Previously non-compliant. Now a notice in footer reads "The information on this page was used from wikipedia.org in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation Licence" with links to Wikipedia and the GFDL. No link to original article. No history section.
Contact info
WHOIS information Private registration through Domains by Proxy, Inc. Email: SAGEREPORT.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com Phone: (480) 624-2599 Fax: (480) 624-2599
Actions
Sent first GFDL notice via email on June 11, 2006. Sent follow-up GFDL notice via email on June 19, 2006. Sent final GFDL notice on July 3, 2006. Response received July 4, 2006, and website updated accordingly.
Wikipedias Rooster article is dumped on the page (complete with wikilinks, templates and cats even though the site is a Wiki !!!) with no attribution or links.
journal listed at https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/#S, a group of open access journals, another infringement by Alain L. Fymat, International Institute of Medicine and Science, journal editor
This is a wiki, but the Terms of Use are very restrictive and incompatible with GFDL. They don't actively copy our content, but well-meaning users are copying stuff there without understanding that it has to remain GFDL.
Contact info
John R. Douglas - editor.scifipedia AT scifi.com
Actions
de.scio.pw
URL
de.scio.pw
Description
unclear propose. only features one single advertisement above every page
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19999557/Education-in-Emerging-Indian-Society-F-105 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20074682/Medical-Tourism-F http://www.scribd.com/doc/24333292/According-to-2003#stats; see Talk:DNA_dynamics and Talk:DNA computing
Rating
Compliance
This is a self-publishing forum where evidently some contributors find it easy to compile books by copying Wikipedia articles.
Contact info
copyright@scribd.com; per [4] DMCA take-down is required.
States: "Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article
Multiple articles copied. A review of 5 random articles found that 3 contained text substantially similar to earlier text in wikipedia articles: [5][6][7]. There are probably a lot more out there.
Copied article content: an IP address user added a Python section to our article and then copied the entire article to Seo Wiki in the same minute. No visible attribution except in a stub template that contains a broken link suggesting to "help Wikipedia by expanding it". No license given for content on their wiki.
update: This site has long since properly credited the GNU/GFDL sections and sources. Why is this notice still here? If you took the effort to make this public, then at least have the respect to acknowledge your personal victory (that was done immediately and willingly), OK Longhair? 210.5.75.10 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not mention Wikipedia in any way, although almost all content (including image thumbnails) is directly copied from (old) revisions of WP articles. Does not run on Wiki software - HTML, with no inter-article links. Uses WP images without credit. Mentions GFDL (All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License) but gives no links. Now credits Wikipedia, links to the original article and to their own copy of the GFDL. No history section listing authors and dates.
Contact info
Brad Sheppard
Sheppard Software, Suite 623 Pavilion, Jenkintown, PA 19046, US
(215) 885-1893 fax: (215) 885-4288. [9]
Thank you for advising me on how to comply with the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Pleased be assured that my staff will systematically follow your instructions, ensuring that each page that uses Wikipedia content includes the proper links and text. We are using your "bar" example as our model.
We appreciate your patience, and the wonderful service that Wikipedia provides to our site and so many others. It's truly amazing how your project has evolved in just a few years - and we're sure that the best is yet to come.
Best,
Brad Sheppard, Jr.
President - Sheppard Software
www.sheppardsoftware.com
I calls that a resounding success. I will reply to Mr Sheppard with some short further advice on GFDL compliance. Case closed, I believe. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example:http://www.singaporemoms.com/parenting/Homeopathy from Homeopathy
seems to be a fairly complete compy inlcludeing pics
mentions wikipedia and GFDL in it's copyright policy after a click through.
no link back to specific articles. No mention of authors but has link on "how to see transparent copy" with link to www.wikipedia.org and to local copy of GFDL plus link to local description of how to find original article. --Henrygb01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content: home page contains text snipped from Wikipedia articles about dynamic linking. Clicking through links eventually leads you to lists of DLLs; clicking on each DLL will take you to a page that invites you to download software.
Most of the website appears to be taken from similarly-titled Wikipedia pages. It appears to be a copy from an older edit because not everything is a perfect copy, but it all appears as though it could have been taken from Wikipedia at some point.
Contact info
I don't know how to locate this info
Actions
No actions taken as of 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs)
The site is content-wise basically a pretty poor rip-off of the band-entries from en.wikipedia.org. Most band descriptions originate from here, sometimes 1:1, sometimes just the beginning sentence. Images are not copied or linked from wikipedia.
There is no link either to the GFDL or the original Wikipedia article present, no mentioning of Wikipedia at all, including the disclaimers.
I have send an email to info AT skwik.com and informed the site's webmaster of this violation of Wikipedia's license. --Johnnyw July 9, 2005 16:03 (UTC)
I received a positive answer: "Thank you very much for your comments and recommendations. We really appreciate them. We'll edit the site to comply with GFDL requirements and we'll do our best to give credits to Wikipedia. We also do our best to contribute content to Wikipedia." I'll try to keep an eye on this issue.--Johnnyw 13:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
No mention of or link to Wikipedia, no attribution to authors, asserts copyright; no onsite copy of GFDL (but each article links to Slider's unattributed copy of Wikipedia's GFDL article, which contains a link to GFDL on the gnu.org site).
every page ends with "This information is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License" and link to FDL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
As of May 31, Smartpedia now says in small type at bottom:
"This document is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
GFDL | SOURCE"
GFDL links to the gnu.org text, and SOURCE links to the Wikipedia article, but there is no actual text credit given to Wikipedia.
On the main page: "Smartpedia is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation." Someone going to write them? This is not only a cheek, it could also get us into legal trouble. -- stw (Talk) 20:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Their version of my user page modifies the template I use at the top of my page ({{userpage}}) that links to the original contained here so that it replaces "Wikipedia" to "Smartpedia" and breaks the link itself. - Lucky13pjn 20:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
In fact, they replace "wikipedia" by "smartpedia" almost everywhere. Their version of wiki is at http://www.smartpedia.com/wiki-sb.html, and they claim that "the English-language Smartpedia is, by far, the world's largest wiki; the German-language Smartpedia is the second-largest, while the other Smartpedias fill many of the remaining slots". -- Aleph4 17:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Update as of September 30, 2005: They still link to the source article and the GFDL as described above, but they also still havent changed the whole "Wikipedia" → "Smartpedia" thing. - Lucky13pjn15:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article named above seems to be the exception on this site. Looking at some random articles did not find any further copies from Wikipedia. Therefore, rather than someone with legal knowledge, one of the authors of the original article needs to take this up.
Use of the name "Wikipedia" is a matter for the foundation, not editors, but appears to be simple confusion between the term "wiki" and the registered trademark "Wikipedia". SpinningSpark13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ends article with "License : GFDL - Source: Wikipedia - Article" and links to GNU copy of GFDL, Wikipedia and original article. --Henrygb18:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The artist page is an exact copy of the lead section of the artist's Wikipedia page. Also, at the end of the article, the website provides a link to Wikipedia.
site: www.thesopranos.com and wiki.thesopranos.com/Main_Page with pages related to The Sopranos
example: wiki.thesopranos.com/Sicily
no obvious mention on article page of Wikipedia, original article or GFDL
wiki Main Page says "This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Main Page. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with The Sopranos Encyclopedia, the text of Wikipedia is available under the Text of the GNU Free Documentation License" with largely suitable links (except that it does not mirror Wikipedia Main Page).
Most wikilinks are dead. Also, Wikipedia is mentioned in some cleanup tags. Example: wiki.thesopranos.com/Jon_Bon_Jovi
Page now ends "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "slaves"." with links to GFDL at www.spellcorrect.info/fdl.txt and to original article 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Calls pages "SpivO Encyclopedia", the only references to Wikipedia are those in the articles extracted and on pages where the url is invalid (e.g., if title includes spaces instead of "_", they say "...consult the Wikipedia article"), and uses "WikiReflection" technology (see http://www.vacilando.org/index.php?x=7065). It is copying the userspace, and images are linked to the Wikimedia servers. No mention of GFDL. There is, however, an edit button at the top of every page, but it will only open an edit window for pages on the English Wikipedia, and will open whatever page the user typed in, regardless of redirects. Interestingly, using the interwiki links (i.e., [[wikt:is:brjálaður]]) pages from other projects can be copied, but any links will link back to the English Wikipedia. 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Contact info
Admin:Chris Kazor - info [atsign] spivo [.] com; 813-626-5261 and 206-202-2053 listed
Technical contact: Customer Support - support [atsign] hostingtrek [.] com; 877-571-1805
Not a gross violation. Only a short excerpt of the article, with source given. To be fully compliant, the page should probably also mention CC-BY-SA. A link to the original article is enough to fulfill the requirement to attribute the authors. decltype (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fully compliant, the page should also mention CC-BY-SA. A link to the original article is enough to fulfill the requirement to attribute the authors. -84user (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
States: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Dollar sign" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article
States: Copyright 2006 Sprinko.com Lassitter Ent, Inc. Company - All Rights Reserved
Copied most of the article almost verbatim to both the home page and the biography page with no attribution or links to the original material here on wikipedia.
Contact info
email: upender1953 AT gmail.com phone: +91.910404015045 (India) ISP: hostgator.com full whois info here Contact Us page on website
Some. They've reproduced the full Wikipedia body text with no menus, skins, images, however, it is at least licencesd under the GFDL and attributed to Wikipedia.
Contact info
Actions
List of backronyms is an article to which I'd contributed years ago; the original has long-since been deleted. If someone wants to preserve this stuff, great, but some attribution would be in order please? --carlb (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions Wikipedia & GFDL, links to original article: "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL. Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright. All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved."
Sent informal message complaining about one article. Srleffler (talk) April 21, 2009
I see "stateuniversity.com" is globally blacklisted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist . I am adding this entry here as they look to me like an extensive collection of copyright violating wikipedia-derived content. No attributions, no GFDL, and they claim, obscurely, that content is copyright "Net Industries" and obtained from a printed, unnamed, source. Examples are everywhere. http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/21768/Ted-Turner.html and wikipedia's article on Ted Turner are obviously connected.
Until this entry, neither stateuniversity.com nor "Net Industries", nor "Cambridge Encyclopedia" were listed in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.See also http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/collection/1/Cambridge-Encyclopedia.html. "Cambridge Encyclopedia" has a lot of obvious copyvio'ed biographies. 84user (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
stateuniversity.com's copyright page claims they will responds to takedown notices:
"Intellectual Property
It is the policy of StateUniversity.com to respond expeditiously to claims of intellectual property infringement. StateUniversity.com will promptly process and investigate notices of alleged infringement and will take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If there is any link or material in any page on this site that would infringe on any copyright, the link or material, provided it is being served from StateUniversity.com's server rather than that of a third party, will be removed immediately upon proof or appropriate demonstration of controlling interest or ownership. Any names that appear in this site may be trademarks/service marks/registered trademarks or copyrighted materials and are therefore the property of their respective owners."
Link near top to original article (under "See live article")
States "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" with links to Wikipedia and to local article about GFDL which in turn has link to GFDL text at gnu.org
This website and others in its network (www.rangercentral.com, www.kamen-rider.com, www.tokucentral.com) copy content from Wikipedia pages and use it to form their own database pages. The content on thesefivepages (45) are directly lifted from our article Kamen Rider OOO (character); it even uses spelling forms that are actually disfavored amongst the English speaking fans of the show.
Contact info
michaelpbastiangmail.com
Actions
I (—Ryulong (琉竜)) have sent an e-mail demanding that he source the information to Wikipedia.
Only indication that this is a Wikipediacopy is at first glance the "edit" button, which connects to Wikipedia. No other mention of Wikipedia, no GFDL.
Main Page states that all text entries on the wiki section are licensed under the GFDL, and provides an on-site link to the full licence text. Articles copied from Wikipedia contain a notice providing credit and a link back.
Copies directly from Wikipedia pages (for example, Wars of the Three Kingdoms --> http://www.tagate.com/wars/page/three_kingdoms.shtml) while claiming All Rights Reserved.
Contact info
tagate AT gmail.com
Actions
Have sent an email explaining WP licensing, will provide copy if needed. Will post if reply is received. I AM NOT a contributor to this article, thus I have no claim of copyright, so further action must be taken by someone else.-RunningOnBrains(talk)17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example: www.techno-science.net/?onglet=glossaire&definition=4865 from fr:Factorielle, largely a translation of English Factorial
States: "Cette définition provient de l'encyclopédie libre Wikipédia publiée sous licence GNU FDL, elle est reprise sur techno-science.net à but informatif. Vous pouvez soumettre une modification ou un complément à cette définition sur la page correspondante de Wikipédia. La liste complète des auteurs de cet article est disponible sur cette page. Il est possible que certains problèmes de mise en forme demeurent suite à l'importation de cette page, dans de tels cas veuillez vous reporter à la version originale sur Wikipédia."
Sources linked to, history linked to, mentions WP, does not mention GFDL, and problably should not be extracting non-article pages such as the AFC page noted above, as well as the user page used before.
Description of the site: uses modified MediaWiki software to serve up an unmodified current-version English Wikipedia article database. The visual appearance is slightly different and a bar near the top lists some of the first few links in the article. They have added some special pages for popular pages, new pages, and a "quick index", and have added them to the sidebar. They have also added the ability to add links and discussion to the bottom of articles (blog-style).
This mirror I would say is noncompliant. The GFDL is linked, but there is no indication whatsoever that it's Wikipedia material, much less a link to Wikipedia or the article. The authors therefore receive no credit. The creating company's contact is info AT innovateit.com, but I have not contacted them. Deco 19:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They mirror everything! Down to the User space! Hell, they have a mirror of this discussion. [19][20] -- AllyUnion(talk) 07:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
They are certainly spammer fighting for some pageranks more. They put advertisement in the front of the text. But they do state (in tiny letter) that it is a Gnu document and then back link to wikimedia (not wikipedia)--Alexandre Van de Sande 13:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mirrors a selection of articles on Chemistry and Educational topics. Site claims copyright, mentions neither Wikipedia nor GFDL except that they reproduce our main page as one of their articles
The link, attribution and GFDL license are not clearly visible
i.e. in a very light grey small font, and uses graphics (the GDFL text is rendered as an image, making it invisible to text-only browsers and search engines.) and nofollow links
Mirror with different styling; each page has tag cloud linking to other articles. Image repository. Links to major categories from each article. Appears to be primarily concerned with New Zealand articles.
No attribution on content pages. Claims copyright of all work on content pages, but has a separate page (here) stating "Sections of The Grid are published is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" with attribution to Wikipedia.
If not explicitly written, all images are sourced from Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Fotolia web sites. Please note that a specific End-user license agreement (EULA) is applied to each of them.
The data displayed on this website is obtained from open U.S., U.K., Canadian, French, Belgium and other governmental statistics, Wikipedia website or is considered as common knowledge, hence does not need to be cited.
Contact info
Only webform is available: http://themeaningofthename.com/contact-us/
Redistributing under CC BY, a violation of the GFDL and CC BY-SA. Does not link to transparent copy or authorship. The first example is a fork of Thirty-Nine Articles, the second a direct copy then fork of Five solas
Distributed under GFDL? in past, but no notices exist as of 5 April 2011, making them now None. Left discussion post at the Theopedia Five Solas article. Wikipedia copies are against Theopedia policy.
Mirrors all content into it's own site, with the addition of computer-generated "summaries" at the tops of articles.
Seems relatively new - search box isn't even a search box, just a place-holder image.
NOT compliant: No mention of GFDL, no mention of Wikipedia (except on the text of the mirrored main page) and says "Copyright (c) 2005 ThePedia.com, All rights Reserved
Tech AT TicketCity.com - Web Site Technical Assistance IP: 66.193.119.156
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
TicketCity.com domains AT ticketcity.com
5912 Balcones Dr Suite 201
Austin, TX 78731
US
512-472-5797 fax: 512-469-7682
States at end: "Wikipedia information about Cliff_Richard This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. More from Wikipedia" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to en:Wikipedia main page
No obvious link to original article under top mention of Wikipedia
All pages appear to be verbatim copies from Wikipedia articles having to do with tobacco, in particular Tobacco and Smoking pipe (tobacco). Large chunks of text that I wrote myself were appropriated. The only links are to other appropriated articles or an online tobacconist. No statement is made anywhere as to from whence they got the material.
Contact info
No contact details given on site. WHOIS gives this:
Andry B Kulikov (kulikov AT pravda.ru)
+7 921 9442222
PO Box 33
St Petersburg
193318
Russia
DOES NOT link to Wikipedia article. (It does, but it does it with Javascript, which hides it from search engines. Not acceptable. JesseW21:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article history shows content back at least as far as 2007, whereas the domain was registered in 2009 with the same content – so no question of who was first. The website has a "get involved" page, which asks readers if they have any relevant "content that [they] would like to contribute to the site" – this maybe the source of the duplicate content. This issue must, however, be dealt with correctly. At the time of writing, there are reports that the subject of this biography has died and we must treat this with respect. matt (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Example 2: www.top40-charts.info/?title=Cliff_Richard
Page ends "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article Cliff Richard; it is used under the GNU Free Documentation License. You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the GFDL." with links to original article and to local copy of WP:GFDL
The footer of each article states "This article contains text from the Wikipedia article 'article_name' (History) and is released under the GFDL", with a link to 1) The article 2) The article's history and 3) a local copy of 1.2 of the GFDL.
Contact info
Nixon, Robin robin AT robinnixon.com, ISP is POWERMEDIUM.COM
Non-compliant. Material is copied from Wikipedia. No mention of Wikipedia on the page or attribution to WP editors. Assertion of copyright with no license to reuse material.
Travel Goa is an e-book published by MobileReference for use on mobile devices. The URL links to Google books' incomplete copy. A complete copy has to be purchased from a commercial supplier.
Description
Sample
p.748 contains a substantial amount of text identical to that in a section of an earlier version of Wikipedia's article Architecture of India. The supposed earlier date of publication (2007) of Travel Goa does not indicate that the Wikipedia text was copied from it. The text and images common to Travel Goa and the Wikipedia article comprise apparently independent contributions by several different Wikipedia editors at different dates starting from March 12, 2007.
Rating
Medium, judging from the Google books copy. Precise degree of compliance is difficult to evaluate without buying a commercial copy
Compliance
The licensing information provided on p.1188 acknowledges that material from Wikipedia has been used, and that this material is licensed under the GFDL, although it also wrongly implies that this material is also "public domain". However, it also asserts "all rights reserved" over the work as a whole, whereas the GFDL requires that the whole of any modification of a work licensed under it—which is what this is—must also be licensed under the same licence or a substantially similar version.
A copy of the GFDL licence doesn't appear to be included anywhere in the publication, as required by the terms of that licence, although a link to an on-line copy of the licence appears to be provided with the licensing information. The licensing information includes an apology for not listing all the authors of the Wikipedia material, and asserts that these can be seen "by following the hyperlink at the bottom of each article". As far as is possible to tell from the Google books copy, such links do appear regularly throughout the the publication, but it doesn't appear to be possible to use the Google books copy to check that these links work and do in fact point to the proper articles.
Article ends "This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source" with links to Wikipedia and to original article. 02:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that this has been copied and pasted in both directions. The T. S. Monk Wikipedia article was, itself, a copyvio of the subject's (old) website (link) until 2007, when the article began to take its current shape. There was an intervening copy-paste from that site ([23]), but it had since been mostly edited down to something more original. Now I suspect that the above URL's content has been copied from this Wikipedia article; it is dated 2019 but mirrors text that has been in this article for a while.
One paragraph added to this article in 2017 was promotional in tone ([24]), I thought it had been copied from the newer website, although it seems to predate it. Someone had already removed the most egregious portion and I just removed the rest; the paragraph in its entirety currently appears on the newer website.
(Archive.org doesn't have any captures from the old website since 2017, and, when I checked today, did not have any versions of the new website.)
Live (?) mirror, probably created to circumvent the block of Wikipedia in Turkey.
Sample
http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/House
Rating
Low
Compliance
No mention of copyright, authors or license. No links to the original article or history. Clicking on the images loads their attribution by means of MediaViewer JavaScript being loaded as is. The footer contains an ambiguous statement "This website is a mirror of Wikipedia, and is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation"; in the Turkish version the same footer seems to imply that the content is in the public domain.
http://www.tutorgig.com/es/Kunst+og+kultur and http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/William_Og_de_Burgh
Rating
Medium
Compliance
The actual texts of articles are not indexed by google, but search pages, which contain vast numbers of article titles, are, and do not contain any mention of Wikipedia, clogging up searches for non-Wikipedia-mirror information on topics in Wikipedia titles. All links are through a redirect script. They seem to show up with javascript off.
Link to current version of article, labelled "Edit this article".
Link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
Indicates source is Wikipedia and links to Wikipedia home page.
Removed "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
No history section listing authors and dates
Contact info
info AT tutorgig.com, DGM Technologies Inc. 917-742-7626; ISP: THEPLANET.COM; abuse AT theplanet.com (800) 377-6103
Have sent an email explaining WP licensing, will provide copy if needed. Will post if reply is received. I AM NOT a major contributor to these articles, thus I have no claim of copyright, so further action must be taken by someone else.-RunningOnBrains(talk)08:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Crime_Traveller and http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Wikipedia
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Site has GFDL notice at the bottom of the pages - the image links to the GFDL license at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html - but the link in the text points to http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License and http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights (both pages do not exist). The only mention to wikipedia is on the main page. The "General Disclaimer" link at the bottom of every page links to a non-existant page. Articles do have history, however doesn't attribute the edits to the contributors on Wikipedia.
no link to GFDL. Standard letter sent by: MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
no response received as of Jul 18. Will contact via domain name administrative contact arasa AT emirates.net.ae. Does anyone know what country .ae is? Does anyone know of a translator program, or know the language of this country? MB
Sounds like United Arab Emirates. Guessing from their location, I'm guessing they speak Arabic (perhaps a different dialect, but I doubt it), like all the other countries around there. There should be a lot of English too. dave
.ae is the United Arab Emirates, and the main languages include Arabic, English, Persian, Hindi, and Urdu.
Looks like typesyria is down, but typenetwork.com still has several coppies of Wikipedia, including almost the entire site typeencyclopedia.com. It uses a very old, outdated version of Wikipedia. LDan 04:09, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Links to current Wikipedia article, but not at the stable URL (not a clickable link either)
No GFDL link
I think we should send the developers the standard letter - I already submitted a feature request and mentioned this issue on their mailing list; no response whatsoever. It is very important that the printable version is OK per our copyright since that is a nice clean HTML copy of an article. --mav 10:46, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Acknowledges Wikipedia with links to the original article, notes that the content is licensed under the GFDL (although links to GNU rather than local copy of GFDL).
None. Under the "section" "credit card debt reduction arbitration" appears the phrase "preemptive arbitrations by alleged credit card debtors", which I wrote for the consumer arbitration article; most of the same paragraph includes other phrases I wrote for that article.
Top right has Creative Commons "Some rights reserved" linking to GFDL at gnu.org
Bottom has disclaimer including "US Bazaar.com Encyclopedia content is provided by Wikipedia. US Bazaar.com is not responsible for the content and shall not be liable for any errors in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All content is under a GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be copied and distributed under that same license in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that the License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying the License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of the License."
Compliant. A notice in footer reads "Reference Directory is based on information from Wikipedia and is provided for general information only. Text is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. No link to original article.
Description: Started by a Arabic Wikipedia user as a full dump of Arabic Wikipedia, and claims to aim to incorporate articles from different sources. Some Wikipedia contributers edit articles for it.
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it.
Pages are verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles. No mention that the content is under the GFDL, no mention of or links to Wikipedia. No list of contributors.
Contact info
Private domain registration through Domains by Proxy, Inc.
gmail.com
