Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Think Crow already got to this one. Looks clean. Basie (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 13:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions of this editor need further checking.MER-C 13:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: Indeed... last 5 large edits (>1kb) that I checked were all copied. I suspect a CCI is needed to properly evaluate... CrowCaw 00:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several notes: First, I don't see that (other than 1 CSB note) that the user has been warned about copyright, so I left them a hand written note. I think, judging by some content on their talk page, that they are likely a younger editor (Parental controls on their pc, for example), so I think we should temper our response and watch them. Depending on how they respond to my note and suggestions, a CCI may still be needed, even if unofficial, but if they do go back and clean up their mess I think we may have a chance to influence a potentially productive user. (Granted I got burned by this line of thought once, but I'm not jaded yet!) CrowCaw 01:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No user talk page edits in two years... I'm pessimistic. MER-C 04:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User has edited since my note to them. My pessimism is growing as well. CrowCaw 21:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright concern. False positive. Confused bot CrowCaw 22:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with this one? Did CSBot goof? Basie (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does this every so often, usually if it doesn't run immediately, and the page gets crawled by search engines before it can run. CrowCaw 22:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Basie (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Added an attribution for the portion copypasted from a CC3.0 source. The lead also gives a hit, but it seems to be from the original article which was deleted, then resurrected on their site. The article is at AfD for the second time for notability concerns so it may be a moot point. Basie (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. The user had used an infobox from another page as a template, now gone. Basie (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdel completed. Basie (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned, still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. This one had an admin remove the CSB note as "not a copyvio", but I think the copy paste was pretty clear (especially the last para first section). A few sentences had been moved, is all. The source is "all rights reserved". Requested revdel. Basie (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jac1688 removed the templates in the understanding that government sources are PD, but I suspect that may be federal only? Discussion here. Basie (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of a mixed message here. Yes, fed is PD, states and cities may or may not be. In this case, the web site says "all rights reserved", but then presents [Page] which says they're PD except for lists of people. CrowCaw 22:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey. I guess you have to go with the page itself, even though it's probably just been slapped on the bottom in a footer template... Basie (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl has weighed in on this one as it was a bit tricky. Basically, we'll respect the "all rights reserved" statement. Basie (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdel not requested in the end, given above discussion. Basie (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned, still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. Same as the above. Rewritten, will request revdel.Basie (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Some fairly close paraphrases, but pretty well-compiled in general. Basie (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]