Talk:No. 1 School of Technical Training RAF

Is this a copy

Ok, I'm going to cross post this with people who are more familiar with copy rights than I am. But when I looked this page up, large chunks of this page come directly from here (especially when looking at versions of this page prior to 2009.) That page appears to be a wiki, but the intellectual property rights associated with it are not at all compatable to those found on WP. WP cannot use material originally published there and my read of their policy is that they shouldn't be using material originally published here. Their policy related to intellectual property is not compatable with ours and would constitute (IMO) a violation of Wikipedia's licensing agreement. I think, based upon my review of this articles history, that this article was the original and that the other cite copied their entry from here, but I am not certain of that---thus my inquiry to people more experienced in this realm than me. The article was created here in 2005, but it cites a page that is no longer entact---but might have been replaced by the one above. The first entry here was fairly similar to the current version on the other site, but both sites have a version that appears to have evolved from the earliest version here.

That being said, this article does not have any references and the tone is not appropriate, thus I've added a clean up and a reference tags.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Cross posted here---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The bitwise addition we see on 26 Jan 06 suggests to me the copyright is ours & the (c) 2009 site has borrowed. Nothing on the [http://web.archive.org/web/*/military-genealogy.org.uk/* Wayback Machine gives comfort. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tagishsimon here. The article had been established for several months before that edit, which introduced text that is present in that external site. Here's a more subtle, but also telling article change from nearly a year after creation that is in the external site. It looks to me like they snagged the Wikipedia entry at some point between November 2008 and January 2009, when changes appear that are not in that source. I think it's a backwardsvio. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I saw this and was about to delete it as a Copy Vio, but looking into the article a little more I started to question where the copy vio occurred and was it us or them. The next question is, do we do anything about the other cite which appears to have violated our copyvio? Their Intellectual Property guidelines read:

You acknowledge that all copyright, trade marks, and other intellectual property rights in and relating to the Forces Reunited Website (including the material which is contributed by Members) are owned by Forces Reunited Ltd. It is easy to copy material which appears on web-sites, but this does not mean it is legal. Therefore, no-one may copy, distribute, show in public or create any derivative work from the Forces Reunited Website, or any of the material which is found on the Forces Reunited Website unless properly licensed to do so by us.

By submitting any material to the content to the Forces Reunited Website, you:

are representing that you are fully entitled to do so;

grant us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-terminable licence right to copy, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that material in any form, anywhere; and

authorise us to adapt the relevant material in the course of doing so, and so waive your moral rights to object to any derogatory treatment, or to be identified as the author, of the material in question.

This policy is counter to both our old and new licensing agreements that I think they would be obligated to remove said text from their page---especially as it does not identify WP as the source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We can ask them to. The process is at Wikipedia:Mirror#Non-compliance process. Only an actual contributor to the article can send an official take-down request, but they may give credit if asked by anyone. Meanwhile, I'll note the vio in template at the top of the page. (ETA: It's possible, of course, that if they've copied one article, they've taken more.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)