Page ends with This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License with links to http://www.wikipedia.org and to local mirror of GNU Free Documentation License article
Articles "by Micha F. Lindemans" are mirrors of out of<A title="Online Dating" style="COLOR: #65b45c; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://216.130.188.208/cgi-bin/ezlclk.fcgi?id=6718" target=_blank> date </A>versions of all mythology related articles. Actually, the articles predate the original entries in Wikipedia and have been copied by users without proper notice.
With stub notices and images etc. removed
Especially noticeable with articles that were confused - e.g. Banebdjed and Ba (now corrected in Wikipedia) - Ba (capital B) on Pantheon is described as if a totally different entity to Banebdjed, even though Ba is said to be in Mendes. No Egyptologist would ever make this mistake - Banebdjed means "Ba of the lord ('neb') of djed", and "djed" is the old name for Mendes, but Wikipedia used to have the "Ba of Mendes" and "Banebdjed" as different gods, which is exactly how Pantheon.org has it.
It even has the early version of Chem, something totally obviously wrong to anyone with any competence in the field (e.g. Chem = Ham and wears a womans dress. No. Chem is a misreading of "Min", and never wore a womans dress, although female deities were sometimes depicted as Min (including phallus), though always identifiable as to who they were). This error is very unlikely to be made without copying Wikipedia.
N.b. w.r.t. Egyptian mythology, the articles have been updated substantially in Wikipedia since April, so may no longer correspond.
Claims exclusive copyright, not GDFL, all rights reserved
This appears to be a complete dump of Wikipedia based on the last modified date on the front page. There is a disclaimer at the top that "This is NOT the Wikipedia - The content is from the Wikipedia". However, only the last entry of the history is copied and there is no link to the original article, which means it is violating the GFDL. Also, the link to the GFDL is broken because only main namespace is copied. There are other violations. For example, the title of documents is not changed in contradiction of 4.A. of the GFDL.
"Content released under GFD-Licence" with a link to the article about the GFDL, not directly to an actual license text and links the corresponding Wikipedia articles on each page.
No mention of copyright, authors or license. Small link at the bottom "more information on en.wikipedia.org" which doesn't acknowledge Wikipedia as source. Requires login for some content.
Wikipedians Montrealais and Menchi basically wrote that article from scratch, so it is original, to Wikipedia. I'd know, I'm Menchi and I think I know Montrealais well enough.
Well, if we ever had spare lawyers and wanted publicity, "Wikipedia sues Chinese government for copyright infringement" would be hilarious. =] --Delirium 12:29, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
Site has scraped the pairs of name/RGB value for various colour articles from en.wiki; not primarily an IP problem, but much of the original en.wiki content was badly-sourced or made up, so perbang.dk should not be used as a source for future edits to colour articles; it should be treated like other mirrors.
I was using WP and suddenly found I was not using WP but this site, which asked me to log in, but appeared exactly like WP and correctly searched for WP articles for editing. This may be a phishing site that was invaded WP. Peterkingiron17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't list an email address to contact them, so I sent the standard GFDL vio letter to webmaster AT phillywire.com and admin AT phillywire.com --snoyes 04:46, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Reply received: It is being worked on. --snoyes 17:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Seems to be in 'almost' compliance now: Mentions Wikipedia, mentions GNU/FDL, links to article, links to GNU/FDL. Only minus points: says the article "uses material from" the Wikipedia article, where it seems to be copying almost-verbatim, and GNU/FDL is linked at gnu.org (can we propose to GNU to allow that for the next version?) Andre Engels 01:41, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think they are perfectly fine. No reason to be nit-picky, IMO. --mav 11:36, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Looks like a complete mirror. Notice that article is from Wikipedia and local link to GFDL (as part of larger document) on every page. They do not include a history section or link to original Wikipedia article. However, there are instructions in the copyright page for reaching the original Wikipedia article.
Contact info
twfhc4zcxxgw9q AT protectfly.com (protected whois), http://www.registerfly.com/info/contact.php (registrar contact form)
At the bottom of each page Wikipedia is mentioned and a link to the edit history of specific article is present to satisfy the attribution requirement. Content is relicensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and the license is mentioned and linked to.
Contact info
None
Actions
No contact information. No reply to e-mails to admin.pipiwiki etc… No reply from Whois.com abuse email contacts, No reply from ISP abuse contact email at Alibaba/Aliyun.
They have responded to the followup email I sent. The article in question now has a link to the Wikipedia article, has been reworded to remove most or all of the verbatim copying, and has been placed under the GFDL. If there is any Wikipedia copying in other articles, I am unaware of it.
No attribution, no mention or link to Wikipedia. Every poet's biography appears to be duplicated from Wikipedia - uses at least month old local copy. Does not claim copyright.
No mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL, no history pages. The site has every page on Wikipedia, including non-mainspace and special pages, and synchronizes them with Wikipedia every few seconds. All content exactly duplicated from Wikipedia without any attribution, credit, or mention.
Contact info
Only contact information available is info AT pontefract-yfc.co.uk
Includes link to Wikipedia and separate link to original article prominently at top of each article. Also includes "Date copied article: Month Day, Year"
WP articles do not appear on all pages - the site includes original articles as well.
Links to Wikipedia and local copy of GFDL at the bottom of each article used
No bogus copyright claims, clear footer "This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0" with appropriate links; each image links its file description on the original domain.
On non-copyright matters:
This website has a mirror of every page (article pages, article talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, etc.). Mirrored pages on their website are indexed by search engines even though these sites would not have been indexed on Wikipedia itself.
In the "Chronology" chapter of this book, on page 127, there is an entry for the year 2007 that appears to be almost an exact copy of the information that was in our History of hip-hop dance article here (scroll to 2007). This information is now in Hip-hop dance#Education but it was first added to Wikipedia on August 23, 2009 and then moved into a chronological table on August 24, 2009. The Popular Dance book was printed in June 2010 according to the information on page 4.
Contact info
Chealsea House/Infobase Publishing; 132 West 31st St.; New York, New York, 10001
Actions
None. Considering this is an actual book instead of a website I feel that a violation letter should come from someone above me on the Wikipedia corporate ladder.
Prominently mentions Wikipedia and links to original article (link says "edit Wikipedia article"). Does not mirror image description pages. Says, "All Wikipedia content is licensed under the GNU Free Document License or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license or is otherwise used here in compliance with the Copyright Act" which is too vague. All Wikipedia text is GFDL (except quotes), but not all images are under one of these licenses (and it doesn´t even say which version of CC-BY-SA). Links to offsite copy of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA 2.0).
Directory hosted by World Biographical Encyclopedia Inc., possibly related to Bajografik Enciklopedia in Minsk, an organisation whose network has been used to edit Wikipedia pages about Prabook. Valery Tsepkalo is the founder of Prabook.
Mentions GFDL and links to source. appears to be a full mirror of everything includeing userpages.
Example www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/drug_information_online.asp?title=Cliff_Richard
Ends with "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) | Source" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article
This is a general purpose site that allows users to specify subsets of articles to render for printing.
At the top, they now have the Wikipedia favicon logo and a readable URL that links directly to the original article. At the bottom, the full Wikipedia copyright notice is reproduced, including the full license name ("Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License"), with the license linked to Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, as well as links to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, and the trademark notice. It does not include the required disclaimer information, but to be fair our printable view does not either.
Gives a link to wikipedia as the 'citational source', but attribution given to bed-fellow mirror 'World Heritage Encyclopedia'. Page footers implies bed-fellow mirror "World Public Library" owns copyright to the content.
"Medium" to "High" compliance with GFDL (matches Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance).
Compliance
Takes Wikipedia school articles verbatim and copy/pastes them into their own site. Contacted them to cite the Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia) article, which they did. Have asked them to comply for all of their site.
Contact info
jcolayco AT publicschoolreview.com, information AT publicschoolreview.com
Actions
Two emails sent to comply for the Westfield High School article. A third email sent asking for the entire site to comply. Awaiting response
All there is is COPYRIGHT 2009 QDOBA RESTAURANT INC
Contact info
this contact page. Lists phone numbers, address, and contact us form. If I got it right, ISP is Qwest. Phone is +1-877-886-6515. Abuse email is abuse AT qwest.net
"Rankly is a social top list community. Create, share and discover top lists about the best stuff in life, like the best video games, movies, music, TV-series or makeup. On Rankly, anybody can create a top list, share it with their friends and see their list get ranked by friends and followers."
1,6. De informatie op de site Raspberry.news artikelen gratis verstrekt en gratis online bronnen (zoals Wikipedia en anderen) te gebruiken.
Or translated, something like
1,6. The information on the site Raspberry.news articles free offered and free online sources (like Wikepedia and others) to use.
It's not very clear what they mean with that line (the Dutch line is just as bad), but at least it sounds like they're using Wikipedia.
Their page about DMCA is in English, and mentions things that they're using it all as fair use, and they're not subject to DMCA as they're based in China.
An example of a copied article is the article about the Common pipistrelle or Gewone Dwergvleermuis. Which can be found on their site too. It's a literal copy of the Wikipedia article with no mention of the license or source. Many more such examples can be found.
Not yet contacted them as it doesn't sound they'll listen anyway (and I don't feel like getting involved in a Chinese lawsuit).
Page states "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." with link to local copy of GFDL
Without Javascript, there is no mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. With Javascript, there is a bare link the original article. All text is copied wholesale with all the markup (and in-text mention of Wikipedia; see http://read-and-go.hopto.org/Wikipedia/Criticism-of-Wikipedia.html) stripped. There is no history section for these changes. Pages are surrounded by ads. Possibly search engine spam. Site map (http://read-and-go.hopto.org/sitemap.html) contains an index to articles, but omits all the 'W's.
Amusingly, loses many non-code-page-1252 characters. See Corneliu Baba example: "Iaşi" becomes "Iai"
Comprehensive mirror. CC BY-SA 3.0 License statement and link; Toolserver's list of contributors link. No clear attribution to Wikipedia, no links to original material. --Soujak (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contact info
Daniele Testa (owner, administrator and technical contact of the domain name); address: Stenbocksgatan 8, 50634, Borås, Sweden; Phone: +46.500400500; email: binero@daniele.se. --Soujak (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Links to the CC-BY-SA license and the general disclaimer and acknowledges Wikipedia but does not include a hyperlink back to the original article. PleaseStand (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Site owner replied on 2 October that he would bring his site into compliance within 3-4 days. As of now, the licensing information is on the "About Us" page. PleaseStand(talk)01:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discreet link "Wikipedia Page" on the top right, in the middle of whitespace, which is easy to spot but doesn't attribute the content.
Footer with link to source page and license, of the kind "This page is based on the Wikipedia article Horncastle boar's head; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA."
Images are hotlinked from Wikimedia Foundation servers and clicking them only provides a zoomed view, does not reach a file description. No attribution provided, therefore copyright violation.
the Wikipedia mirror is not compliant, having no mention of authors or linkbacks whatsoever, but has a visible text header "This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA";
other mirrors, such as Wikivoyage, reuse the Wikimedia wikis' HTML as is, including the links to file descriptions, permalink headers like "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yvwv (talk
Article includes substantial text identical to Burj Dubai, lacking any acknowledgment or citation, and bearing their own copyright: "(c) 2003 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."
"Low/None" compliance with CC BY-SA (matches Wikipedia:CC BY-SA Compliance) (compare against GFDL if they choose that license).
Compliance
The website contains a full or partial biography published on Wikipedia, and photos from Wiki Commons, but fails to provide links to the original articles on Wikipedia or credit authors and doesn’t meantion licence
Credits and links the original Wikipedia article or file description for the content, license mentioned and linked: "Content from Wikipedia Licensed under CC-BY-SA". No mention of Wikipedia authors.
Update: article now links to original article and to GFDL, and no longer claims copyright. Seems fully compliant now. --Kwekubo21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This site contains a number of pages on mythological underworlds and deities, most if not all the text appearing is pieced together from a variety of wikipedia articles, alongside material apparently sourced from elsewhere. There is no visible link to or acknowledgement of wikipedia, or the GFDL, on any of the pages. The pages also contain a number of wikipedia imgs and photos, likewise uncredited. The site does acknowledge some sources of (non-wiki) material and imgs, although I suspect those tagged with "image courtesy of.." does not mean they've obtained explicit permission. Most likely an unwitting GFDL violation on the part of the website.
Modified content from Wikipedia (removed sections, altered slightly) without a license mentioned anywhere. It is possible though unlikely that Wikipedia is instead using their content without permission; to verify this other biographies need ot be looked at
Contact info
information@countryfeverfest.com (not working)
Actions
none; depending on a Wikipedia administrator to contact
I have no idea how much of the site is plagiarized from us, but the sample page I've given is clearly a series of plagiarisms from Wikipedia, perhaps all directly from the Romanian Wikipedia, perhaps some translated from others.
Contact info
By snail mail: Romanian-Portal.com; P.O. Box 957633; Hoffman Estates, IL 60195 By E-mail: info AT Romanian-Portal.com By phone/fax: 1-847-755-5584
It is an HTML copy of the print version so "Retrieved from "http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=RSA"" is on the page. But there still isn't a link to the GFDL. We really should add that to our print page template. --mav 02:19 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1) WHOIS 2) cc standard letter posted via webpage for "report abuse" [13] and sent as "infringing on a copyright" as the subject. They are listed as P.O. Box 6197, Denver, CO 80206, US Phone: +1.3037474010; however, this is just a holding company (www.protecteddomainservices.com) who provide "anonymous" domain name purchases to obfuscate any potential whois info for clients. 3) Form was completed, and a copy posted to rtbot.net via their "Contact us" page [14] on 30-07-2012. Unfortunately it seems the rtbot page is a scam, as it fails and directs to a dead mail page which states: "Sorry, but this form is no longer accepting submissions".
Dear Sir/Madam:
I have noticed that you are making use of English Wikipedia articles as part of your website, rtbot.net. One example is http://www.rtbot.net/belitung_shipwreck, which includes material from the Wikipedia article "Belitung Shipreck", which is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belitung Shipwreck. Wikipedia encourages the redistribution of its content. However, it is necessary to comply with the terms of our primary license, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). Failure to do so is a copyright violation. The text of the CC-BY-SA can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CC-BY-SA . That is the relevant legally binding document. However, Wikipedia does offer advice about how to comply with the CC-BY-SA. This can be found in detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights . One of the most important steps is to mention the CC-BY-SA.
At the bottom of every page that uses Wikipedia material, you should include text similar to, "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article (put article name here); it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA." You should link the text "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" to a copy of the text of the CC-BY-SA. Also, you must link back to the original Wikipedia article.
I am the derivative copyright holder to the image used from the Belitung Shipwreck page, (the one with the red cross on it next to the island - copy of it http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belitung_shipwreck_location.jpg) and creator of most of the content of the article, released to Wikipedia under the cc-by-sa licence.
There are thousands of other pages also used on your site which quote hundreds and thousands of editors whose work is also being used without accreditation. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and I hope you will endeavour to fix this soon.
potiori.com
