Hey Copyright Cleanup! I would like to invite you to look over an issue on the Dispute Resolution board that has a copyright-related component: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution noticeboard#Russell Islands. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have recently followed the official File Upload Process ([1]) to upload what I understand to be a non-free image: [2]. Am I free and clear to add this image to the Geography section of the Russell Islands page without violating Wikipedia rules related to copyright? Thanks for any guidance. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That image doesn't meet the non-free content criteria, specifically it fails the "No free equivalent" point. It would be possible for an editor to create their own map of the islands which is of suitable quality, and there are open source alternatives you could use instead (e.g. Openstreetmap). Hut 8.5 18:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Per recommendation, I am moving this discussion to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Question_about_Criteria_One_of_WP:NFCCP. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mainly a copy of https://www.izu.edu.tr/en/about-izu/history/prof-dr-sabahattin-zaim. A praising article of a university on their Professor. Usually I fix it myself, but this is too much.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, I've blanked it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 January 29. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 04:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dealing with COPYVIOs is still kinda new to me at AfC. In Draft:Metro Park, the Earwig tool came back at 56%, which is higher than I'm used to seeing. However, it looks like the hits are canned episode descriptions. Are these violations that need removal and revdels, or is reusing something like that considered generally acceptable? Thanks, 2pou (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They need removal and revdel, which I've done. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. Am I supposed to remove the violating content before a CV decline so the admin can know what revs to delete easier? (Ideally yes, I assume.) I unfortunately CV declined a few revs before the violating content was removed here: Draft:The Reincarnationist Papers. -2pou (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, yes. The best way to indicate revisions is to remove the offending content and then add {{copyvio-revdel}}. User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel makes that easier. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The feature of that script definitely looks useful. Installing. -2pou (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should external links in references be revision deleted, or is removing the link sufficient? Then (assuming the answer is yes) the question becomes how to best go about doing this. The {{link summary}} tool shows pages that have active WP:COPYVIOEL violations, which is great when the links are still active, the addition can be found and revdel requested. What if another user recognizes the link is inappropriate and removes it but does not request a revdel? (Here is an example.) It's good that the link is removed, but that makes finding the violations a bit harder. Is there a tool that can search for links in old revisions? I could open a systematic review at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#When and how should a CCI be started? for one user, but if an IP or different user added links, those would slip through, but is that about all that can be done? -2pou (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't typically revdel for LINKVIO, just remove the links. In the case of references, there should be enough information in the reference to safely delete the link and still satisfy WP:V (assuming that it did so with the link). I don't know of a way to search for already removed links, short of COIBot's database. For repeated problems with the same user/domain, actions like blocks or blacklisting may be needed. For one-off cases, there's not much we can do besides educate/warn when removing violations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It's been a while since I did copyvio checks, several years, and I have just found some in a fairly stable page (copyvio was mid 2020) I removed the offending passages, but when I went to use my copyvio tools, I found they were out-of date :¬(

There should be earwig and coren search, but they are no longer useful it appears, as one is now defunct, and there were no flags on the page. I did run the page through Duplication Detector, but that requires me to know the page I suspect the copyvio came from.
Is there a tool I can use to check the article with?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaosdruid:Hi! Sorry for the late reply; this project is largely defunct. The tools used today is actually a modern version of earwig's and copypatrol's Eranbot. Welcome back! Most activity is now over at WP:CCI and a lot of active editors in CCI right now are on the unofficial Discord for Wikimedia. Sennecaster (What now?) 03:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sennecaster No worries ;¬) Thx for letting me know ... It could just be an innocent mistake by them, as there were other long insertions that were all quoted correctly and ref'd, it looks like they just forgot to put the quote marks, or they were in the middle of a large amount of edits that day and simply forgot that section when checking themselves. I have checked other work by them, and it seems to be the only slip up. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]