Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???

Hello!

Since a year, many of us Wikipedians trying to add logo of Bangladesh football federation.svg on Bangladesh national football team & Bangladesh women's national football team. But everytime someone is deleting showing the reason: It was removed in accordance with the non-free content policy, with which you are obligated to comply.

My question is If we can't use that public domain logo how Argentina, India, Brazil and other national football teams are using their respective federation logo?

Also, this exact same logo is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). See here: Men's National & Women's National

Please help by adding the logo and add some sort of file protection so that others don't delete this again!

At the end, it represents Bangladesh to the world with pride! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HridoyKundu (talk • contribs) 16:37, March 16, 2023 (UTC)

@HridoyKundu: The use of non-free images such as the Bangladesh Football Federation logo must comply with policy. The use of this logo for identification on the article about the federation is acceptable, but uses on team articles which are considered child entities of the federation are not. See Non-free Content examples of unacceptable image use, and specifically item 17 which states that the use of the parent entitiy's logo is not acceptable for use as identification in the child entity's article. In this case, the child entities are the men's and women's national squads. As for the usage on the Bangladesh wiki, each wiki has its own policies. I do not know if the usage on that wiki complies with their policies or not, but that is irrelevant with respect to its usage here on the English wiki, the use in articles aside from the federation article does not comply with non-free content policy. For ffuture refeences, this type of question would be btter posted at Media Copyright Questions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked many administrators but all of their answers were unclear and unsatisfied. The best they said the policy Bengali wiki is different from English wiki so you can't use that here. Ok I agree! Then how other national teams are using? Like: India Men's National Football Team, Brazil Men's National Football Team etc. Their federation logo also comes under public domain. So how are they using? Aren't they

violating copyrights?

My simple request: Either add the Bangladesh Football Federation.svg logo to national football teams with file protection or delete all the federation logos from their respective football teams.

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The same thing is being discussed at WP:MCQ#Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???. So, it's probably best to keep all relevant discussion there to avoid redundancy and confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael Faraday

Hello! I noticed the Royal Institution source "Faraday sent copies of his scientific paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to scientific colleagues all over the world so they too could witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations themselves" vs our text "Faraday published the results of his discovery in the Quarterly Journal of Science, and sent copies of his paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to colleagues around the world so they could also witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations" (as summarized by @DuncanHill) in the Michael Faraday article. I was recommended to discuss it here. Thx in advance, SwampedEssayist (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the passage in question. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Despair not :)

Wizardman (and MER-C and Justlettersandnumbers), re this edit summary, despair not :). I believe I have gone through now almost all of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, and identified those articles that are almost entirely DC content for submission to WP:CP. I may still find some stragglers, but from WP:DCGAR, I am fairly certain that you will find the workload goes away in about six more days. At most, if I continue to find WP:CP candidates from the DC CCI, they will be sporadic. Hang in there, and thanks for all the work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this, SandyGeorgia, I know how mind-numbing CCI can be (and just don't know how Wizardman manages to keep at it so tirelessly!). Just a thought: as I understand it, if a CCI subject was not the first editor of a page (i.e., it was created by someone else), then any editor in good standing is completely free to revert to the last revision before the first edit by the CCI editor. There's no need need to blank or list it, just revert, stick a {{cclean}} on the talk-page, and request revdel if that seems appropriate. Anyway, thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That is also the understanding I have been working under, and I have only been sending to WP:CP those that were a) created by DC, and b) almost all DC content still. So I do hope I have by now listed all of those, so that as you work through the next six days, we should be mostly done with that side of things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I second JLAN's thanks emphatically. What I do is many times easier than the tedium of cleaning it up via ordinary editing - it's just my time was short last week. MER-C 20:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, was actually just about to ask what the ETA was (I've found some more foundational cv I wanted to send here to be safe but I've been holding off to avoid blowing this up too much). Thanks for all the help, making that significant a dent in what would've otherwise been a painful CCI to sift through makes things so much easier going forward. Honestly I'm just thankful that people are generally ok with just scrapping the edits of the worst offenders, if we actually had to manually check every single ref on some of these I wouldn't even bother trying. Wizardman 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, there are still boatloads of pages to be checked and still many more diffs to be processed; I fear the easiest work (identifying those created by DC that could be deleted) is done, and the hard part is ahead on the CCI, but at least we should be off of this page for now, if that makes it feel less overwhelming. Now it's back to page by page, diff by diff, and reverting to the last version before DC may be the best option for many. Thanks to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Can not login to CopyPatrol

I can not currently login to CopyPatrol (I can open the page and review the articles but can not mark them as done), do other people also experience the same problem? Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Hut 8.5 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Still does not work for me. When I press the login button the page gets reloaded but I am still not logged in. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unable to login to tools?. I still cannot log in. -- Whpq (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, trying several times worked indeed for me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

John Caldwell (Michigan representative)

Could an admin help me sort the history of John Caldwell (Michigan representative)? It appears there was a previous delete and history merge, and the first two edits in the history of the article don't seem to tell the entire story, based on the edit summary of the second edit. In this case, I'm trying to determine if the author of the original content is DC, as he self-identifies on Wikipedia as Caldwell, not Coldwell (a name he used on Wikipedia) from Michigan, and he uploaded family images including Caldwell's personal legislative book and

• family photos of unknown origin and
• images he says the "Caldwell family" release to the public domain.

How much I can PDEL, and whether this article should go to WP:CP based on offline sources depends on who wrote all that original content (and evaluating for COI may also be in order). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the page was started at John Caldwell (Michigan state representative) (or at least that's where the page has ended up) and the history merge missed some of the edits. The first version was by Doug Coldwell. There isn't any meaningful deleted history, John Caldwell (Michigan representative) has one deleted edit and it's a redirect. I've checked Doug Coldwell's deleted edits, I can only see two on any variation of this title, one's a redirect and the other's a page move. Hut 8.5 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much; that will help. Pretty sick of DC content for today, so will look tomorrow; much appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is copying a blog post to a sandbox a copyright violation?

I saw this: User talk:Manish kumar 675/sandbox which came from this. The copyright problems page only talks about articles, not user sandboxes or other user pages. It's possible the editor is going to try to rewrite it and turn it into an article. STEMinfo (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyright policy applies to all name spaces. I have deleted the sandbox as a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Do e-mail exchanges with content experts need to be stored somewhere?

A question has arisen about my methodology when adding sentences to Wikipedia articles that were sent to me by content experts via e-mail. Those sentences are not copyright violations as they are "own words / new words / original text" so that is not the problem. The question is rather whether the e-mail exchanges with those content experts need to be stored somewhere, or their explicit permission to use their words needs to be stored? If so where should it be stored, for how long, including their actual name and e-mail address?

The reason for asking is that technically they don't click on the little box saying "By writing text for Wikipedia, you agree to Wikipedia's Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." but I do (on their behalf if you like). Further background to this question is available here.

Often times their proposed sentences are not added directly as they are but modified by me (e.g. to make them easier to understand) so technically, that content then becomes "my content" anyhow, not theirs, right? So in a way, they are rather advisers to my editing rather than ghost editors themselves. The content experts that I work with have all been given the option to edit directly themselves but most of them have declined that option and are rather sending me marked-up Word documents of the Wikipedia articles to show me what - in their opinion - needs changing. EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are adding someone else's text to Wikipedia, see the consent that we need from the author. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89, thanks for your reply. I've used that consent form in the past for when people donated images. I haven't used it for when people send me snippets of sentences for Wikipedia articles which I often tend to modify a bit to make their reading ease easier. I see that kind of "text" more like "advice & suggestions" by experts on how a Wikipedia article could be modified. There is not one particular "text block" that we could send with that consent form. It's basically "suggested edits by someone off wiki in a private channel". We also ensure a "good faith, clear and transparent interaction with the experts with the full knowledge it would be published on Wikipedia" (which is how User:Sadads wrote it here). Do you agree with that? EMsmile (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on talkpage

This person has a page on talk that they say was previously submitted as a university thesis. I've left a message on the talkpage but no response for more than a week - I'm not sure whether I should use the copyvio tag or not, I can't find a relevant policy about talkpages and this specific scenario User:Aquaticonions/Beyond_the_Neutral_Point_of_View JMWt (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Which page? Secretlondon (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Unknown CC

See also: Template talk:Creative Commons text attribution notice § CC-BY-SA 1.0

Hi all, what is the license here? Proeksad (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Good question, Proeksad! – this page is far from clear. I have a similar one about this; you've changed the attribution at Luigi Bisi to CC BY-SA 3.0, which is indeed what the website said in 2015, but not in 2012. I added the {{CC-notice}} here without specifying the CC BY-SA version; it seems that the template defaults to 1.0.

Questions: is that a good thing? should the attribution be updated if it changes, or remain as it was when the text was added? and should the attribution template remain in the article even if all the copied text has been removed/replaced (of course old revisions that do contain copied content will also contain attribution for it). I wish I wasn't so hazy about all this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

In 2014 Creative Commons clarified that BY-SA 1.0 is not compatible with other versions. So Wikipedia cannot use such texts. From my point of view, we can update if the author did it or probably did it.
CC BY-SA is not necessarily CC BY-SA 1.0, it can be any version. 1.0 appeared in 2002, 2.0 — 2004, 2.5 — 2005, 3.0 — 2007, 4.0 — 2013. Proeksad (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

GFDL, CC BY-SA 3.0 or dual: [1]?
What will we do with article Information commons? Proeksad (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

An article that's on the Wikipedia is a direct copy of a draft I and a few others made

The article Modhalum Kadhalum directly copies all content from the declined draft submission I made Draft:Modhalum Kaadhalum, with the help of a few others (mainly @Aspiringeditor1 with everyone else on the history page), without being mentioned in any way. It would be helpful if there can be a reasonable solution to this. Tirishan (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I was going to second this and @Tirishan himself on his talk page about this - it doesn't seem fair that a user can just copy and paste a majority of our work like that, I did edit on Modhalum Kadhalum - you can see that on view history but that was mostly grammar and english based - not copypasting our work on this new article because that's just stupid. Also, if there is no verdict on AfC it would be easier to just move to mainspace, no? Also the creator of Modhalum Kadhalum seems to have done a cut-and-paste move with their article they have made, it was moved from mainspace from draftspace and the creator has just moved it again to mainspace making a redirect for the new page from the draft. Aspiringeditor1 (talk)11:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

From @Samyazh talk page, looks like @DoubleGrazing declined the AfC request. Did you forget to actually move the page? If not, please consider this issue. Tirishan (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it from mainspace into draftspace under the new title Draft:Modhalum Kadhalum 2, as well. no need for it to be in mainspace when it copies our article + it was declined. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see it at first, but after further investigation I did see enough copying from the original draft to the newer one to perform a history merge (and then a post-merge page move to fix the page title). DanCherek (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Is {{Cv-unsure}} useful to you?

I personally don't find this useful or helpful in cleaning up and identifying copyvio - I spend way too much time hunting down a potential source that may very well be dead, or not even cited in the article. If other people here also don't find it useful, then I will probably start a wider discussion for deprecation, but if people do still find it useful, I will leave it be. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In response to your request for comment at Discord. For me, it looks like an overlap of Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections as it's tagging an article with potential copyvio without an URL. The difference is that it's tagging the talk page, and not the article. I think combining the cv-unsure ones into copied and pasted articles would be better. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Six articles are currently tagged with this in the last five years. It should be merged per above once the existing members are run down. MER-C 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Deputy June 2023 User Experience Survey

Hello! I'm Chlod, the developer of Deputy. You may have heard of this tool before or you may be an active user, but in case you haven't heard of it prior, it's a tool for streamlining some of the copyright cleanup work on this wiki.

I'm currently holding a survey to gauge editors' experience of the tool, be it as a user or a non-user. You're invited to participate, even if you don't use Deputy! The responses collected will help improve the tool and, if you're not a user, help make Deputy work smoothly with how you do your work.

The survey can be found here, and you can learn more about this survey on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback needed on pending TFA (July 5)

Can the amazing folks who work this page take a look at a close paraphrasing concern in an upcoming TFA and provide some feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Opinions solicited on mixed lyrics/list copyright issue

I would appreciate the input of any copyright experts at Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire § Event list removed for copyright reasons. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Trimming the introduction

Currently, half of CP is taken up by instructions that largely duplicate existing policy pages. As mentioned by others, the problem is that CP used to (and to a degree still is) largely be a hub for copyright instructions so information like backwards copy, etc still links here, despite the prevalence of many alternative pages that such guidance could (and should) be included on. I have a few suggestions:

• Collapse {{Noticeboard links}}
• Move sections that are explicit copies of other guidelines and instead provide a clear table of links for them, similar to ANI's header
• Give brief instructions on filing a CP listing and for more detailed information link to a subpage
• Completely move clerk/admin instructions to a separate page as most whom use the page do not need this info.

There is a broader problem involving a lack of cohesion on copyright guidance pages; the copyright sidebar contains a score of links that contain large amounts of overlap: perhaps merging some of these should be considered.

For now however, I think moving some of the instructions that have broader impacts outside of CP, e.g. backwards copy should be a focus and I might boldly do that if there are no objections. I think the status quo is more overwhelming for reporters than actually useful. – Isochrone (T) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

tl;dr, split off content on the CP instructions to other pages and remove redundant info – Isochrone (T) 12:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)