• List of Indian states by Aadhaar generation (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://portal.uidai.gov.in/uidwebportal/batchXML/Summary/AllStates.xml. Notabede (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wasn't a copyvio concern as it's just basic data and so not copyrightable. That said it duplicates a section in an existing article so redirecting. Dpmuk (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Round the Island Race (history · last edit · rewrite) from Foundational copyvio from given sources, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100509 for background. History section still extensively copied from http://www.roundtheisland.org.uk/web/code/php/main_c.php?section=race&page=history, potentially other copying in lead.. Dana boomer (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Intercostal nerve block (history · last edit · rewrite) from multiple sources, see article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 03:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Aeromobil (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.gizmag.com/klein-flying-car-first-flight/29448/. Because the previous article by the same editor had multiple issues, I did not check further on this article, after finding the first instance of cut-and-paste. I suspect a CCI may be needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I am sorry for my violations, and I will never repeat it again. However, I do not agree that all of my contributions are systematic violation of copyrights. I have created as many as 38 articles, and most of them are my own translations, so copyright violation doesn't apply there. I only violate copyrights policy because I still don't speak English at that level so I could choose every word on my own, I tried as much as I could to use different words, as you can see in some SandyGeorgia's examples, but in some places I was unsure. I learned my lesson, and I agree I did wrong at the Intercostal nerve block page, and I will never do that or anything like that again. Sincerely, Alex ^{discussion ★} 17:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aleksa Lukic, I have now taken the time to review several of your other articles, and have found a serious problem with too close paraphrasing (where, as you say, you have attempted to rephrase but your command of English presents problems in adequately rephrasing), but I have found no further examples (in a limited random check) of outright cut-and-paste. However, several of your articles use non-English-language sources: do you understand that direct translation is also copyvio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • SandyGeorgia I'm not quite sure what's the definition of a direct translation, but I know that in many places I translated the text from a corresponding sr wiki page and I think that complies with our policy WP:TrU. As for other articles, as far as I can remember I had first done an analysis of the available content, then ruled out which parts of it are relevant for an encyclopedia, then translate them and put them into appropriate form and apply them to a specific article. I don't know if that counts as copyvio. Furthermore, as far as I know, there are lots of different ways to interpret and translate one single sentence; considering one entire article (about 4-10 sentences) that is very large number and I wouldn't tell they are all copyright infringement. Alex ^{discussion ★} 17:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches; if you are translating directly without using quotes, that is plagiarism. If you are translating and changing only a few words, that may be too close paraphrasing. Whenever you are translating, you need to a) first consult the source, and b) write the text in your own words, avoid too close paraphrasing or direct translation without quotes. For the problem with intercostal nerve block, the issue is pervasive enough that I suggest you might PROD the article so that it can be restarted. On aeromobil, the article is small enough that you may be able to remove the individual instances of plagiarism or copyvio, and rephrase where there is too close paraphrasing. Are you willing to do that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

          • If the source is in another language, for instance, the contributor may be under the mistaken belief that the act of translation is a sufficient revision to eliminate concerns of plagiarism. On the contrary, whether or not the work is free, the obligation remains to give credit to authors of foreign language texts for their creative expression, information and ideas, and, if the work is unfree, direct translation is likely to be a copyright violation as well.^[1][2]

• Comment SandyGeorgia Hats off, that's an example of a kind and polite reply. :) Alright, I will be able to remove too close paraphrasing sections from the aeromobil article, and returned them in text once I'm done with a successful rephrasing. As for ICNB article, I have a question, could we manage the article to stay if it is reduced to a stub level, so I could after consult the source, rephrase it in my own words and returned it back to the article? Alex ^{discussion ★} 18:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not really sure how to answer that, Aleksa; someone who works more often in copyvio might have a look and let you know. My only knowledge is that, in past cases where there was a lot of copyvio in the earlier versions, complicated by subsequent copyedits, it is often easier to start over. Perhaps Moonriddengirl will look in here and offer an opinion. Thanks for the helpful approach, as that is usually all that is needed to avoid a time-consuming CCI! And, I've just noticed that there seems to be no information anywhere on Wikipedia (except the old Signpost article) about the copyvio issues presented by translating, so I have added the above information to WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:TRANSLATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  SandyGeorgia I have created a rephrased version in my own words, after I first consult the source. See Draft:Aeromobil. Regards, Alex ^{discussion ★} 11:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Aleksa Lukic, I have cleaned up Draft:Aeromobil, it took me almost an hour on that very short article, it still had cut-and-paste copyvio which I removed (example, "first versions did not feature folding wings at all, instead they had a boxy canard appearance with tall wheels" was taken directly from the source), and there were rather serious grammatical issues. It is now ready to be moved to mainspace, but I have no idea how one does that-- you will need to find someone who works regularly on this page who can do that for you.

  I hope you will not take offense, but considering what I found there, I strongly urge that we stub the intercostal nerve block article, and I suggest you might spend more time working on the Wikipedia in your native language before attempting larger-scale article creation on en.Wiki. I wish I had more time to help you, but I only got involved because I was asked to check the medical article, and I don't have enough free time to help correct issues this extensive. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  SandyGeorgiaI did not use cut+paste, I typed every single letter of the newly rephrased content and I tried to rephrase the sentences on my own, and using my own words. I don't see why is wrong using individual the phrase like ″tall wheels″ same as in the source, and I didn't know how to interpret a "boxy canard", so I left it as it was in the original source. Here is the comparison:

• ″The first version did not have folding wings at all, but was a boxy canard (tail first) design with tall wheels.″. (original source)
• ″first versions did not feature folding wings at all, instead they had a boxy canard appearance with tall wheels″. (draft)

• Additionally, the sentence:
• ″More specifically, version 2.0 had a tail that was similar to inverted Latin letter "V", whilst in the version 2.5 included two vertical fins that were placed around the wheels, for the very first time.″
• may be grammatically incorrect, but that's, I think, fixable.

• Also, I don't see a valid reason for removing this credible sentence:
• ″On the authors' official website it's possible to look in for conceptions of the incoming versions 3.0.″

But thank you for your help and copy editing. As for the ICNB, I have one suggestion. The last article size was 21,000 bytes, so could we instead of stub, keep 3,500 bytes sized article? (Intro + one or two small sections.) I'm able to fix that intro and two small sections, if you agree, and then the article could still be long enough to qualify for the DYK. Alex ^{discussion ★} 19:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, from this version of your new draft:

• first versions did not feature folding wings at all, instead they had a boxy canard appearance with tall wheels

versus the source:

• first version did not have folding wings at all, but was a boxy canard (tail first) design with tall wheels.

It is difficult for even native speakers to paraphrase adequately; your paraphrasing can barely be called paraphrasing.

I don't have time to pursue this any further, and an admin who normally works at this page will have to take it from here. I am not going to go through intercostal nerve block and see how much can be salvaged when I've already listed cut-and-paste and paraphrasing problems that are pervasive, so you can get a DYK; from what I have seen so far, either another editor undertakes to rewrite that article from scratch, or it needs to be stubbed, since the entire thing would need to be checked, and page numbers haven't yet been provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strange ... I see Petebutt moved Draft:Aeromobil to Klein Aeromobil, so we still have the copyvio tagged Aeromobil to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a change to the copyviocore template that had this unanticipated consequence, it seems. The Aeromobil rewrite has been "accepted" in draft and moved to a different article title, so I don't know at this point whether the rewrite should be moved to the original title or if it has forked so significantly that it's no longer the same subject. I've changed back the copyright template to restore temporary space usage in the hopes of avoiding this in the future. Can somebody who knows something about Aeromobils please look at Klein Aeromobil and help make that determination? I'm looking at the other issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aeromobil has effectively been moved to Klein Aeromobil along with the rewriting. This looks like the correct name, at least it is certainly better than the original name. I will make the original a redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ALEX, since you are unsure of your English, you would be well advised not to post your "cleaned-up" translations into the main articles. If you have such material to add, it would be safer to rewrite it first in the original language using your own words and then translate that. Or, if it is not in your native tongue, translate it into a language you are fluent in, then rewrite the ideas in your own words, then translate that into English. That way, you will not risk such misunderstandings again. I doubt my colleagues would be so forgiving next time round. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 03:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  

• This included a complete copy-paste from [1]. This included copy-pasted content from [2] (I just removed it). Contribution survey tool is being a little wonky, but this needs more investigation. I'm afraid I don't have time to look more into it right now, but hope to be able to get to it soon, if nobody else does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I have been unable to locate a medical editor able or willing to rewrite intercostal nerve block, I stubbed it-- someone more familiar with the workings of copyright investigation might want to have a look. I will ping the aviation project on the air machine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a really thorough spot-check, and I haven't found any further issues. I don't have enough for a WP:CCI, but do have some concerns especially around the uneven use of English. In places it feels too professional. So I'm not taking further action on this at this time, but please note that this doesn't mean that I don't think there may be issues undiscovered. I just can't find them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]