This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Contributor copyright investigation
This
CCI cleanup subpage has been opened because concerns of multiple point infringement have been substantiated and further steps are necessary to address the serious risk of
copyright violation from the listed contributor. Listings are not intended to imply a presumption of bad faith on the part of any contributor, as copyright laws vary widely around the world and many contributors who violate
Wikipedia's copyrights policy do so inadvertently through not understanding it or the United States' laws that govern it.
If you are here because of a note on an article's talk page explaining removal of text, please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with
the non-free content policy and guideline.
Instructions
If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with
Wikipedia:Copyright violations. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal.
Text
Examine the article or the diffs linked below.
If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it.
If you remove text presumptively, place {{
subst:CCI|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page.
If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (or revert to a previous clean version), place {{
subst:cclean}} on the article's talk page. The url parameter may be optionally used to indicate source.
If there is insufficient creative content on the page for it to survive the removal of the text or it is impossible to extricate from subsequent improvements, replace it with {{
subst:copyvio}}, linking to the investigation subpage in the url parameter.
To tag an article created by the contributor for presumptive deletion, place {{subst:copyvio|url=see talk}} on the article's face and {{
subst:CCId|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page.
After examining an article:
replace the diffs after the colon on the listing with indication of whether problem was found (add {{y}}) or not (add {{n}})
Follow with your username and the time to indicate to others that the article has been evaluated and appropriately addressed. This is automatically generated by four tildes (~~~~)
If a section is complete, consider collapsing it by placing {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} beneath the section header and after the final listing.
Images
Examine the images below. For free images:
Does the image look non-free? Is it likely the uploader is the copyright holder?
Is the image properly licensed and sourced? Be aware of images that say "this image is licensed under X" without specifying who created it.
Do a reverse image search using
Tineye. Check the license of the source page. Compare the last modified time with the (Commons) upload time.
Do a Google image search for phrases that describe the image's contents.
Note that Commons does not accept non-free content.
Annotate the listing with the action taken, e.g. if the image was tagged no source write "no source"; if the fair use claim is deemed ok you can write "OK fair use".
Let's be thorough here, listing some confirmed socks.
MER-C 06:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A permission email has been sent to OTRS from Cornell University giving permission to paraphrase or create derivative works from Cornell University press releases. Thanks,
Racepacket (
talk) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Just to note that this OTRS release was not usable. See
Ticket:2010021610048245. The contents were not released under allowable license, and the terms offered were vague. Cornell did not say that derivative works could be created, but only that press releases could be
paraphrased, which does not in any way address the closeness with which the content can be reproduced. They never responded to follow-up communication. --
Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply