}|copyvios=yes}}}}
. This template tells editors that they need to check the source of the copying to see if it has a compatible license, but they cannot do that if a source isn't given. cv-unsure addresses this situation. --
Ahecht (
TALK@ Ahecht and Bazj: The change to the CVD template cannot propagate on the main template because CVD is called only for transclusions containing an URL. As for Cv-unsure, I presume we might add the copyvio tool link to that one instead if we put the "if" condition Ahecht proposed in. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, the last sentence begins "Please be sure that the source of the copyright violation ...", except that if the warning is accurate, then there is no copyright violation, as the "source" is actually a copy from Wikipedia. Therefore, this sentence should refer to the "alleged" or "purported" or "supposed" source, not simply "the source". ~ MD Otley ( talk) 02:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please split the:
| text = This {{{1|article or section}}} '''may have been [[Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources|copied and pasted]] from {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{CVD|{{{url|}}}}}|a source}}, ''possibly'' in violation of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia's copyright policy]]'''. Please [[Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101|remedy this]] by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|Wikipedia mirror]].
into:
|issue= This {{{1|article or section}}} '''may have been [[Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources|copied and pasted]] from {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{CVD|{{{url|}}}}}|a source}}, ''possibly'' in violation of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia's copyright policy]].'''.
and
|fix= Please [[Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101|remedy this]] by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|Wikipedia mirror]].
, so that the template only shows the issue in {{ multiple issues}}.
Pppery ( talk) 16:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There have been instances where copy-paste has happened from more than one source, to report such cases of copypasting, we need this option to add more urls in this template. if it's already there, please let me know how to do that. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 06:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 to its new title,
Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101 (sentence case). Per
WP:R: In other namespaces [...] any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move or merge should be updated to the new title for naming consistency.
DanCherek (
talk) 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Greetings!
There isn't a {{Copypaste span}} template, is there?
I was searching for such to tag rather a large portion of a section (in a similar fashion with {{Citation needed span}}), but not the whole section. [1]
Well, I look forward to hearing from the good people dwelling here on template dome! :-)
Cheers!
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk) 19:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)