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[edit]

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up. Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors with a history of copyright problems and so are not welcome to directly evaluate their own or others' copyright violations in CCIs. They are welcome to assist with rewriting any problems identified.

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. Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors who have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation and so all of the below listed contributions may be removed indiscriminately. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal.

When every section is completed, please alter the listing for this CCI at Wikipedia:CCI#Open_investigations to include the tag "completed=yes". This will alert a clerk that the listing needs to be archived.

Text

  • Evaluating for copyright concerns may include checking the listed sources, spot-checking using google, google books and other search engines and looking for major differences in writing style. The background may give some indication of the kinds of copyright concerns that have been previously detected. For older text, mirrors of Wikipedia content may make determining which came first difficult. It may be helpful to look for significant changes to the text after it was entered. Searching for the earlier form of text can help eliminate later mirrors. If you cannot determine which came first, text should be removed presumptively, since there is an established history of copying with the editor in question.
  • 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. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor. Your note on the CCI investigation page serves that purpose.
  • 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. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor.
  • replace the diffs after the colon on the listing with indication of whether problem was found (add ((y))) or not (add ((n))). If the article is blanked and may be deleted, please indicate as much after the ((y)).
  • 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 (~~~~)

Images

Background[edit]

 Kprtqrf06

Canadian Forces Publication A-DH-267-003 Insignia and Lineages of the Canadian Forces. Volume 3: Combat Arms Regiments is the authoritative document on the lineage, history and heritage of these Canadian Army units. There is no word for word copying save for unit names, which are proper. There are literally only so many ways to convey the information contained in this publication, which is referenced in all the writing I have done using information from that publication. The history of these units is factual, and you cannot accuse someone of copyright infringement for relaying historical fact or you would be unable to write any document. As an example, Canada became a nation on 1 July 1867. There are many publications that relay that fact, but they cannot claim to own the copyright on the fact that Confederation took place on 1 July 1867. Similarly, if the Cavalry School Corps was established on 21 December 1883, that is a fact. The wording describing this event may be copyrighted, but the event cannot. The information conveyed in my writing are the facts surrounding the history of these units from an authoritative source. I could rely on unsubstantiated rumours, regimental legends and war stories to convey the histories of these units and where they fought, but that would hardly be in keeping with the spirit of an encyclopedia.Kprtqrf06 (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's clear that this is an authoritative source and that User:Kprtqrf06 has gone to a lot of effort to modify the information for inclusion. However, the reason it is drawing repeat hits from the search bot is that results are still structured and worded very similarly (not just the unit names, but the sentences in between describing the unit activities as well) to the government document they come from. In fact, the question here would in some ways be "Why is putting this information here in this form better than just saying 'for the history of this unit, see Canadian Forces Publication A-DH-267-003' and linking to the appropriate online DHH page?", since it's very difficult to adapt the structure of the specific military terminology used in the source in a way that makes it not substantially a mirror of the source. Koumz (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kprtqrf06, I've had a look, and unfortunately we are dealing with more than unit names here. :/
Source Article After changes
Details from the regiment were mobilized for active service to provide guards for vulnerable points under the designation 'The Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment, CASF (Details)' on 1 September 1939. The details called out on active service were disbanded on 31 December 1940. The regiment subsequently mobilized the '1st Battalion, The Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment, CASF' on 5 March 1942. This unit served in Canada in a home defence role as part of Atlantic Command. The battalion was disbanded on 15 October 1943. [citations omitted] Details from the regiment were mobilized for active service to provide guards for vulnerable points designated as The Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment, CASF (Details) on 1 September 1939. The details called out on active service disbanded on 31 December 1940. The regiment subsequently mobilized the 1st Battalion, The Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment, CASF, on 5 March 1942, which served in Canada in a home defence role as part of Atlantic Command. This battalion disbanded on 15 October 1943 Details from the regiment were mobilized for active service to provide guards for vulnerable points designated as The Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment, CASF (Details) on 1 September 1939 and served until disbanded on 31 December 1940. The regiment then mobilized the 1st Battalion, The Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment, CASF, on 5 March 1942, which served in Canada in a home defence role as part of Atlantic Command. This battalion disbanded on 15 October 1943
To make it a little easier to see where duplication has occurred, I have bolded the language that appears verbatim in the works. I'm afraid that this is a clear issue of very close paraphrasing, with minimal changes. This is also only one of multiple paragraphs in that article that were copied with little or no change from the source. I've removed them from this article, pending a usable rewrite. I would really suggest reading Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which discusses the need to put content in your own language and structure and also provides some suggestions for how to do this. This is a not uncommon good faith error, but it does need to be repaired, I'm afraid. :/
I'm looking to see how widespread these issues are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, I thought I'd have more time than I do right now. :/ I'll try to look at it in 14 hours or so unless somebody beats me to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having looked more closely this morning, I have found copying in multiple articles from 2012 to date. I am opening the CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of content that appears to have been copied from this massive document, which doesn't seem to be Earwigable. We'll have to manually compare it to the text. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also from Part 1 of the same document. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contribution survey[edit]

Kprtqrf06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This report covers contributions to 241 articles from timestamp 2011-10-16 17:29:15 UTC to timestamp 2014-08-15 14:21:10 UTC.

Articles 1 through 20[edit]

Articles 21 through 40[edit]

Articles 41 through 60[edit]

Articles 61 through 80[edit]

Articles 81 through 100[edit]

Articles 101 through 120[edit]

Articles 121 through 140[edit]

Articles 141 through 160[edit]

Articles 161 through 180[edit]

Articles 181 through 200[edit]

Articles 201 through 220[edit]

Extended content

Articles 221 through 240[edit]

Extended content

Articles 241 through 241[edit]

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2014-08-16T12:23:46+00:00 in 0.45 sec.

More