Soulbust

• Soulbust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Check requested by theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her)
• I did just come across Soulbust being warned for a second time; the first I saw was by Tamzin at Template:Did you know nominations/Gwen Stacy (Spider-Verse) and then a second time by evrik at Template:Did you know nominations/Bigface. Going through their other DYK nominations, which are generally otherwise quality, I'm finding other issues:
• In the recent Protect trans kids, compare the original:

  The gesture comes on the same day that Texas governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services calling on its employees and other licensed professionals who work with children to report on trans children and report the parents of trans children to state authorities, referring to “elective procedures for gender transitioning” as “child abuse.”

  to the article's:

  This occurred on the same day as Texas governor Greg Abbott issuing a letter to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, calling on employees and other professionals working with children to report parents of trans children to state authorities.

• I found a third warning from Pamzeis at Template:Did you know nominations/Music of Spider-Verse – this one is for overquotation, but there is also close paraphrasing in wikivoice. Compare the original the clacking of a computer keyboard, and the motif for the villainous Kingpin Wilson Fisk is performed by a click-pen to the article's the clacking of a computer keyboard being featured in a set piece. The motif for the Kingpin (or Wilson Fisk) is performed by a click-pen.
• And a fourth note from gobonobo at Template:Did you know nominations/Squirrels on college campuses.

This doesn't look to me like it's intentional: no article (with the possible exception of Spider-Gwen) was too bad, but it does seem pervasive across articles. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess to start off, yeah, I haven't done any of that intentionally. Though I guess that's pretty evident given your comments. I don't see the issue with the one for Protect trans kids. To me that seems like it might just be flagged because of the titles/proper names (Texas governor, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services). Tried to actually condense the rest of it the best I could.

That Squirrels on college campuses one was a result of me trying to make sure the specific parameters of the relevant study (so that study tagging specifically each tree, building, etc.) wouldn't get lost when cited here on Wikipedia. But the concern with that sentence that gobonobo raised was able to be alleviated.

The Bigface one is kind of silly. There are four sources popping up as 32.4% (two of which are used in the article, the other two I hadn't even come across before). This 32.4% is popping up because of a direct quote from Jimmy Butler (example here). In the article, it is written as:

"Originating as an inside joke, Butler called his business "Big Face Coffee", explaining "if I charge $20 for a cup, all I got to do [sic] is get somebody for a good cup of coffee," adding that now out of $20 bills, they would come back "big faces," slang for $100 bills. Butler added "whenever they hand me the hundred, I'm going to be like, 'Whoops, sorry. I don't have change. Thank you for paying a hundred dollars for a cup of coffee.' Never really worked that way but the idea was genius." Butler contributed the difficulty to find coffee as a reason why demand for his was high."

I'll see if I can go ahead and paraphrase that one a bit. There is another source (not used in the article) that pops up as 32.9%, but again it's that direct quote about $20 bills and "hundred dollars for a cup of coffee". The added 0.5% pops up because of "National Basketball Association (NBA)" and so yeah that seems like a silly non-issue to me.

The two Spider-Verse articles a little bit more complex. I think the missteps here (particularly on the Spider-Gwen) were me struggling with paraphrasing plot points. Looking at the concerns Tamzin raised at the DYK nom for that one, the first two and bottom two seem relatively minor.

The "briefly seen with a trans pin" one I'm not really sure how to have better paraphrased that one. Seems like a basic description of what some fans suggested and it's sourced as that.

The "comics writer and longtime fan" one was in the context of this "CNN's Leah Asmelash cited comics writer and longtime fan Zoe Tunnell". That's now been tweaked to drop the "longtime fan" descriptor. I thought that could come off as fluffy/crufty, and maybe unnecessary for inclusion here. Not sure how else to alleviate the copyvio concern here. Looks like the same issue as in Protect trans kids (just the preceding descriptor "comics writer" making it pop up on earwig).

The third one is probably the most apparently concerning, but as I said earlier, I struggled with finding smooth ways to paraphrase plot points. I do think this particular section has since been fixed up; I did some initial tweaks here and Moneytrees came in clutch and further patched it up at this edit.

The fourth "that all spider-heroes must experience" and fifth ones "theories about canon events and anomalies" seem like more ticky-tacky flagging by Earwig. I would attribute this to the plot point paraphrasing struggles I've mentioned. I think it was just a little harder for me to figure out clean ways to summarize the in-universe context at least on my first sort-of wave of working on that article. Since this is all a work in progress, I figured that that sort of stuff could be worked through especially with the DYK process letting me know what exactly to kinda hone in on and patch up. Not to mention any organic independent re-visits I will do with articles.

Pamzeis mentioned three sources as making earwig pop up high similarity concerns on the Music of Spider-Verse article. I have removed one of those three sources altogether, and so I'll be working on how to better work in the other 2. The Screen Rant one has a little bit of the silly problems similarly found at Bigface (it flags "Across the Spider-Verse Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack)" for example). But this one is mostly just direct quoting. So I think this one can definitely be patched up. Same for the Observer quote as that one is also lighting up due to a direct quoting issue.

If there's anything else I may have missed to address, just let me know. But I think the higher concerns earwig has brought up can definitely be addressed and worked in the article. Sorry for the mess atm. Soulbust (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0mtwb9gd5wx

• 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Check requested by — SamX [talk · contribs]
• Four prior warnings for copyright violations on talk page. I've found some copyright violations in their recent contributions:
  • close paraphrasing from this source added to M&M's with this edit
  • Close paraphrasing from this source added to NBC Orange Network with this edit
  • Verbatim copying close paraphrasing from this source added to The Plain Dealer with this edit edited 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing from this source added to Manny Farber with this edit

This editor's misuse of quotes is also a concern. Excessive quoting using the |quote= parameter in CS1 templates seems to be common (as seen here, here, here, here, and here), as well as very long verbatim quotes from sources (as seen here, here, here) and at least one case of very large verbatim copying into a hidden text comment (here). — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quotes & paraphrasing are allowed ? .... 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@0mtwb9gd5wx: Thanks for following up. They are sometimes, but not always. Very limited quotes of non-free works are allowed per WP:NFCC, but quotations that are very large, could be replaced with handwritten prose, or that comprise a significant or critical portion of copyrighted works are not. Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and WP:COPYQUOTE explain this in more detail. Paraphrasing can also be problematic. It's usually alright if it's very limited in scope, but using similar wording with a few tweaks or presenting a series of ideas in the exact same order of a source is generally not acceptable. I'd highly recommend reading Wikipedia:Plagiarism and especially Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for a more detailed explanation. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the details of the context, most likely I found citations that answered questions about the subject, but I didn't understand it well enough to paraphrase it. Why don't you paraphrase them ? ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing large passages or adding a passage with minimal changes from the source usually means using the same creative expression, which is legally protected. These criteria are more strict than a lot of people realize. For example, the passage you added to The Plain Dealer would probably be better written as WHK (AM) and WJAY were purchased by United Broadcasting Company in 1934 and 1936, respectively. United Broadcasting company was owned by the Forest City Publishing Company, which in turn owned The Plain Dealer. This passage states the facts in a different order and uses different language, thereby using different creative expression than the source. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing explains this in more detail. This particular instance is admittedly smaller than the other diffs I've cited and might even meet WP:LIMITED, which is why I used it to illustrate an example of acceptable paraphrasing. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla

• Soibangla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Check requested by — SamX [talk · contribs]
• Several recent cases of close paraphrasing:
  • Election denial movement in the United States: source, diff
  • Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden: source, diff
  • Smith special counsel investigation: source, diff
  • Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign: source, diff, rewrite

There's also this revert of closely paraphrased material from this source and the subsequent discussion on the article's talk page. This discussion on the user's talk page does not inspire confidence. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC) edited 00:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this request meets the selection criteria of "large-scale systematic copyright violations only" consisting of "at least five instances of clear copyvios (copy/pasting of unlicensed third party material; clear derivative works)." Rather, I suggest it is close paraphrasing that is perhaps inadvertently too close as I strive for concision and precision, and of which I will be more careful about going forward. soibangla (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: Thanks for responding, and I really appreciate your assurances that you'll take feedback on board. Many of your edits that I checked were not problematic and I agree that you usually do a pretty good job of writing things so that they don't fall afoul of WP:CLOP, but there's enough here for me to be concerned. Part of the reason I brought this here was to get the input of someone more experienced than myself. At some point (it could be a while), an administrator or copyright clerk will do a more thorough review of your edits, and they may well decide not to open a case. If a case is opened it'll probably be fairly easy to work through, since a) most of the sources you use are easily accessible online and b) you seem to be very rigorous about using properly formatted inline citations, which will make it very easy to determine where the material may have been paraphrased from. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am hopeful that given Many of your edits that I checked were not problematic and you agree that you usually do a pretty good job of writing things so that they don't fall afoul of WP:CLOP that a more thorough review of your edits will be restricted to only the specific examples you cite here, before a clerk/admin decision is made to open a more expansive review from which I may become embroiled in defending everything I have ever written, as I continue to contend that this request does not meet the CCI selection criteria, soibangla (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FuzzyMagma

• FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Check requested by theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)
• Request largely stems from the evidence presented at DYK's noticeboard by dying, following previously received warnings on copyright (1 2). Probably calls for a closer look. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When this last discussion started it was based on a similarity between two article in Wikipedia (i.e., September 1983 Laws and National Reconciliation (Sudan)) to stop an article from being included on the main page as part of DYK. Once that was dismissed, a new argument linked to a different article came forth (i.e., Islamism in Sudan). During that discussion I was accused of "personally attacking an editor" and asked to "drop the stick" by the admin in this nom and another editor.

  I choose to just "shut up and edit" and fixed the article which I believed did not need to be fixed to start with, but I did it anyway to end this matter. To my surprise, dying launched a clear personal attack and got applauded by the current nom admin. Then the whole thing spiralled to an examination of my work when dying is claiming that they picked from my 211 articles one at "random" (i.e., Kalakla) and finding problems with them while pointing to an incident that happened at Republican Palace, Khartoum.

  I refused to engage because I knew it is futile as the goal post is kept moving however I tried to approach it, see the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws.

  However, if any one bothered to have a look to the Talk:Republican Palace, Khartoum#CopyVio they would have found what was the issue (confusion about free licence) which was resolved then. Kalakla which was translated from the Arabic article as mentioned in the page talk. Same for Sara Gadalla Gubara

  Just to make it clear, I am not saying that I have not made mistakes, I have made plenty but the tune that was used on that DYK thread does not help in anyway.

  The nom admin might not remember this, but I had an article pulled at the last moment (i.e., Child abuse in association football) mainly for NPOV and I admitted as being not my strongest suits. The article was moved to the draft space and with the help of these editors comments, I was able to improve the article, as this is the aim of the whole reviewing process, is to improve the quality of the work.

  But when someone using a language like "trying to give you a decent out.", "reputational damage", "as a favor to you", "because otherwise, anyone running afoul of wp:dyksplit (or wp:dyk5x) could easily launder their article by simply paraphrasing the copied material after the issue is pointed out to them", and in general a very accusatory and proactive, I just chose to disengage as I cannot with a good conscious improve my work when I am being berated, if - by by pure chance - these attacks revealed something true. Please be aware that I declined to interact with dying, and I intend to maintain that decision. Based on our two previous interactions, I believe that constantly pivoting when proven wrong is not a constructive approach to a discussion and will only prolong it unnecessarily.

  Anyway, I will leave you to investigate but thought the context might be important here FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tpsn98290

• Tpsn98290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Check requested by Fermiboson (talk)
• Editor has a long, long history of creating copyvio articles, as one can see from their talk page. Most of these are deleted, but the editor also has contributions to other articles that need checking. For example, at Naruka, there is a section copyvio [1], the source of which dates from before the editor's first edit. I can't, however, seem to track down exactly what diff the copyvio content was added (only that it came into being after this editor started editing). There should probably be a deeper look into this. Fermiboson (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeffed. MER-C 05:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Naruka (27 edits): (+6542)(+2368)(+1963)(+1954)(+1839)(+1779)(+1769)(+1721)(+1658)(+1615)(+1339)(+1307)(+860)(+631)(+496)(+433)(+422)(+344)(+330)(+276)(+264)(+212)(+167)
• N Uniara (Jagir) (1 edit): (+5643)
• N Narukhand (2 edits): (+4422)
• N Ladana Thikana (1 edit): (+3172)
• Kachhwaha (3 edits): (+3086)(+278)
• Sawai Pratap Singh Naruka (1 edit): (+2303)
• Todaraisingh (1 edit): (+1703)
• Ram Mandir (1 edit): (+1470)
• Bhuvneshwari Kumari (1 edit): (+602)
• Yato Dharmastato Jayah (1 edit): (+457)
• List of Mayoites (1 edit): (+407)
• Lawa Thikana (2 edits): (+353)(+214)
• Alwar State (1 edit): (+201)
• Tonk district (1 edit): (+152)