Talk:Non-compliant site coordination

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Request for comment[edit]

As I'm not too clued up and don't have lots of Internet connectivity, I ask for help: I notice and the Afrikaans (a link was added to the Afrikaans article. At the site the following is added to the copyright notice: "All rights reserved". I'm not very knowledgable about copyright and the GFDL, but is this ok? Furthermore I see some included text in a side bar (I checked, for example) which according to my understanding must be licenced under the GFDL too. Can someone follow this up or provide some insight? --Alias 21:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is the difference between this page and en:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks? In particular en:Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/GFDL_Compliance#Low seems to cover all of this and much more(?)... \Mike 11:50, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Seems to be an endless supply of noncompliant sites[edit]

If you google an excerpt from almost any WP article, and exclude results that contain the word "wikipedia", you come up with at least a half dozen sites, most using the content for search engine optimization, and they seem to be multiplying. Tracking these all down could be a huge job, and is probably not something that anyone is especially excited about taking on. There has got to be a better way to go about this.... -- 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Obviously the violations are only fixed page by page. I reverted the deletion of the violation and gave the example page "Zigarren". A few minutes later this page was edited and the license was added (see "Letztes Update ( Wednesday, 03 January 2007 )" at the bottom of the page. -- 11:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A short period of time after I wrote this, the note "Letztes Update ( Wednesday, 03 January 2007 )" at the bottom of the page has been deleted. -- 13:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]