This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Radio Stations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations 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.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

I noticed that the tone of this article seemed to be copy vio. I looked at the website for this article and it is indeed just about word for word. I was about to revert back to a non-copy vio state when I read on the website, "This Technical / Historical narrative has been furnished in partnership with Wikipedia as we jointly update its contents, correct grammatical errors, and update the facts on an annual basis. We thank Wiki for their partnership in this venture." My question: Would this be legit? Planetary ChaosTalk 06:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It could be "legit", although in that case that kdav.org website is violating copyright by not posting a notice that the content there is dual-licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL, and by not linking back to the article for proper attribution. BTW, it looks like someone needs to clean up behind this "Kdavwebmaster". Anomie⚔ 12:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It also gives the impression of article ownership. I have also reported the username as a violation of WP:UN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Who had the content first? If it's us, they are violating copyright by not having the notice, as Anomie says. But if it's them, we have copyright troubles in the other direction because it sounds like a "just for Wikipedia" copyright release. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, they have the potential copyright problem since they are using text from other editors (not their own). But we don't have a problem, since their editors are releasing their edits when they edit here. It would be good to have a statement on the website or sent to OTRS recognizing that fact, though. And, of course, the "partnership" stuff is nonsense, since it implies that they have a relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

For future reference, you can throw questions like this up at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions noticeboard, which is where us editors interested in copyright issues hang out. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I wasn't sure where to go with this issue as this had me scratching my head. Like mentioned above, what came first, the chicken or the egg? In my reasoning, the website would have had the, "about" section but, no proof either way. Planetary ChaosTalk 11:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply