Articles "by Micha F. Lindemans" are mirrors of out of<A title="Online Dating" style="COLOR: #65b45c; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://184.108.40.206/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.
cernik AT freewar.de
Sent standard violation letter. Superm401 - Talk 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC). Received reply stating "Thank you for your advise. We will do so as soon as possible." Superm401 - Talk 05:52, 22 January 2006 (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. Peterkingiron 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
twfhc4zcxxgw9q AT protectfly.com (protected whois), http://www.registerfly.com/info/contact.php (registrar contact form)
Emailed the registrar. Said they'll respond in a few hours; if they really do, I'll post details then. Superm401 - Talk 00:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
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 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.
Only contact information available is info AT pontefract-yfc.co.uk
No actions taken yet.
site not found --Rumping (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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.
Chealsea House/Infobase Publishing; 132 West 31st St.; New York, New York, 10001
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.
This is a general purpose site that allows users to specify subsets of articles to render for printing.
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.
"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).
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)
Daniele Testa (owner, administrator and technical contact of the domain name); address: Stenbocksgatan 8, 50634, Borås, Sweden; Phone: +46.500400500; email: [email protected] --Soujak (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
None taken. --Soujak (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Sent violation letter regarding Cheater plug (an article I created) through contactprivacy.com. As of now, their web host seems to be Mochahost. PleaseStand(talk) 03:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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."
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
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.
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)
Example 404 not found --Rumping (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
1) WHOIS 2) cc standard letter posted via webpage for "report abuse"  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  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".
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.turkcewiki.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.turkcewiki.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.turkcewiki.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.
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.