Talk:Kyllo v. United States

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cannabis Mid‑importance

	Cannabis portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

New York Times v sullivan

Review for possible COPYVIO

I found at least two paragraphs in this article that are verbatim to two in a Xanga blog by jrgini37 (this issue was raised by the Xanga blog author on the WP Hwlp Desk). The paragraph beginning, "For Kyllo, the result was tremendous . . ." was added to WP here on August 12, 2006; the one beginning "Kyllo was charged with growing marijuana in violation of federal law." was added here also on August 12. The key words used to identify the correlations are "tremendous" and "reflected", respectively. I also reviewed the sources for both documents and do not find common verbiage to easily explain the identical passages. Further review shows significant portions of the article are identical to the Xanga paper. In some cases, the new (verbatim) passages in the WP article replaced existing passages that addressed the same point, but with different word choice. I'm unfamiliar with how Xanga may maintain history, but the URL on jrgini37's blog entry appears to support that the entry was added almost a full year before the material in the WP article appeared.

There appears to be enough in question to warrant further investigation, so I added the copvio tag and placed an entry on Copyright_problems/2007_July_4/Articles. Comments from anyone who can shed further light on this are welcome. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I claim to be the author of the article, and have been asked to explain these similarities. I recognize my own writing style, and contend that the xanga.com article was taken from my edits. Because certain other stock phrases in this version of the article correlate with other WP entries I have written, I submit there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the article is an original creation of mine. However, I cannot reconcile the date on which I wrote the article with the date of the blog post. The person who flagged this text as a possible copyright violation has suggested that the blog host might not date its entries accurately, but this explanation seems unlikely here because the author of the blog entry claims that he made the entry on his birthday.

I'm not an expert in either American copyright law or Wikipedia's copyright policy. I do know that even unintentional infringement is a violation, and so it does me no good to say that I didn't know the text was already out there when I wrote what I wrote. Perhaps the best solution is to revert the article to its pre-violation version and allow someone else to write it. ---Axios023 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]