Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old talk is at:
[edit] Mirrors not respecting GFDL
Can someone check these out (linking to Toronto as a reference article):
I'll add more if and when I find them. Mindmatrix 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- And two more, obviously run by the same person/group: MyNiche and silvertopics. Mindmatrix 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Some more: 3g.co.nz and Bvio (this is from an old archive, it seems). Mindmatrix 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] bad mirror: encyclopedia.vestigatio.com
I don't know exactly how to report this, and the rules seem a bit long, so I'll just mention it here:
No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL, every page claims "©2006 Vestigatio". Melchoir 10:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- You can help by adding an entry of it. Thanks. -- Jared A. Hunt 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mirroring wikipedia namespace
Help.com is mirroring ( under the correct GFDL licence ) at least Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion -> [[1]]. very wierd thing for them to do, could this be an accident or is this just a result of webcrawlers ? Peripitus (Talk) 02:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, they downloaded the database dump at some point and is running it. -- Jared A. Hunt 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, they're definitely live-mirroring/screen-scraping. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quickseek.com is mirroring, they claim copyright, no credits given, framed by ads
Like Melchoir (two above), I'm not clear how to report (yes, I know there is a description which is clear to others): Quickseek.com is putting forward Wikipedia pages as its own copyright for commercial gain; the format is as for example "Advocate-QuickSeek Encyclopedia" which is a ripoff of [Advocate] , with a cheeky claim that all material is copyright of Quickseek and is not to be reproduced without their permission. 82.41.229.75 09:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- You can help by adding an entry of it. Thanks. -- Jared A. Hunt 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welsh nationalism
Please see this breach of WP:FORK, at the Welsh nationalism Redirect. --Mais oui! 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Improperly used screenshot of wikipedia article
The following URL appears to be using an edited/modified screenshot of the wikipedia's Space Needle article and appears to be in violation of both Wikipedia's GFDL and the photographer's Creative Commons license under which the article's image is licensed. There is no attribution, inclusion of the licensing terms, etc., etc. http://labs.live.com/photosynth/whatis/smartphotos.html
I posted a similar notice on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and Talk:Space Needle. A reply to the former article recommended I post here. I am not a contributor to the article in question or on wikipedia logos or anything (thus I'm not a copyright or trademark holder), so I don't think there's anything I can do here, but I wanted to point this out for others to address. I've already contacted the photographer via Flikr whose image was included on the wiki page. --205.201.53.207 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mass Live Mirror, GFDL violation, webspam Problem
Hello,
in the last days I am finding a lot of sites, evidently from the same people, who are using LIVE MIRRORs of Wikipedia and are also violating the GFDL. They have a number of sites with nonsense or semi-nonsense domain names all of which are built with similar templates and are fetching any Wikipedia page from any language version live. This is serious webspam problem, these people are parasites. I list the sites I find recently (but not linked):
- en.bushleague.info/Special:Recentchanges
- en.7-of-100.info/downtown-los-angeles-hotels/Special:Recentchanges
- en.anysearchengine.info/hotel-in-niagara-falls-ontario/Special:Recentchanges
- en.blogservices.info/Special:Recentchanges
- en.feederpolitics.info/sony-ericson-phones/Special:Recentchanges
- en.54of100e.info/Special:Recentchanges.html
- en.andmoretop.info/Special:Recentchanges.html
- en.comedypage.info/Special:Recentchanges
- en.feederpolitics.info/Special:Recentchanges
- en.centraltest.info/Special:Recentchanges
- en.getsearchinformation.info/Special:Recentchanges
- en.allrssfeeds.info/Special:Recentchanges
Replace the initial "en" with any Wikipedia language version, e.g. "ja".
I am reporting these sites to the wikitech-l list as I find them, and admins are sometimes blocking them, but I think this is a larger problem needing serious attention. Wikiwatcher 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How to sign letter when contacting non-complying sites
When contacting a mirroring site that does not comply with GFDL requirements, should I sign my email with my Wikipedia user name, or my real-life name? What has been people's experience? what are the pros and cons? --InfoCan 20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] can anyone make a profit off of us?
I'm a bit confused about why Wikipedia is allowing this. It seems that we are doing all this work to write articles, and some other person is making profit off of it by mirroring it on their site with ads. Are there any restrictions at all? As an extreme example, could a hate group or a terrorist group fund themselves by selling printed copies of Wikipedia? It seems that if our articles are making money, that money go to the Wikimedia Foundation. What is Wikimedia's logic behind this policy? --Arctic Gnome 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- So long as they comply with the GFDL, other people can do what they want, including making money. Some call this freedom. --Henrygb 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- That makes editing feel a bit less meaningful, especially for new users. Spending hours upon hours of your free time writing "a free encyclopedia for anyone to use" sounds a lot better than spending hours upon hours of your free time writing "a encyclopedia that will make some random person you don't know rich". --Arctic Gnome 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's free as in freedom. I feel much better because Wikipedia is under the GFDL. Among other things, it means no one will ever have to pay (or see ads) to use Wikipedia. If the Wikimedia Foundation ever started charging or showing ads, someone could create a gratis fork. The fact that Wikipedia is free also means people can sell CDs or printed copies to those without Internet access (they might not be able to do this if charging wasn't allowed). Also, since people can create as many mirrors or data dumps as they want, the content of Wikipedia will never die out the way some sites have. Superm401 - Talk 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- That makes editing feel a bit less meaningful, especially for new users. Spending hours upon hours of your free time writing "a free encyclopedia for anyone to use" sounds a lot better than spending hours upon hours of your free time writing "a encyclopedia that will make some random person you don't know rich". --Arctic Gnome 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If wikipedia wasn't under the GFDL then i guess wikimedia would own copyright to all the content and so in theory could one day decide to plaster adds on wikipedia and make themselves billions from the work and donations of others, therefore i support the freedom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3.14 etc (talk • contribs) 10:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
-
-
[edit] coolestmatter.info
Firstly, allow me to apologise for not adding this straight into the list. I am awful at following those kinds of style (and also I don't know the info for all the fields mentioned on the main project page), so I figure if I just mention it here, hopefully it will be added by someone else, or maybe it's already been in there and since been removed, or something.
http://www.coolestmatter.info/
I found this site a little moment ago when doing a Google search for a word that only exists both on my userpage on here, and on one other site relating to me on the internet (at deviantART), and it seems that my userpage has been mirrored on coolestmatter.info, in a peculiar form, right down at the very bottom of the page in a little box, below the "More interesting resources" notice. It does the same with the Wikipedia article on most other pages (or all, I haven't checked all pages). It seems that all references to Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and most other Wikimedia projects have been changed to the word "Database" (apart from in the URLs for the relevant articles, which are copied over intact), though some still remain unchanged. See http://www.coolestmatter.info/Database_Database, for examples.
-
- Database's sister projects
-
- Database is hosted by the Database Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:
- Database Dictionary and thesaurus Database Free-content news Wikiquote Collection of quotations Wikibooks Free ::textbooks and manuals Wikispecies Directory of species Wikisource Free-content library Wikiversity Free learning ::materials and activities Database Shared media repository Meta-Wiki Database project coordination
It even contains all the categories. As mentioned previously, Userpages seem to be transferred over, as do talk pages (http://www.coolestmatter.info/Talk:Wikipedia), Wikipedia pages (http://www.coolestmatter.info/Wikipedia:Verifiability), Portals (http://www.coolestmatter.info/Portal:Culture), among others, probably. The realm of images seems to be mirrored over, but "." seems to be substituted for " ". So therefore, http ://www.coolestmatter.info/Image:Example.png shows the following:
-
- Image:Example png
-
- No file by this name exists; you can upload it.
Interestingly, clicking the words "upload it" (all links are intact)goes to http://www.coolestmatter.info/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Example_png, but only up until the / after info is actually recognised, so that is a mirror of the Wikipedia article on W.
At the bottom of every page is the text "Copyright © coolestmatter.info".
What happens next? Did I miss something out? Was this not necessary? I've added this page (as well as /ABC) to my watchlist, so let me know if possible. --Dreaded Walrus 09:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're in the right place, and we do like to have all mirrors listed. However, it appears that the site is no longer using Wikipedia content, but just randomly generated junk. Let me know if I'm wrong. Normally we would archive it, but I guess that's not necessary since there was never an entry. Superm401 - Talk 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems you are partially correct. I checked a few pages on there, and the Wikipedia content was no longer there, and so I was in the process of typing up a response here saying it was gone. However, if you go to the following URL:
-
- http://www.coolestmatter.info/Wikipedia, and scroll right down, once the page has fully loaded (it loads in stages, it seems), and you should see something like the following, just below where it says "More Interesting Resources": [2]
- I have just reloaded that page multiple times now, in Firefox, and sometimes the content from Wikipedia appears, and sometimes the following appears:
- "could not open XML input http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch_feeds?hl=en&q=Wikipedia&ie=utf-8&num=10&output=rss"
- So it appears that on some occasions it uses information from Wikipedia, but other times it tries to use a Google blogsearch result. Does this still qualify? I've refreshed that particular page 10 times now, and 4 out of those 10 it has used Wikipedia content, 6 out of those 10 has been the invalid blogsearch thing. --Dreaded Walrus 06:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've just tried it with a few other pages, and it seems to be the case for those, too.
- http://www.coolestmatter.info/ham
- http://www.coolestmatter.info/Jesus
- http://www.coolestmatter.info/YouTube
- They all seem to randomly switch between the failed XML, and the Wikipedia content, and it's about even odds for them to choose either. It seems to be 50/50. --Dreaded Walrus 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've just tried it with a few other pages, and it seems to be the case for those, too.
I have found two more sites. I haven't looked at them in-depth, but the Medlibrary.org MedWiki, at http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/ seems to contain Wikipedia content. The front page of Medlibrary.org seems to suggest it is medical information only that is being used, yet, for example, Jimbo Wales' userpage is mirrored on there, as is my own, and probably many others. (http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/User:Jimbo_Wales) The other site found is http://www.referenceencyclopedia.com/. Examples of pages include http://www.referenceencyclopedia.com/?title=Wikipedia and http://www.referenceencyclopedia.com/?title=User:Jimbo%20Wales. Sorry, again, for not adding these directly to the list, but I am awful at filling out forms, which is similar to this. --Dreaded Walrus 10:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Foreign Pages
Do you think we should handle mirrors that don't copy from English Wikipedia? It kind of seems like we should pass those on to the language versions that are copied from. Superm401 - Talk 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-aside
- Alerted by email by SG (and snooping following the back and forth user talk posts) reached the project page following this, so find the 'form' given and page intro doesn't say where the given form is used and applied. So suggest some editing fixups for context and backlinks, whatever applies. Cheers! // FrankB 18:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spamming Wikipedia with links to mirrored articles
From working with WikiProject Spam, I frequently see spammers adding links to ad-rich sites that are nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
I've opened a discussion on the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Mirrors and forks, scrapers and spammers. It seems like there are synergies between what people here are doing here and what the anti-spam volunteers are doing. Please feel free to join in the discussion there.
Observations, questions and suggestions:
- I encourage you to consider adding {{linksearch}} to the standard form, Template:Mirror, used here to list mirror sites. This would produce a clickable link to the Special:Search web links results page for that domain. Users could either track down the resulting list of links themselves or report the possible spam problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
- I think violation of our copyright should be automatic grounds for adding a domain to the Foundation-wide link-blacklist at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. First, our guidelines specificly prohibit linking to sites that violate anyone's copyright. Second, such links are probably going to have been deliberately spammed in bad faith >>90% of the time. Is such blacklisting already being done or does something need to happen to start the ball rolling? Note that there is an appeals process for getting off the blacklist, so any mistakes can be rectified.
- Inter-project cooperation: it seems this is likely an area of interest for all projects in all languages. Is there any cooperation, perhaps on Meta as there is with the spam blacklist?
- Shadowbot is loaded with problematic domains that have not yet become a severe enough problem to warrant blacklisting; it reverts suspicious link additions and cautions the editor. This bot is another potential resource to consider.
--A. B. (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Linking to mirrors
"When posting links, make sure you include <nowiki> and </nowiki> around the links so that search engines don't cache or index them". Does this still apply now that nofollow is automatic? — Feezo (Talk) 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not a mirror, but a paper using Wikipedia materials
How do we deal with the GFDL-noncompliant use of one or several articles? [3] Conscious 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing mirror
I found a site located at http://en.wikipedia.b4d.pl/wiki/Main_Page a very confusing mirror of Wikipedia. The website is in fact a near perfect mirror of Wikipedia, in the sense that apart from the domain, there is hardly anything different between Wikipedia and the site. One difference that I could find was that since it can only fork content, and not push content, nothing happens when you click the "Save page" button. There is nothing wrong I could find with what they are doing, but since they don't have an identity of their own, it is difficult to enlist them in the mirrors and forks record. Can anyone help? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- List it under "b4d.pl" - right now it seems to be carrying changes up to 15:54 today --Henrygb 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- On a second look, I find that the website is blatantly infringing on the copyrights of the Wikimedia foundation by using Wikipedia and Wikimedia logos without any express permission. I think we need to take on the issue with their web-master. However, we would face one issue while doing it. Since it copies everything, there is no identity of its own, and thus there are no contact details. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Organization using Wikipedia material
Check this out - [4] - currently they have a paper about ENP on the front page. The summary uses the Wikipedia ENP map. but has "(c) Copyright CEPS" below it. Shouldn't they place "(c) Wikipedia" instead??? Alinor 06:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It actually uses the old (pre Bulgaria/Romania accession) version, but [5] and [6] do indeed seem to be the same apart from scale. --Henrygb 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can I actually get a clarification on this? Wikipedia:Copyright states "The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations. " FDL 4.E states "Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices." whenever modifying texts. What is an 'appropriate' copyright notice for any modifications? -- Monkeywaffles 10:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Just a comment
Is it just me, or is anyone else disturbed by the fact that so many mirrors seem to be "Pharmaceutical Encyclopedia" or something else medically related? :P Abeg92We are all Hokies! 09:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Very Confused
I'm confused...when is it okay for these sites to remove these links. I mean if you have instances in which content has changed so dramatically that it's no longer representative of the original article, shouldn't a simple link to the history of the page and the GFDL suffice? --Itripblindkids 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Website hosting fair-use images
Although it may not technically be a mirror, but I found a website that is hosting fair-use images from Wikipedia. I know that this isn't going against GDFL policies, but I'm sure it does waste unnecessary server resources. The website is http://www.freewebs.com/u2city/, and I found it at User:CRBR, who claims that it is his own website. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] spammy fork at mirrorpedia.com
http://www.mirrorpedia.com/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
It looks like they loaded the top copies of our articles into their own wiki, which has since been left open to spambots..
It's non-compliant with GFDL, as it has neither article history nor a link back to the original articles. --Versageek 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] simplifiedwiki.com
another non-GFDL compliant spammy site: http://www.simplifiedwiki.com . Looks to have a local copy which is editable, but no page histories, no link back to Wikipedia.
I'm guessing there are tons of these sites.. :( --Versageek 14:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] link-ex.net
These guys are GFDL compliant, but they are hot linking our images. If you click edit on the image page, it will open an edit window on en.wp, and if you click the image on the image page, it opens a file on en.wp.
- Image Page on link-ex.net --Versageek 14:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wiikiipedia
I found this site that is a complete copy of Wikipedia. http://www.wiki-pedia.pl/en/wiki/ It has ads all over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOtherSiguy (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] YASFWF
Yet another spam-filled Wikipedia fork. [7] Someone should take appropriate steps. --69.12.157.118 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Correction ?
I received this message on my talk page, and I'm not sure what to do with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] about Psihologie Solutii psihologice
Hy! I am webmaster for Psihologie Solutii psihologice http://grajdaru.3x.ro . About Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Pqr topic on "Psihologie" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr#Psihologie
I made the modification and now on all my pages with wikipedia content is a notice about copyright and GFLD license. Contact email: oxus.e107user@gmail.com
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.117.1 (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's great! There's only one other thing you need to do for full compliance; the text of the GFDL you link to should be stored on the same site as the material (that is, it should be accessible at something like http://grajdaru.3x.ro/GFDL.txt.) Feezo (Talk) 14:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Feezo. So, I need to e-mail this person and tell him/her to do that, and if s/he does, then do I remove the entry from the Mirrors and forks page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I sent a link to this section to the e-mail address above; hopefully the webmaster will responde here, as I've had no other contact with him/her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Feezo. So, I need to e-mail this person and tell him/her to do that, and if s/he does, then do I remove the entry from the Mirrors and forks page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I am the webmaster for http://grajdaru.3x.ro . I read your mail and your post here. Now in the footer of my page is a link to GFDL accessible from - [8] -. You can verify all this on my site. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.69.85 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Psihologie appears to be in full compliance now. I've updated Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr#Psihologie. Thank you for complying! Feezo (Talk) 04:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another report on violations
I found the following sites that violate the GFDL. Don't have time to follow the steps on the w:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, especially since it would make sense to coordinate efforts than have many volunteers do the exact same thing so here they are:
- mbceo.com
- suprari.com
- [http://www.gov-certificates.co.uk/birth/certificate/Albert_Einstein gov-certificates.co.uk]
--Trödel 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Layout problem
Not sure if this is the place to report it, but Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc doesn't seem to be displaying properly (in Firefox 2.x at least). The white background isn't showing so the page background is showing through. Seems like a div tag didn't get closed, as all of the other sub-pages are displaying properly. - Koweja (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Can't this site please be in some kind of violation?
For example, see http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia. I really, really, hope no one gets suckered in to donating. Rocket000 (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- GFDL section 4I:
Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
Cassiopedia's history sections (example) remove the contribution history. Feezo (Talk) 08:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, can we do anything? It's the donation thing that really bothers me. Ads are one thing, but scamming people like that is just wrong. Rocket000 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Take the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. Since this infringement is apparently the work of the site's operators, be prepared to send a DMCA takedown notice. Feezo (Talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism of a paragraph by The Politico
The Politico, a fairly prominent political blog, plagiarized the Alford plea article a couple months ago. See its talk page: Talk:Alford_plea#Possible_plagiarism_of_this_article_by_The_Politico. I sent them a comment and an email about it, but never got a response. Anything to do about it?? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How does this work?
I'm a little confused - what does one do when one finds a copy of a WP article on another website where the article/site is not crediting WP?
Based on the article history, it appears that Heritage Minutes was copied onto this site from a version between here and here. The history indicates it wasn't copied into WP, it was copied from WP.
So what now? Should I personally be doing something? Will someone else look at this? Do they need more info? I've looked at a few more random articles from the site in question and found nothing more but haven't looked in detail. Wondering what the next step is. Thanks. Franamax (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sites that use individual articles
(CC to Wikipedia talk:GFDL Compliance)
Hi, this (and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance) appear to be places to report sites that fork Wikipedia content, but what about a web site that only uses a couple of articles without attribution? Should they be mentioned here as well? (if you want to look at the specifics that I'm looking at, please see this and this. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] old user page
This site [http://wikipedia.cas.ilstu.edu illegally replicated my old user page from Jun 2005, which I had deleted from Wikipedia later in October 2005. I have not linked my user page, but if I do you will see that there is no notification, attribution, or license reproduced whatsoever. They have reproduced my name that was on my user page at the time and I don't want that. How can I get that replicated user page deleted? I'm not the only one, just type in a user name from June 2005. I don't know how to contact the owner of that website but I will take legal action if I have to. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- You've probably found this out already, but I figured I'd mention it here anyway. The contact information for websites in the ilstu.edu domain is:
- Illinois State University
- 3500 Telecommunications
- Normal, IL 61790
- Most likely the site was put up by a student, in which case they could get suspended or expelled if you report them. I wouldn't do that if I were you; however, the college of arts and sciences has an ombudsman who can assist with dispute resolution, and hopefully she can resolve this informally:
- Dr. Sabine Loew, Ombudsman
- Illinois State University
- College of Arts and Sciences
- Campus Box 4100
- Normal, IL 61790-4100
- Thanks.
- 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] http://peti.pl/wiki
This site seems to be siphoning off Wikipedia pages live. They aren't displaying the Wikipedia logo, but every page says they're Wikipedia. If you hover over any link, it says it's artursin.net-elite.pl, but their links go to the peti.pl pages. Corvus cornixtalk 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered that they're not displaying the edit histories. If you click on a History tab, you get taken back to the Main page. Corvus cornixtalk 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Amusing
Here is a news site, [9] with some phrases in common, though massaged to be a bit different...from St Trinian's School...(wasn't sure where to put this) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TheFree4all
The website TheFree4all.com is displaying Wikipedia articles without mentioning the article's source or any GFDL notice. —BradV 00:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BBC Sound Index
The BBC's Sound Index project is using parts of Wikipedia articles for the information about artists in its database - e.g. this article is a copy of the lead for the article Coldplay, with no apparent GFDL link or copyright notice. I have sent a copyright warning to the BBC, but I am just checking that the BBC & Wikimedia don't have some sort of special deal, or whether it actually is GFDL-licenced and I'm just missing something? Qwghlm (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] non-compliance process
Too slow. Is it permitted for me to send a DMCA takedown notice either immediately or if no response to a letter or e-mail after 5 calendar days? Also, I assume that copyright registration is required before one can send a DMCA takedown notice – is the Foundation's registration of copyright in Wikipedia sufficient for this purpose? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Foundation doesn't hold the copyright on your articles — you do. No registration is necessary. You are therefore perfectly entitled to send DMCA takedown notices to sites that violate your copyright, as long as you take care to distinguish your work from that of others. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. Feezo (Talk) 09:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Do entries here get routinely processed?
I have made several entries here of sites I have found randomly on the net, but they do not seem to get actioned by anyone, eg Zoo-Hoo. Do they just sit here forever or will something happen eventually? SpinningSpark 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/3628/wikipedialx1.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/3/31/20070108132104%21European_Neighbourhood_Policy.png){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.ceps.be/files/images/ENP210307.jpg){kind=link}
