User talk:Diannaa/Archive 45

Four years ago ...
support and questions
	... you were recipient; no. 93 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

→

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad

I hope I did everything right. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Something appears off with the formatting, would appreciate it if you might take a look. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 00:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that GAB! I believe I've done it the right way this time... Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 09:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, Diannaa, I've listed you as co-nom. Hope that's okay? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 09:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, you forgot to sign off your co-nomination text. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Done; thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Times Music: Times Living Logo Copyright Violation

Hi Diannaa, As informed, I have forwarded the email that contains the logo that was used in Times Music page (Times living logo). I have received the logo on Email from Partitosh Mohite, Creative Head Times Music with prior permission from Mandar Thakur, COO Times Music. Hope that helps to not to get the logo get deleted from the page. Kindly confirm me if you need more information. Thank you. Regards, Gadgetsgigs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 06:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Gadgetsgigs, I have placed a {{OTRS pending}} template on the two logos on the Times Music article. The OTRS team is experiencing some severe backlogs, so it might take a while before they match the permission email with the images. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Name change

Hello again, Diannaa ! I hope you had a nice Christmas and a Happy New Year ! (and as we sometimes say in Sweden "God fortsättning" which means "Happy continuation") I have changed name of an article once before (but only once) , and I feel S-trains ought to become a general article, and a separate Copenhagen S-train could be created instead. Also the German S-Bahns are of the same concept and I believe they should be covered in an article with an English name. I.o.w. the S-train article. (And then there is the S-Bahn in Vienna as well). What I'm saying is that there should be one general article covering the main concept , and one article per train-system. I guess the current situation has come up as a struggle between some German and some Danish contributer. If you think I'm correct in my thoughts here, then could you please help me with instructions for how to change a name of an article. I'm 51 years old now and keeping all WP:rueles, synthaxes, etc is slowly becomming a little bit more difficult each year. Though I certainly hope to avoid total dementia in the near future... :) All inputs appriciated. And if you have better things to do, please just ignore this question. Boeing720 (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The way to re-name a page is to Move it to the new location. Wikipedia:Moving a page. If you think the move will be controversial, it's best to note on the talk page proposing the move first. If you want me to perform the actual move for you, please let me know, and I will do it. — Diannaa (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh - indeed very nice of you to offer me the help. As well as the location Wikipedia:Moving a page, I searched and searched, but found just other stuff. I think I will proceed as follows - 1. use the talk-page and plan ahead if no troubles arise. 2. I assume it's no great deal, provided that I can explain the difference between a general concept and the different cities (which have) S-trains (S-tog in Danish, S-Bahn in German). 3. Then I will study the suggested "moving page" and its instructions. If I at that time feel insecure about "Wikipedia-technics", then I will return to you. But I hope your help is sufficient, and once again I thank you very much ! Boeing720 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now put suggestions at the talk-pages of both S-train and S-Bahn. I think S-train is the most suitable general title. There is not much action at any of the talk-pages. But I give it a day more. Unless you find that amount of time to be too short. Thanks again and sorry for the inconvenience ! Boeing720 (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Usually we leave them up for at least a week before taking any action. — Diannaa (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good you adviced me ! However this (my suggestion) isn't about deleting articles, but rather a kind of "castling" of articles. But there is no hurry, so I'll of cource do as you suggest. Even if I have been here for four years by now, am I very glad for your experienced help. So please allow me to thank you once more ! not all with great Wikipedia experience are equally glad to give advices. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Pamtengo radio

Hi Diannaa

Oh you deleted our page. Why may I ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxabling (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The page was a copyright violation, with content copied from http://www.radioforest.net/radio/pamtengo-radio/686676. — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Time on RFA

Hi,

I would really appreciate it if you could help me with substituting the time parser function on the main RFA page. There is still the same red text, even though I believe I transcluded correctly.

Thank you very much,

GAB^Hello! 23:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. Try purging the page, or clearing your cache. — Diannaa (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. The template captured in the  needed to be subst. Mkdw ^talk 00:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for copyright status check

Hi Dianna. I hope all is well with you and yours. Sorry for the trouble but I would just like to make sure that the copyright status of this file is ok. I uploaded three different versions of it, the first one being described as an old postcard. The middle version has a watermark from Life magazine. If there is a problem with the file please nuke it asap. Thank you. Dr. K. 05:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Whatever the status of the rights on the image, that’s certainly not the correct licence template: if the photo was taken in 1933 it can’t have been published before 1923.—Odysseus 1479 06:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That much I've got covered. Please check the actual terms of Template:PD-US where it states: "Works published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. See Template:PD-Pre1978." and "Works published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice but without later copyright renewal. See Template:PD-US-not renewed.". Dr. K. 06:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't have adequate source information on the photo, as the most recent version is not present at the source provided. If the photo was taken by Heinrich Hoffmann (photographer), it is most likely still under copyright, as he did not die until 1957. As it stands right now, we don't have enough information about the image to say what the copyright status is. I think we should delete it, — Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Have we ever disagreed? Please go ahead Dianna. :) Thank you as always. Dr. K. 15:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for your understanding. — Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. Whenever you have the chance, can you please check these three posters: 1, 2 and 3. Thank you again. Dr. K. 06:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please see the commons:Commons:Hirtle chart, which summarizes copyright. The applicibale section is "Works Published Abroad Before 1978". We don't know if the posters were copyright in their home counrty, we don't know if they were copyright in compliance with US copyright law, and we don't know who the author is. The posters could be PD-1996, or they could be under copyright until 2019. We just don't know. — Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about Commons. I saw this poster uploaded locally on en.wiki and thought the other posters could be accommodated in a similar way. Sorry, I should have been more clear on that. In any case, thank you for your advice. Dr. K. 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Hirtle chart is valid for this wiki as well as the commons. File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske2.jpg is sourced to the Library of Congress, so there's no question the copyright status is correct. — Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dianna. Btw, I mentioned Commons not because of any concerns about the global validity of the chart but because of the restrictions at Commons that don't have to be satisfied locally at en.wiki, namely that the poster should be free at its country of origin. Dr. K. 20:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. — Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

hello, and welcome to wikipedia .I'm (User talk:Patternpat1).This is a message inform you about the speedy deletion of all my edit images.(talk)

-It is unfair to me to do it to me. Please gave me a reason why you do this to me.And please don't do it to me again.I Hope you understand my concern

Hi User:Patternpat1. The images were deleted because you copied them from various websites and claimed them as your own work when they are obviously not. You've also been copying prose from copyright websites. Both of these are against the copyright policy of this website, and zre also illegal. I posted some information on your talk page about copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia. Please read it before you do any more editing or upload any more images. — Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

hi!Thank you for your answer, but I took the image because it is written with copyright owners so that they wonder to me.

Thank you for your response and you do not repeat it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patternpat1 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Egon Terzetta.jpeg

Hi there and thank you for your letter, I must admit I am not experienced in uploading photos on wikipedia and may have made an error by putting a wrong description of the file. Regarding the photo of Egon Trecetta, it is cut out from a team photo already published on wikipedia [1]. It was also my understanding that photos made before 1926 are exempted from copyright. The photo in question was taken in September 1925. Regarding the photos of Ivan Mokanov and Stefan Yanev, they are from my personal collection and have been given to me by the subjects on the pictures themselves, one of whom has already passed away. As far as I know they have not been published elsewhere and I believe I have not infringed anybody else's author rights. If I am wrong you can delete the files. Otherwise you can perhaps help me upload them in a correct manner. Best regards. Okalinov (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Okalinov, in order to be uploaded to this website or to the Commons, old photos such as these need to be in the public domain in both their source country and the United States. Please have a look at this chart. The relevant section is "Works Published Abroad Before 1978". The cut-off date for the United States in 1923, not 1925. If you can prove that the photo, taken between 1923 and 1978, was initially published without compliance with US copyright law, or never had its copyright renewed, it's okay to upload. Otherwise, no. The photo commons:File:Vladislav Varna Champion 1925.jpg should probably be nominated for deletion, as these formalities do not seem to be in place on that image either. — Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

RFA

I have withdrawn my nomination, as per your advice. Feel free to email me or use my talk page regarding this. Thank you very much for all of your support, GAB^Hello! 17:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sad to see that, would have supported after an answer to my question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think many candidates withdraw too soon. My own RfA was going badly mid-way through but it managed to revive and get some later Supports and pass. But you've been editing a lot longer than I, Diannaa, so I trust you know best. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

GAB, I think if you are interested, if you take to heart some of the oppose rationales and make a few changes to the way you edit, you might pass in six months or a year. In particular, people are looking for a greater breadth of experience participating in admin areas other than vandalism patrol, and a lower proportion of semi-automated edits. The main thing I look for in an admin candidate is having the right temperament, and you do have that. Article creation: That's not a deal-breaker for me, as the encyclopedia matures I think it's far more important to raise the quality of our core content, the basic stuff that gets daily use as a resource. @Liz: I recommended yesterday that he should withdraw at the point where he feels like he will not get any further useful feedback from the process, or if support fell below 70 per cent. Looking at the trend, I don't think this one was going to turn around. But like I mentioned to GAB via email, it's very gratifying to see supports from Arbcom and ex-Arbcom members as well as lots of well-respected long-term editors and admins. — Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely aim to embark in some of these important areas for the foreseeable future, whether or not I even apply later or not (I'm thinking at least another year before preparing to run again). Certain other concerns may not go away, but I'll turn those around. The semi-automated edit issue is a serious point worthy of bearing in mind. GAB^Hello! 20:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@GeneralizationsAreBad: Although I am sad to see that this did not succeed, I think your decision to wait a year is a wise one. Unfair as I think it is, any editor who runs for adminship right at the cusp of the generally accepted tenure is going to face accusations of of "hat collecting" and being power-hungry. Running again before a year will probably only bring in reinforcements. If you wait a year, add some 50 AfD discussions (at least), I am almost certain your next RfA will pass with little opposition or drama. Of all the opposes, not one brought a behavioral issue up (of yours), not even the most minor of infractions, or was able to show where you did not understand a policy. Nothing. Nada. This is highly impressive, and indeed I hope you do run. In the meantime, thank you for all the hard work you've put in, and thank you for your future efforts to make this encyclopedia significantly better. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I will certainly heed the lessons learned from the RFA -- sorry for ruining your nomination record, Diannaa. GAB^Hello! 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) GAB, I was leaning support, seen you around while doing the anti-vandalism thing. Just offering some moral support here - keep up the good work! Scr★pIron^IV 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My own automated edits were at one time as high as 60 per cent, due to a brief love affair with hunting vandals using Huggle back in the fall of 2010. Right now it is at around 20 per cent. I suggest that leaving the simple work of vandal-hunting alone for now and taking on some of the more complex and sophisticated tasks will convince people that you are ready. Regarding my nomination record, I wish I had time to find a suitably sad-looking lolcat, but I have to go to the dentist now, more's the pity — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bellerby & Co Globemakers

Hi Diannaa Hope you're well. Per your message, I have submitted all permissions to the permissions email. When I first set up the page all the same images were there so I thought when the page had been originally approved that the images and all copyright details I'd mentioned with each image were all approved simultaneously too! I'm new to wiki and it's very confusing.

However ...you have requested image deletion by 6th March but I've been aware for some time now that there is a backlog with permissions of up to 5/6 weeks so I'm concerned this page will be deleted despite me placing the OTRS Pending marker on the page. I haven't heard from permissions yet despite 2 emails. Is there anything that can be done to extend the 6th March deletion timeline? Thanks for your help. Kind regards Bumbledog (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to worry, a savvy administrator will check for OTRS tags before deleting the images :) Just to be safe though, I have removed the deletion nomination tags. — Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know that if the permission emails are worded like the messages you've posted on the file description pages, they won't be adequate, because no license is specified. It's best if the permission email is worded the same as the sample at WP:consent. — Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Help Needed

I need some help regarding this image and I'm not getting it from User:Stefan2, who is template happy at the moment (see my talk page). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The tweet does not specify a license. The format needs to match our legal requirements. It's best to ask the copyright holder to send a permission email to the OTRS team. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent, which should demonstrate to you why the tweet is not adequate for our purposes. — Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think it needed to, it's a picture of a radio station's studios, not a copyrightable image. I just db-author'd it. Too much annoyance over an image. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Did you take the picture? If so, why is it marked as non-free? — Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I didn't. A friend on Twitter did, so I marked it as non-free. I goofed and marked it as a logo. Since it was an image, I released it since I had permission to use it. I could mark it non-free and used with permission and Stefan2 would probably still find a template to use. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes he would. He would tag it for F7 speedy deletion, as the location exists, and the photo could be replaced by a free file by going there yourself and taking a picture. — Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The permission you asked for on Twitter was {{db-f3}}, and that was also the permission you got. That's not an acceptable permission for Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

To translate, Stefan is trying to say that "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission" is not a liberal enough license for Wikipedia. The content has to be freely available for use or modification by anyone, under one or more of the compatible licenses (listed here). — Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the correction Historywiki11 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega

Thanks for the revision hide. I know the person and will reach out to him.Naraht (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Revdel

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Task done, oversight contacted. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Quacks like a sock

Hi, Diannaa, I've watched common articles and interests, and found AWPY33 (talk · contribs) looks a lot like other socks of Hijk89 (talk · contribs), with which you're familiar. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, starting clean-up. All uploads at Commons are copyvios. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Modified article with the same title - Request to proofread

Hello Diannaa,

Thank-you for giving us the opportunity to improve. Our last article titled "Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute" was deleted by you due to its advertising nature.

With continuous revisions for complying with the Wikipedia guidelines, attached PSATRI Wiki ArticlePSATRI Wiki Article is the new modified article for our organization PSATRI. If the article stands valid, we have planned to publish this new article under the same title and as per the Wikipedia norms we would like to bring it into your kind attention.

Also, we earnestly request you to proofread the attached article to help us know if it stands valid for publishing this time. Your efforts to help us improve are highly appreciated.

Thank you. Hnhusain (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not the administrator who deleted the article. That was User:Seraphimblade. Publishing the draft on Google Drive was not a good idea, as to bring the content here now requires that you provide proof of permission, or else it's a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Django48 editing your archive

I don't know why Django48 (talk · contribs) was editing your archive with an out-of-order post and a time stamp that doesn't make sense, but I reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have my archives watch-listed, so I have already dealt with his concern about the file I had nominated for deletion. Thank you for your alertness — Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Internet of Things copyvio

Hello there! Could you help me out with an issue I've encountered? 129.137.215.234 keeps pasting text I believe might be copyrighted. A quick overview might be found in the IP's talk page. Please let me know if this needs further action. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

They added some more copyvio after your warning. I will watch-list and take further action if need be. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Name change 2

Hello again! I've studied the "Moving a page" guide. If I understand it correctly, can only an administrator move the entire contence of an article (not pictures etc). I've also wondered about all links to the new name... I can't know all pages which need fixing, or is this done automatically ? The info also suggests or tells, that a request to an administrator can be made.

.

.Provided that the links at other pages isn't a problem, do I hereby make a such request for the article S-train to the better name Copenhagen S-train. I find it better since the basic concept (both suburban to city centre and within city centre railways, typically 1 to 2 km between stations and short time between departures - [the larger city the more often the S-trains departure, is oftenly true]) are the same elsewhere. The largest systems differ from Metros (or Subways) mainly at large stations, where a Metro typically have their platforms below groundlevel and the tracks may have a very different heading. Here does S-trains insted (usually) stop at platforms which are parallell to all other trains (long distance, night-trains, inter-city, inter-regional, regional, local and commuter etc). So if you would like to help me with this - and agree with me, it would be much appriciated with this help. I have checked both talk-pages , and there are no objections. Then S-Bahn could be given an English name - S-train. Which I believe is called for, since the similar S-Bahn concept is used also not only in Denmark but also in Czeck Republic and Italy. And why the German name must be used on English Wikipedia when the basic concept also is used outside the German speaking parts of Europe, can I not really see any reasons for. There are no comments at the talk-page of S-Bahn, but a full week hasn't passed yet. Perhaps we (=you, but at my suggestion and request) could begin with changing S-train to Copenhagen S-train ? I'm of course open for suggestions and questions. But I think I'm right from a logical perspective. Am I not ? Boeing720 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have moved S-train to Copenhagen S-train. Clicking on "what links here" from the menu on the right-hand side of the page showed me the necessary clean-up, in particular redirects that needed to be changed to avoid double redirects. All of these redirects now point to Copenhagen S-train:

In the article S-Bahn, the only reason Bahn is capitalized is because all nouns are capitalized in German. In English, only proper nouns are capitalized. So S-train is probably where S-Bahn should be moved. Let me know when you are ready for the page to be moved. In addition to changing where some of these redirects point, we will have to amend the article itself, changing instances of "Bahn" to "train". Please feel free to let me perform the move for you, as things can quickly go very badly wrong if it's not done right the first time. — Diannaa (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

First thanks a lot for this help ! And Ich habe auch ein Bitchen deutch studiert. And I fully agree with you about the capitalisation matter. I haven't added the "T" in "S-train", someone else has, however it didn't occur to me until you mentioned it.

.For the current S-Bahn article, please give me a day more (or perhaps two). And thanks very much indeed again. Boeing720 (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have given a second very clear "warning" at the S-Bahn page yesterday. But the activity at the talk-page has been poor for a long time, dispite the flag about "several matters", which I will attempt to remove. (By re-edit the text, of course). I can though see how much work you have. But if possible do I ask for a "moving" and name change of that article to S-train. There is no hurry. I have began working on a new lead (far down in my sandbox), and I have explored sources. German S-Bahn is a bit different everywhere they exist, but there are some common pillars. In any case do I believe that a general article like this should have an English name. Sorry for my bad grammar above (I wrote "someone else have", which ought to be below my standard, but I haven't been very active lately. Although I realize I never can become a new Shakespeare, do I actually believe my English improves during periods of much activity) And thanks once more Boeing720 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your English is much improved from our early encounters and misunderstandings when we were working on Erich von Manstein. I have done the move and fixed the redirects accordingly. Regards, — Diannaa (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yhanks for your help. I will begin workin on the new S-train article. You are a good helpful Wikipedian, as well as Administrator. I believe that you can see (clear and valid) argumentation very well. Also regarding subjects which may not be your "cup of tea". Yesterday we had a toch of spring in Scania , but today the wheather is gray and dull. (10 am) In other words a good day for working with Wikipedia. Thanks for the help once again. Boeing720 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"4.0 International License is not a compatible license"

Could you tell me then which license is required for Wikipedia to accept the content that I have recently shared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinure (talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The License has been changed. Please check if the current license is acceptable for publication in Wikipedia. DiPSMUN Copyrights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinure (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I will get the copyright lines removed. Thanks a lot :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinure (talk • contribs) 04:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox deleted

Hi Diannaa, Ive been in touch with an editor User:Clarabows who edited Wikipedia for the first time last week at an Art and Feminism editathon which i hosted. She is naturally very discouraged that the article she was working on in her sandbox has been deleted (not just reverted) so she has lost all the work she had done so far. There was copyright material in her sandbox but she had simply put it there to help her write her article. Perhaps it would have been better to explain the rules to the user and make a suggestion, especially as this was not a live article. As a Wikimedian trying to encourage new editors it is very frustrating for me when new editors are treated in this way as it puts them off ever trying again. I don't know if there is some way you can recover the page, but i fear we may loose a potentially proactive female editor (the kind Wikipedia desperately needs more of!) because of the haste to delete this text without contacting and coaching the editor. First time editors need and deserve patience and encouragement. I hope you can understand my frustration in this case. Thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jason.nlw. Sorry, but we can't host copyright content here, not even in a sandbox while an editor works on it. If she would like to activate the email function, I can send her a copy by email. Or I could send it to you, since you already have Wikipedia email set up. — Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa. Ok. I know I had a copyvio in an article I created a short while back, and a warning template was added, I was contacted, the situation was explained and I was given time to make changes, which seemed a more user friendly approach. If you could email me the information that would be very useful. Thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Email sent. Please do me a favour and next time you are hosting an editathon, please ask the participants not to add any copyright material to this wiki, not even in a sandbox. — Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright questions

Hi Diannaa.

Is the text added to ZeroNet here a copyright violation of this? Another editor states that it is available under GNU, but I cannot find evidence of that.
If I blank a page with {{subst:copyvio}}, should I remove the copyright violations and request a {{copyvio-revdel}} myself or should I leave it for an admin or copyright clerk to evaluate?

Thanks for your time. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of a GNU license either. Regardless, GNU alone is not enough; it must be released under a CC-by or CC-by-SA license. WP:Compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Would u pls tell me wht does this mean? "(Deletion log); 01:31 . . Diannaa (talk \| contribs) changed visibility of 8 revisions on page World Scout Education Congress: content hidden ‎(RD1: Blatant copyright violations: https://www.scout.org/node/21289)" Prompri (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It means that there was some copyright violations on the page, and they have now been hidden from view and removed from the page history. — Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 UEFA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament

Hi, regarding 2016 UEFA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament how can rules be copyrighted? They are what they are and it is not like we can modify the content making up our own rules, but a case where rulebook has to be followed. Qed237 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the source pdf http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/16/53/77/2165377_DOWNLOAD.pdf, there's no indication that the material is not under copyright, so we have to assume that it's copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I must say that this sounds weird to me. If the rules say that tiebreaker number 3 is "Goal differential" how can we add the information to the article? We can not modify it in any way. The rules are what they are, and it is very useful information in the article to explain how the teams are ranked. I am sorry but this is how it is on all football tournament articles I have seen so far, and if you are planning on hiding revisions and remove them all, you are in for a treat. Qed237 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What I am planning on doing is working my way through the potential copyright violations listed at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc, where this item was listed. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it is great that you do that. I just dont agree that this goes as copyright. Qed237 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not my intention to "adminshop", but I want to inform you that I left messages to User:GiantSnowman (diff) and User:Mattythewhite (diff) as they are both administrators that I see on football related articles and I want to hear what they think about this. Qed237 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You might consider asking User:Moonriddengirl, as she is one of the copyright specialists. — Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Done here. Thanks for the information. Qed237 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Copyright - Seeking Guidance

Thank you for the message regarding what was cited as a copyright issue relating to some of the material I posted regarding the evolution of the NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. It is virtually impossible for me to see what was removed because I do not know how to see snapshots of prior versions of what was written. As I mentioned to a few people, I am new to this Wikipedia editing so I appreciate the feedback from more experienced users like yourself. That said, the holder of the material that allegedly copyrighted, (which is listed in the "history view" of the page for "Driving Under the Influence"), was referenced as belonging to:

http://www.carsandracingstuff.com/library/t/traffictech196.php

However, the material actually came directly from NHTSA, or a NHTSA Study, to which I seem to recall I properly cited, to wit:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/Standardized+Field+Sobriety+Test+(SFST)+Validated+at+BACS+Below+0.10+Percent

I recall using the cite for #20 on that page twice to ensure that my edits were properly referenced as coming directly from the NHTSA study or publication. Now there is only one cite to #20. I cannot recall the specific wording I used as again, I do not know how to see or view the snapshots of prior versions of what was written; however there are only so many ways to discuss the evolution of the SFST Testing Battery and I believed at the time, (and I still believe), that I complied with avoiding any copyright infringement issues as I cited to NHTSA and the NHTSA study that is referenced on the above-listed webpage directly.

Moreover, I do not believe that the government has copyright rights and so long as I cited to it, then it should be a fair use exception and can be used for commentary. Thus, I do not believe that www.carsandracingstuff.com has, or can have, a copyright to the NHTSA publication to which I cited and which they copied to their website and now appear to be claiming a copyright. If I inadvertently used the same verbiage that they used, and it is upon that basis that they are asserting copyright infringement, I still do not believe that copyrights apply to facts. The NHTSA publication or study states facts and only creative content can constitute a copyright.

I do not mean to offend anyone, but as I stated to others in the past, I really value Wikipedia as a resource and noticed a few articles that needed updating and/or corrections, so that's what I tried to do. Whatever guidance you can provide me regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated so as to ensure that I am complying with the Wikipedia guidelines and the law because I actually do enjoy adding material to Wikipedia for other users and/or viewers to be able to obtain accurate and reliable information regarding the subject matter they are researching. Peter Iocona (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for our message. I have restored your edit, as the material is present at http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/Standardized+Field+Sobriety+Test+(SFST)+Validated+at+BACS+Below+0.10+Percent, which is a US Government website and is therefore in the public domain. When quoting from public domain material, we are required to add proper attribution so that it's clear that we are quoting the source, not writing the content ourselves. I changed your inline external link to a citation, and added the template {{PD-notice}}, which makes it clear that the material is a quotation from this public domain source. Sorry for the mistake. I have to go out now, so if you need anything further, I won't be responding for several hours. — Diannaa (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the very prompt reply and for restoring the edits, which I need to learn how to do one day. There is no reason to apologize, you are just doing what you are supposed to do: maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. I did learn from you, however, how to properly quote from public domain material so that I can make it clear in the future that I am quoting the source, not writing new content. I will now need to learn how to add the template: {{PD-notice}}, to make it clear that the material is a quotation from this public domain source. Thank you again for your guidance. It really is appreciated. Peter Iocona (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Elias Demetriou

Hi, regarding the copyvio, are you sure it wasn't copied itself? is there a way to tell? Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The PDF I mentioned in the edit summary (http://www.kurzfilmwoche.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/19.-Edition.pdf) is dated October 19, 2013. The content was added to this wiki by Filmeater on March 2, 2016. I am sure. — Diannaa (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Fountaingrove Golf and Athletic Club Resubmit Request

Greetings,
I would like to resubmit this previously deleted Wikipedia article based on:

The property history is of interest from a historical perspective.
The reference for the article has been updated with "The text of this page is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0"

okay?
Jhmpub (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The license is a compatible license, but there's still a message at the bottom of the web page the says "© 2014 Fountaingrove Golf & Athletic Club". Also, in addition the copyright concerns, the article was deleted because the organization does not appear to be notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to qualify for an article. Looking online, I don't see any in-depth independent coverage of the club in reliable sources. The article is sourced only to the club's own promotional material and does not seem to be notable enough for an article at this time. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa,

Please consider the following:

the text of the course history was explicitly released for the purpose of historical documentation. The copyright at the bottom is standard across all web pages and applies to everything else.
the intention is not to promote the club but to expand on the historical perspective of Fountaingrove Lake and the Fountain Grove colony. The lake, colony, and course history all tie together and are of significant interest to people living in the area. I only wish to document history. If the Fountaingrove club should dissolve, the history would be lost without a Wikipedia page.

Perhaps I should retitle the page "Fountaingrove Golf Course Property History"?
Jhmpub (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the title, your proposed article does not meet the notability criterion and would likely be speedily deleted on that basis. — Diannaa (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed my links for "Fountaingrove Lake" and "Fountain Grove" were bad. They are now fixed. Can you look at those? They cite numerous notable sources. I plan to reference those in the article. Does that support change your opinion? If not, can I get a second opinion?
Jhmpub (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The place to go for help is the Teahouse. — Diannaa (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Recreate an article

Hello Diannaa, I want to recreate an article that you have deleted: Spice (Jamaican singer). This time I will write the article in my own words. Looking forward to your reply, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriChayun (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Writing the article in your own words would be good. However, I don't think this musician is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to qualify for an article at this time. For musicians, the criteria can be found at WP:BAND. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thank you for answering. I read the criteria for musicians and found that this musician is notable enough for an article. She is one of the most popular and international artists in the Reggae/Dancehall industry and has many fans around the world. She has won several awards. She has many singles, one of them debuted on the Billboard Top 100 R&B singles charts and another single entered the Canadian Dancehall charts at number one. She collaborated with international artists such as Missy Elliott, Mya, Busta Rhymes and more, performed onstage with others such as Trina and Ne-yo. She has been featured on mainstream newspapers and radio stations in the United States and Europe. She released her debut EP in 2014 and her debut album is expected to be released this summer under VP Records. Could I ask you kindly to reconsider this subject? Thank you, — OriChayun (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What you need to do is find at least three in-depth sources independent of the subject of the article. This will go a long way to establishing notability. I suggest you first write your article in draft space. Please see Wikipedia:Drafts for how this is done. Remember, don't copy from other websites. All content needs to be written in your own words. A good place for new users to get help is at the Teahouse. — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I'm sure you have many of these, but here is yet one more. I looked for some kind of "helping barnstar", but this one is equally valid. (And only the fiftht I ever has given) Boeing720 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Diannaa, I'd like to thank you for the excellent work you are doing on the SS article -- it's a challenging task, but you are editing and herding the cats at the same time in a very constructive way. The images you picked for the rest of the article were excellent. I especially liked the one you added to the Ideology section. Thanks again. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, very kind of you to say. — Diannaa (talk)

File:TWS.jpg

This is {{PD-simple}} but mistagged as unfree. Can you undelete the deleted revision of the file? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Unfortunately it's a little blurry and there doesn't seem to be any clearer versions available :/ — Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

CaptainHog again

Hey Dianna, you may remember the CaptainHog situation from the WSFF page. The user claimed the station didn't broadcast in HD even though sources said it did. He socked a couple times, they were SOCK blocked by you. Well, he's back. Same crap, different account. Could you give me a hand, please? Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, this is definitely CaptainHog. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, much appreciated. If you want to end the SPI as moot or let it run, either is fine.

On a different topic, I apologize for how I acted during this thread. I was coming off a "walk away" WikiBreak and I was still a little testy. No excuse for being snippy, which is why I didn't respond to your last post in that thread. I didn't want to snap and say something really rude or blockable. I should have held my temper, I didn't and I'm sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice any snippiness, but thank you for the apology all the same. Best, — Diannaa (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI Notification

Since you were involved in the blocking of one of the sockpuppets of User:CaptainHog, I am notifying you of yet another SPI regarding the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

...and again...

Got this lovely message on my talk page earlier, clearly a DUCK sock. I think a checkuser is in order. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you are probably having dinner, I'm going to loop in Ohnoitsjamie and Jpgordon on this as well. They have previously blocked other CaptainHog socks. Jamie, JP, a checkuser is requested to weed out any sleepers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's him. But MikeV blocked him for the username alone. He already has an unblock request up, denying that he's a sock. I have nominated the images for deletion on the commons as being out of scope, no conceivable encyclopedic uses. — Diannaa (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That's par for the course for him. Get blocked, deny he's a sock, rinse, repeat. I do think that a checkuser needs to be run to weed out any sleepers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to block/deny any socks as needed, but I don't have checkuser. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Image question

Since you're an image expert, and I see also are involved in Commons, I was wondering if you might be able to take a peek at the two "Queeg" photos at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 14, as they are being discussed there and at Commons. Switching between two projects on the same photos is making me dizzy. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

File:David Muse Studio Theatre Washington DC Artistic Director.jpg

Good morning.

I sent the Studio Theatre a request to resend permission to use this file. They have sent a permission email permissions-en@wikimedia.org with a bcc to me. I placed the {{OTRS pending}} in the file. May I remove the {{di-no permission}}?

Thanks

ed

Ecragg (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ecragg. The problem is that a permission email was already sent, but it did not meet our requirements in some way. Usually this means that they did not specify a license, or they specified a license that's not compatible, or they specified "for Wikipedia use only", or specified "for non-commercial use only". So if they just re-sent the same email, we still don't have adequate proof that the file has been released under license. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Centre for Finance and Development

Hi Diannaa, the material is indeed from the CFD website, written by the director JL Arcand. He asked me if it could be added. Since I thought it was sufficiently neutral I though it could. It is thus with permission from the copyright holder. Could I place it back?

Bquast - No, you can't, not unless we have written permission from the copyright holder. There's instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials and there's a sample email at WP:consent. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, dank you for clarifying this for me. I will try to do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bquast (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Atrush Field

How come the Atrush Field article was removed by the copyright rules? All information was published publicly by ShaMaran Petroleum Corp, a company who is one of the owners of Atrush Field. Why can't this information be quoted and written here on Wikipedia?

SNMQ (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Published" is not the same thing as being in the public domain. The material is under copyright, as it was previously published in various copyright sources. We can't include it here without written permission from the copyright holder. There's instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials and there's a sample email at WP:consent. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Laura Branigan

I recently got involved in a edit conflict on article Laura Branigan. It is a long story, but among other things, the conversation on the talk page isn't even in complete English. I think the conversation isn't fair as it appears all involved have a odd off viewpoint. The Official website has tried to fix this in the past themeselves, which is a conflict of interest. But that doesn't mean the website isn't a official source. This is beyond odd. Also, both Thomas.W and Born53 swe seem to be sockpuppets of each other.

The conflict is over date of birth, and birth location. Please look at links they are using as references, and the link I was using. (All can be found on the Laura Branigan talk page.) I'm asking for a outside opinion and how this can be addressed. Devilmanozzy (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of what has happened. For 7-8 years now, or more, Laura Branigan's former manager has been guarding his version of the article, listing Laura's birth year as 1957, systematically reverting all attempts to correct it, and removing all sources supporting 1952 as the correct year of birth (see page history). Editing that resulted in multiple blocks last year, and in the article being protected for lengthy periods of time. For a few months now everything has been fairly calm, until Devilmanozzy shows up out of the blue, an account that is a few years old but has never edited the article before, and has mostly edited "kid's stuff", until they suddenly decided to return the article to the former manager's preferred version, removing all sources supporting 1952 as year of birth and replacing them with a link to the manager's own website, and on top of that accusing me of sockpuppetry... Thomas.W ^talk 08:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

First off, a user (from Sweden) came to Ghostbusters Wiki and was trying to promote this false birthdate and location. I was not aware of this til yesterday. I have reached out to the official site and Kathy Golik (Laura Branigan legacy manager) answered and when inquiring about the birth date and birth location she noted Wikipedia conflict among other things as the source of the spread of Disinformation. There is no reason they would get the information wrong. I'm a fan of Ghostbusters, and its soundtrack. That is why I'm here. Devilmanozzy (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. What are you going to tell me next, that Santa Claus is for real? Thomas.W ^talk 10:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The worst part is, you are making up the birth day and location and actively fighting it without references. If you can find the official obituary (not a user submitted website), that would rest this issue. But until then, the most official is the official website. Devilmanozzy (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not making up anything, and it wasn't me who changed the year of birth from 1957 to 1952, I'm only "defending" the article since 1952 is better supported than 1957. But let's keep the discussion on Talk:Laura Branigan, and not here. Thomas.W ^talk 11:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to come here. You went through my recent "User Contributions" to find this talk page. I came here to get a dependable user that understands what the grounds are and if you or I have a case. She can read all the information and decide what should be done. Also, I brought her in because I detected that it would come to this really quickly. Devilmanozzy (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't. You ping'ed me to this discussion by linking to my username in your first post here, which is an invitation to join the discussion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not part of the admin's job to assess the quality of sources or resolve conflict disputes. If you can't resolve it on the article talk page, please consider dispute resolution. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution lists some options and venues. — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa, Thanks for the link. Folks came over to resolve this. Sorry about the mess on your talk page. :( Devilmanozzy (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't much of a content dispute, it's the former manager's version, with no third party sources to support it, against everything and everyone else. Which is why the former manager was blocked multiple times here last year for pushing his version... Thomas.W ^talk 14:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

user:capankajsmilyo

CCI required for this user with autopatrolled flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.7.167 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Marcus Simaika

Hi Diannaa, I hope you are well. I have now sorted out the citations in the Marcus Simaika page. There are no more citations to be added or edited.

Can you please remove the 'page issues' tag which greets any reader of the page ( and which states that "additional citations are needed for verification")?

Thank you very much

Youssef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssef simaika (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There's still a lot of material that has no citations. — Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Eranbot

Diannaa we are putting together a talk for Wikimania about the plagiarism detection tool. I will try to compile some statistics to support our presentation. Your input - as the #1 user - is much needed. Some questions:

What statistics would you like to see?
Are there any trends or recurring plagiarism issues (user-based, not issues with the bot)?
Any interesting anecdotes or stories?
How much time does patrolling and fixing these plagiarism issues take (average or maybe per batch of 10)?

You get the idea, any and all input would be welcome. At Wikimania, we'll try to get more programmers' time to improve the bot. So, remember to add suggestions on the bot's discussion page. Thanks, --Lucas559 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to take on the GA review for Schutzstaffel

As the nominator for GA status of the article Schutzstaffel, I am writing to get your opinion on a proposal for me to take on the GA review of this extremely important topic. The article is quite large, and is supported by a huge number of references. There are several things that I would offer for consideration before I would take on this task (and someone else may have grabbed the review, and I could already be too late by the time you read this and respond, which is a calculated risk on my part):

I would estimate that my review of this article would take us well towards the end of April. Part of the reason is that I will be completey offline for the first 10 days of April. The other, and more important reason, is that I tend to be very detailed and thorough, and therefore pretty slow. In addition, I would also try to have a look to see if I have access to many of the referenced sources used, which will also take additional time.

I have only done 7 GA reviews to date, but only started doing reviews after I was well satisfied that I had a complete grasp of the criteria, and was comfortable that I have a systematic approach to each review. On my user page, you will see a listing of the 7 reviews and their outcome, in case you are interested.

So much for the (possible) cons. On the pro side, I speak and read German fluently, which should be an asset to this review. I am an avid reader of German history from WWI through today, which is not necessarily supported by the work I have done on Wikipedia, but is something you will have to take my word for. I also bring with me a good amount of inherent knowledge on this subject, which I come by from said reading and study of German history. Just as a small example: My current reading list includes the 1400-page tome entitled "Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion", Volume 4 of the invaluable series Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg.

I am happy to abide by a "support" or "oppose" vote by you and other key authors of this article on the question on whether you would like me to review this entry. Given the nature of the topic, and the vast amount of work put in by you and others, I felt it was only right to see whether you would be supportive of a lengthy and diligent review for GA status.

Thank you - and please feel free to ask me any questions you want answered before making a call on this proposal. --Concertmusic (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Concertmusic. Thank you very much for your interest in taking on this important work. Since you will not be available in the first part of April, I think I would prefer to leave the article in the queue. If it's still awaiting review when you are once again available, please feel free to take it on. Thanks again, — Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes very good sense to me - thank you for your prompt response! --Concertmusic (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that screw-up a few minutes ago-never a good idea to use a cell phone for an update. --Concertmusic (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Quick style consult

Hi Diannaa, there's something I'd like to run by you if you have a minute. The topics that I deal with often involve assessments/opinions rather than statements of fact, so my prose tends to incorporate direct quotations from sources. I just want to check to see if that's okay, or I should try to rely less on direct quotations.

Some examples:

The Rommel myth at B. H. Liddel Hart article
Arthur_Nebe#Assessment

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman. Our wp:non-free content policy, particularly this section, calls for quotations to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Everything should be written in your own words, as much as humanly possible. — Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

" Hello Guy who reads a lot, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Ender in Exile has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here."

I have no way to verify your statement, since the text was deleted in a way that does not allow me to see what text you deleted. Guy who reads a lot (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a plot description, beginning "In the story, Ender and Valentine Wiggin are on their way to the new human colony planet Shakespeare" — Diannaa (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Limerick Nuclear Power Plant

Hi Dianna, Can you please help me to understand why you keep removing factual information about Limerick? I have modified using my own words all factual and you are still claiming copywrite material and blocking me.

I can no longer make any edits. How can I satisfy your requirements? It seems only positive and biased pro-nuclear comments on Limerick are allowed? A waste accident happened at Limerick and you are deleting it. I am very confused about your intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.124.116 (talk • contribs)

All of the material was copied from the source without any changes whatsoever, in violation of copyright law. That's why I removed it. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Shuffle Along, or, the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed

Can you show me the material that you removed from the article? (Or, even better, the diff from the prev. version?) Feel free to e-mail it to me, if you don't want it on-wiki. I might be able to rework it to avoid any copyright problem. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have sent it to you via email. — Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some work on the Background section, and it should solve the problem. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The copyvio detector shows all clear on your addition. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/711535319

Why did you change the date? The uploader was notified in Special:Diff/709148329, i.e. the template date matches the notification date. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems that the uploader removed three notifications from the talk page later on the same date. Maybe you missed this? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Page Mann (chess)

I don't see the reason to delete the whole page.

Why can't you help me out instead?

It's not fair users with more previleges draw some rapid conclusions (hocus pocus) delete content without necessary have to.

Regards Sunny3113 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much all the content was copied from the source web page, in violation of copyright law. Plus, the article was mis-named as "Mann (Chess)" when it should have been "Mann (chess)" or "Man (chess)". I have restored it as requested and cleaned it up and moved it to Mann (chess). Not sure "Mann" is correct, as the source page says "Man". — Diannaa (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate alot that the page got restored! and yes i shouldn't have copied the text directly over from that website. I will add more content to the page. Regardig the appropriate name i'm not sure whether Mann or Man is the correct, i know Man is used in germany. Sunny3113 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:William Byron Rumford.jpg

File:William Byron Rumford.jpg is a photo found among his effects and has been in the family for decades. How do I prove ownership when the original photographer is no longer alive? Compsciasaur (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ownership of the photo does not transfer the copyright. The image remains under copyright for a photo with a known author with a known date of death for 70 years after the death of author. If the photographer is unknown, the photo remains under copyright for 120 years. The photographer holds the copyright, unless it was a work for hire, in which case the copyright holder is the person who paid for the photo. Please see the Commons:Hirtle chart for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ideology of the SS

D - the consensus has been to delist from GA. I have done part of the process to close but cannot get the talk page "article history" reset part quite right. Can you have a look. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, via addition of Article History template. I have re-assessed as "C" Class. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains into List of the major 4000-meter summits of the Rocky Mountains. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As the author of both articles, I do not feel that attribution is appropriate. Yours aye, Buaidh 15:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Buaidh: Your edit triggered a bot report at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/24.You are correct that in that instance attribution is not strictly necessary. However, if you could mention in your edit summary if the content is copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia (even if you wrote the source article), that would be helpful, and would save you from receiving such notices in the future. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea for a human to take a look at the articles before sending out these notices. Yours aye, Buaidh 16:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My apologies for the inconvenience. — Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for all your great work. The Rocky Mountains rule! Librarians rule! Yours aye, Buaidh 18:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Revdel

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Done — Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding page: Young Rail Professionals (YRP)

Hi Diannaa,

I am struggling to understand the reason for deletion of the page Young Rail Professionals. I have edited the content to ensure that a clear third party view is provided. The page was deleted immediately after. Any explanation would be much appreciated.

Sunny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinavsunny (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There were three concerns, A7: notability; G11: worded like and advertisement; G12: copyright violations. Notability requirements for organizations calls for in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the organization. Of the citations in the article, there was only one such source. The rest were the organization's own web pages. Another primary reason for deletion is because some of the material was copied from http://www.youngrailpro.com/about-yrp/regions/ and other related web pages. You can't add copyright material here, even if you have received permission from the copyright holder to do so, unless the copyright holder releases the material to Wikipedia under license. Please see WP:donating copyrighted materials for information on how this is done. — Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you Diannaa for your help on History of South America -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that's the last one done now. — Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Production car - copy from stock car

Thanks for alerting me to this. I was not aware of the rule, and thank you for annotating the edit. NealeFamily (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio

Could you check Municipal Corporations in India, might have copied from other sources and some from this page.--Vin09 (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You were right. I have removed it and warned the user who added it. Thanks for repoprting, — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles need auto-confirmed protection

Japanese tanks of World War II and Tanks in the Japanese Army need protection from a "rolling" ip, who keeps adding the same unsourced material, over and over; I warned them twice on two ip talk pages but they keep coming back in a slow motion edit war. They have been reverted by myself, Denniss, and Nick-D. Please have a look, thanks, Kierzek (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have pending-changes protected the two articles, which should make things easier for you. Cheers. Lectonar (talk)

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hi Diannaa,

Thank you very much for your comments and observations. You are quite right on all your points. I am not sure how to remove it all, but will do my best unless there is an automated way of doing this.

I thought it was a simple process of updating the pages but the situation in the company is complicated and this also affects what I so far have written on the pages, ie. it is not entirely correct. I guess you live and learn...sometimes the hard way.

Thank you for pointing this out to me.

Kind regards, Jens — Preceding unsigned comment added by TherealJPO (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Prius PHEV

Hi Diana, this is to let you know that you removed a lot of content from the article that is not related to the press release you questioned. For example, you removed the update of the sales table through Dec 2015, 100% unrelated to the press release, and this content cannot be restored now . It took a lot of work, because this is a piecemeal work from several sources. I ask you to be more careful if you are going to delete permanently material from an article. In fact, it would have been more constructive if you asked and provide a change to ce the material. I have experience with GA revision, and always, there is a chance to correct an error. Not nice--Mariordo (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed my diff and there were no edits to the sales table. Only prose was removed. — Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi Diannaa,

You recently deleted File:Britney Gallivan Folding.jpg. I think that the reasons given by the nominator were faulty, and left a comment to this effect on the file talk page (now also deleted). Did you take these comments into consideration? If not, I request that you reconsider deletion. If so, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the right venue for reversing the decision (is it Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, or somewhere else?).

Thanks, JBL (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the remarks on the talk page. The reason the file qualifies for speedy deletion is because there's nothing in the image that can't be described using words alone (fails NFCC #1). Also, images of living people automatically fail NFCC #1 as a free image could still be created, because the person is still living. If you wish to pursue further, the place to go is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion, but I'll think it over. --JBL (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kmc-Subset137

Hello Diannaa, I changed the copyright line related to the original http://www.kmc-subset137.eu to read: "Copyright Neat S.r.l. (P.IVA 1040148006). The text in this site can be used under the terms of the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". Is this enough to avoid "Speedy deletion" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zullinux (talk • contribs) 10:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

All or some of your addition(s) to Key management has had to be removed

Hello Diannaa, is there a way to see the exact infringing material you removed from the page ? If I either go to the history and/or to my own contribution I cannot see the text I added ? If I recall correctly I took the description from the original source and the site explicitely authorises that in http://www.era.europa.eu/Pages/Copyright_Notice.aspx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zullinux (talk • contribs) 10:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The place where I found the matching prose was http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/SUBSET-137%20v100.pdf, which has a copyright notice "© This document has been developed and released by UNISIG" at the bottom of every page. I can send the removed material to you by email, as I don't want to reproduce it here. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I received the email. Do you think that simply re-phrasing the sentence is enough for addition of the relevant info ? Zullinux (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It has to be thoroughly re-written. I can check your proposed version via email if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Guatemalan vandal again

Here is the IP from the vandal 190.104.120.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I will not be very active in Wikipedia in the coming days unfortunately due to a loss in the family. Erick (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your loss. The four most recent IPs are:

190.104.120.32
190.104.120.136
190.104.120.148
190.104.120.240. Range remains 190.104.120.0/24. No one else is using that range. Blocked for 3 months. — Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Spook House

I'm going to revert blanking. Lovecraft's text is taken from the Wikisource page which states that the work is in the public domain: "Works published in 1927 would have had to renew their copyright in either 1954 or 1955, i.e. at least 27 years after it was first published / registered but not later than 31 December in the 28th year. As it was not renewed, it entered the public domain on 1 January 1956." As Lovecraft's text has been available on Wikisource for 12 years, I see no reason to have it removed from Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not certain why this has been posted at my talk page??

Copyright violations: final warning

Please don't add copyright material to this wiki, not even temporarily, like you did at Autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia. Please re-work the content before you save it. This is the second time you have been warned about this unacceptable practice. This is your final warning. Any further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

will take this to help desk,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
have placed complaint here Wikipedia:Help desk#not certain why I'm receiving this, it seems harassing to me, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

W&G

Why was the Draft:List of Wallace and Gromit characters deleted. You said it was a copied ^[1] which I had never Sean b4 I ask on the talk page but got no response is it possible to get it back and maybe rewriting a bit so it can passed a be a page.

In addition to the link provided by the nominator, the material appears to have been copied from pages such as http://www.wallaceandgromit.com/films/a-grand-day-out, http://www.wallaceandgromit.com/films/the-wrong-trousers, http://www.wallaceandgromit.com/films/a-close-shave, and so on. These are the sources you provided in the article, so it's not possible you never saw them before. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

is it possible to restart or something with your help

Sorry, this topic is not a priority for me. — Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

what should I do about it then?

While one person who assessed the draft said the idea has some potential, there were additional problems (other than copyright violations) mentioned on the draft page:

notability concerns
lack of third-party reliable sources
no lead section
excessive intricate detail

I would have to say that a draft on this topic would not be accepted for publication unless these obstacles were overcome, especially the sourcing. — Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.klikdvd.com/product/detail/10596/shaun-the-sheep-the-farmers-llamas-2015.html

Mary Roach Photo Deletion

Hi Diannaa - I noticed that the image File:Mary_Roach_by_Siska.jpg was removed from the Mary Roach page. Please tell me how to add the photo back in correctly. I've been struggling with the photos on her page for a while now and every time I think I've done it correctly, it gets removed before I can figure out the next step. The photo was give to me by Mary Roach to help her out, also the photo already exists online for use by anyone who downloads it. Any help would be really appreciated. Thanks Misschrisparker (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't permit non-free images of living people, because they fail our non-free content requirements, as they are easily replaceable by a freely licensed image. In fact there are plenty of properly licensed photos already in place in the article, so many in fact that she already has her own category on the Commons: commons:Category:Mary Roach. Just because photos appear elsewhere online does not mean they are in the public domain. Virtually everything you find online is subject to copyright laws. If the copyright holder wishes to release the photo to Wikipedia under license, there's instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials and a sample permission email at WP:consent. — Diannaa (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Civil Bank Limited

Please undo delete of the page Civil Bank Limited. I had already declared that I am associated with the company.

The article was deleted because it contained copyright violations, and the organization does not meet our notability requirements. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

you might have noticed the references that i have cited.

You can't copy from other websites, even if you cite them as sources. We don't accept copyright content copied from elsewhere in violation of copyright law. Regardless, the bank does not qualify for an article at this time. Establishing notability as Wikipedia defines it, requires extensive coverage of the organization in multiple independent reliable sources, and you don't have that. For further information on copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright or the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights. For further information on notability for organizations, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Jenna Arnold

In trying to create a page for Jenna Arnold, I came across the following message: "A page with this title has previously been deleted." In concordance with the successive instructions, I am contacting you (the deleting administrator) to ask for guidance. What are my next steps in recreating a page with similar content, but without the copyright issue for which the last submission was deleted? Your help would be much appreciated.

Editor2727 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC) editor2727

The page was deleted in October 2014 as a copyright violation of this page. If you need help getting started writing an article, please consider asking at the WP:Teahouse or have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. — Diannaa (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

how to deal with disruptive reversions of deletion proposals

hi diannaa,

i have proposed a page for deletion, and gave a pretty good reason (pertaining to the weaknesses of the Ito integral,which is central to mathematical finance) but i noticed someone reverted my request without a reason.

if this happens again, i do not think i can propose it for deletion, can i? is it possible you could help me with this because i know my reasons for requesting deletion are mathematically sound, and it seems unfair they can just remove it without reason (and thus make it difficult to delete the page, even though they provided no reason).

any advice would be great. thanks 174.3.155.181 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

IPs cannot nominate articles for deletion; you have to be a registered logged-in user. The pages you created at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mathematical finance and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mathematical finance (3rd nomination) are not actual deletion discussions, as you posted them on talk pages, and they are not transcluded onto the main AFD page, which is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I am deleting these malformed AFD discussions. I see you also opened a discussion on the talk page, which is good. However, two editors have already posted saying they oppose deletion, so I don't think your idea to delete the article will gain much support. — Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI discussion

SPI Policy discussion may be of interest to you: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Sexist.2C_discriminatory_language_in_WP:FAMILY. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Bugging you again

Could you kindly restore Clinton Anderson (horse trainer)? Some overeager wielder of the mop failed to prod tag or notify any of us who were working on the article. It was a stub, but this is a notable individual. A clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thanks. (If you really don't think it passes the smell test, can you at least userfy it in a sandbox of my account? Montanabw ^(talk) 05:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. I see you have also asked the deleting admin, who has not edited since your ask. Please wait a few days or a week for them to resume editing. If he doesn't get back to you by then, I would be happy to userfy, as there's no real solid claim of notability right now. Also, a user with a COI had recently been messing with the page, replacing our solid little stub with promotional drek and puffery, so you will want to roll it back to before their edits. — Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm upset that it was deleted without even a PROD too, and I thought I had it watched, so I'm not sure how somebody snuck puffery in there. However, I did find a few sources if it's undeleted. [2][3][4][5] Not all of them may be good, but the Western Horseman seems like the best of the lot. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it was copyvio from his website as well. DYK he came to the US in 1997 with $400 in his pocket and a big dream? Read more at http://www.clintonanderson.com/Home/Clinton ! — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fred Schneider - copying from Wikipedia

What material are you referring to? Pkeets (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Diannaa. Thanks for your help with Chevalier (film) and the note placed on the user's talkpage. I don't think they've acknowledged this in any way, which is why I'd like to bring this to your attention. On the following day they made this edit. Part of it was removed by an IP editor who correctly spotted the copy & paste plot. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I see the editor was also warned back in April 2015. I am blocking for persistent copyvio. Thanks for helping to monitor; there's far more work than I can do alone. — Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again with your help with this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

copyright deletions

After some 7,000 editions I left wikipedia a few years ago, burnt out with one-sided editors, especially nationalists. Back then, getting a message in your inbox was often followed by a shriek. Back then, citations was all the rage. And that was fine.

Scars were apparently closed and I have been making a slow coming back for the last two-three weeks. Apparently, one sided editors abound as ever and fringe opinions are standard as long as a few one-sided editors are enough to bully the rest. But upon my comeback, I have stumped with the new black: copyright.

If online content of a book which you can find for free over the internet is subjected to copyright and if the free online version of a magazine such as foreign policy is also under copyright... besides all the reversions, could you at least let me know what is not subjected to copyright? The SSNP additions you reverted added interesting and updated material which -I guess- nobody will be able to find without the copyright issue.

If you are too busy reverting copyrighted content all over, dont bother to reply and show me the copyright policy, for I'm thinking to leave again wikipedia anyway (indulging in POV additions only seems to be the alternative). Receiving messages from 'fellow' wikipedians seems to remain a reason to shriek after all these years. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 22:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mountolive. Sorry for not realizing that you did not know how copyright applies to Wikipedia editing. I should not have assumed. Practically everything you find online is subject to copyright and (with the exception of short, clearly marked quotations) cannot be copied here without express written permission of the copyright holder. All content you add to this wiki must be written in your own words. I have left detailed information on your talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. In fact, the reason why I was copying verbatim text from the source is because -not being a native English speaking myself- I thought it would be the best way to keep those removed editions squeaky clean; besides, I thought block copying would be the best way to keep the integrity of the source, uncontaminated with my own views. I thought quoting these pieces was going to be enough, but I understand now there is a need for quotation marks and/or paraphrasing.

I have tried these in the SSNP article. Please give it a look and let me know if that is salvageable now (please bear in mind that there are only so many ways to paraphrase something like, for example "Party officials say there are approximately 8,000 fighters belonging to the group fighting across Syria, whereas the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights puts the figure closer to 6,000", at least for a non native English speaker).

If still not ok, I would appreciate your own input -only once, as a demonstration means.

And thank you for keeping civil after my rant yesterday. In this regard, I suggest that whenever you revert based on copyright, you include in your message some extra explanations such as the ones you left at my talk page. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 10:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Normally for users who have been here a while, I only leave a short note, under the assumption that people who have been editing here a while will have taken the time to have made themselves familiar with our policies and guidelines. The info I placed on your talk page is extracted from {{uw-copyright-new}}, which leads off with "Welcome to Wikipedia"; hardly an appropriate thing to be placing on the talk page of an editor who has been here ten years, so that's why I did not use it.

Placing stuff in quotation marks is not a good alternative to writing your own content. Your new version only reduces the overlap with the source to 61.1 per cent, down from 69.9 per cent according to the copyvio detector tool. In addition, presenting the same content in the same order as the source is considered too-close paraphrasing, which is also considered a copyright violation. I am going to have to remove the material again, as it's still a copyright violation. Also, the material is the opinion of the writer of the article, not basic facts (for example the statement that "the SSNP sees the war as an attempt to partition Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon along ethno-sectarian lines" - is this a proven fact, or the opinion of the writer of the article?), yet you are presenting the material in Wikipedia's voice as though it was proven truth. I'm not sure this material belongs in the article at all.

"Party officials say there are approximately 8,000 fighters belonging to the group fighting across Syria, whereas the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights puts the figure closer to 6,000" can be simply paraphrased as "Estimates of the number of SSNP fighters in Syria range from 6,000 to 8,000". The point that the party was banned in Syria is already covered in the section "The SSNP in Syria". — Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As an administrator, you can certainly do better than serially block reverting a user in good faith who only stepped by in that particular article out of pure chance, did so using a source from a reputable source (foreign policy is not the worst out there) and then tried to improve his edition according to your advice -unsucessfully, though.

Would you -exceptionally- rewrite that section in a way that abides by the copyright standards? This way the article will get a great update, and I will learn something from you.MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 20:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I was initially going to do that, but looking closer at your edit, I found several other problems: The point that the party was banned in Syria is already covered in the section "The SSNP in Syria"; and some of the other content, such as the statement that "the SSNP sees the war as an attempt to partition Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon along ethno-sectarian lines" is being presented in the article in Wikipedia's voice as though it was proven fact, when it actually appears to be the opinion of the person who wrote the source article. I'm not sure this material belongs in the article at all. That's why I didn't propose an alternate re-write. — Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Western canon

Diannaa, sorry, I'm afraid that I was moving too fast and got carried way with enthusiasm. Thanks for placing the attribution details. Rwood128 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted overreaction and inexplicable inconsistency

You completely removed from history my edits to the "California State University, Fullerton massacre" article, denying the opportunity to make satisfactory amendments, even threatening me with *be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)*, claiming "copyright content copied from http://columbine-angels.com/School_Violence_Prior_to_August_1980.htm", even though my addition was entirely rewritten and only a few phrases were borrowed from that site, yet you have no problem with the "January 27, 1981" entry in the "List of school shootings in the United States" article being copied verbatim from http://columbine-angels.com/School_Violence_1980-1981.htm . Can you explain why? 82.30.110.20 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on California State University, Fullerton massacre, it appeared on a bot report, User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/24. I removed your edit, as we cannot host copyright content in violation of copyright law, not even temporarily. You are welcome to re-write the content in your own words. Regarding List of school shootings in the United States, the wayback machine shows a version of the source article with the content in question as far back as July 2008. The history of our article shows the content was added on November 17, 2015, with this edit. As to why I did not notice this copyvio previously, what can I say? - We have over 4 million articles, and I have never visited this one before. Thank you for reporting this. I will clean it up. Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would have been happy to rewrite the content, but sadly you destroyed my only copy. I saw that report you mentioned, it showed a 66% match for five or six lines of content, there was no figure for the entire rewritten section. Clearly I wasn't suggesting you check every article but, as you said, it was a bot that drew your attention to my edit, yet it has had since 2008 to find the one I mentioned. Oh well, c'est la vie, or as the French would say, "pfffft, Engleeesh peeg". 82.30.110.20 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This particular bot did not exist in 2008; it only started work on January 8, 2015, and is still at present only working intermittently. What it is doing (when it is turned on) is checking all additions of a certain size against archived web content, using a service called Turnitin / iThenticate. There's some background material here. The bot is working pretty much non-stop today, with 154 new items added in the last 24 hours or so, so unfortunately it will not be possible for me to provide violators with the opportunity to re-write the content, as the logistics and time involved to follow up and ensure it actually gets done makes it impractical. We do not have a bot that checks existing content against the Web; to do so is possible but is prohibitively expensive, as that would be done through ~~Yahoo~~ Bing, which is the service we use for Coren Search bot and the copyvio detection tools.

I have spent considerable time and effort cleaning up copyvio from cases listed at WP:CCI. The first one I did was Racepacket, back in 2013. I am currently working on Epeefleche, and have been (on and off) since January 2014. Epeefleche continued editing while the CCI was underway, until in July 2015, when we had an anonymous tip that he was still adding copyright violations to the wiki. He still did not understand at that point that adding copyvio is not okay, but he at least stopped editing. So someday soon I will be able to wrap up that case. We have several other similar cases (Trident13, Gregbard) where the users believed they had a right to carry on regardless of the law. There's currently 155 cases with 76,229 articles and literally hundreds of thousands of diffs awaiting checking at WP:CCI. The advantage of the EranBot is that people will be notified immediately or within a few days that their edit is a copyright violation. For repeat / egregious violators, I follow up by monitoring their edits, and block if necessary. Thus my hope is that there will be no further Epeefleches, repeat copyright violators of long standing that people are afraid to challenge or block because of their long history here. — Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link, it is making for interesting reading, I, for one, appreciate the enormous, yet thankless, efforts people such as yourself put in. If only all admin were as conscientious and less "one-sided", "especially nationalist"ic, "fringe opinion"ated "bull"ies. I guess my "gripe", if I can even call it that, is that your bot detected phrases I had used that were scattered within the material you cited, and therefore it becomes a matter of what level of difference is detectable, and what percentage of the whole that constitutes. FYI, it is interesting that you claim that I "stole" from columbine angels, when in fact, I am noticing a lot of their content is copied almost verbatim from Associated Press news articles viewable on news.google.com/newspapers or directly copy-pasteable from the newspapers' websites archived content. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There's all kinds of discrepancies of that sort, and false positives too. — Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

After reading that article, and the reference to reputable sources now often using Wiki content as their source, isn't their a danger this bot will disappear up its own backside? 82.30.110.20 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Stefan Wyszyński

Good morning, thank you for checking behind me on my recopying stuff from the massacre article to this one. I see you edited my edit. Is it now up to snuff, or does it require further action on my part? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. No further action is needed on that edit. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Vivian Ho (artist)

Hi Diannaa, I just came across this puffed bio, and noted that you previously removed copyright violations. Since then, a number of accounts have worked diligently to create a press release. Perhaps you can have a look again, to check for copyright issues or other unacceptable characteristics. The language barrier puts me at a real disadvantage. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Checking using the copyvio detector reveals no issues. Some of the sources are in Chinese and I have no way to check those. — Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you so much! Xx Cool Guy7202 xX (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

u had left a message on my Talk page

hi.. this is with respect to the message u had left on my Talk page just a few hours ago. Ive created a few Wiki articles in recent past. Can u point out the specific article(s)/specific instances where u think i may have done Copyright violations? i will then try to remove those violations. Netstar1 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Netstar1. The page in question was Multi Agency Centre (India), and the content was copied from this government website. Web pages of the Government of India are not in the public domain, but are actually under copyright, and cannot be copied here. But I now see that you have also copied the same material into Multi Agency Centre. I am nominating that page for deletion. All material you add here has to be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

removing paragraphs from haridhra nadhi

in haridhra nadhi article, i didn't copy edit at all. some other users have made a large edit and collapsed the article. you have took off the main details which aren't copy edited. i will undo it. then i will take some info and write it without copyedit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki tamil 100 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wiki tamil 100. The paragraph "History of the tank", which you added in your very first edit to the page in Jarch, appeared in this blog post, dated January. That's why you received the copyright violation notice. — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Coldwell Banker Article

Thanks for the clarification - I will use all of your suggestions and repost within the guidelines. Pdogsi (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Charles Cardoza Poindexter

Diannaa, I didn't copy it from any website. I got it from a previous version of the article. [6] BlackAmerican (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the incorrect warning. The oldest revision saved by the Wayback machine was dated 2011, and this is dated 2007, so it's likely that they copied from us rather than the other way around. I'm not sure it's a good idea to restore it though, as all the sources are now dead links and none of them look like scholarly resources to me. http://www.munualphas.com/origin.html? http://www.skipmason.com/? — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I restore some of it, paraphrase it and use better reference links? BlackAmerican (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I have undone the revision deletion for that reason. You might try locating copied of these old web pages using the Wayback Machine: http://archive.org/web/web.php — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

List of school shootings in the United States

I wish to ask your assistance regarding the reverting by user Hmains of edits to this article, which took a great deal of time and were made in good faith. I understand their concerns, but was it necessary to undo all the effort instead of pointing out their concerns, allowing me the opportunity to make any corrections, rather than determining their decision on small details they disliked, while ignoring the overall contribution? This treatment has undermined my confidence in editing. Would you advise on the best course of action. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I already re-wrote the copyright violating material, as you can see here. It's my only edit to the page, so I am unclear about what corrections still need to be made or what it is that I did wrong. — Diannaa (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what the problem is: You want me to take sides in your edit war. No can do, homes. — Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, is that really how you saw this request? Very disappointing. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What if I just undo everything I have done, save everyone the time and effort? 82.30.110.20 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Spook House again

Some time ago, Ghirlandajo wrote this on your talk page, which you eventually archived without comment. Nor did you reply to his reply on his talk page (currently still visible at User talk:Ghirlandajo#The Spook House). It really deserves an answer, one way or the other - so far as I can tell, the text is in the public domain as claimed, but if I'm wrong (not unlikely) it'll need to be deleted over on Wikisource as well. —Cryptic 21:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. The material was published in 1927, it still could be under copyright. The Wikisource page says the copyright was never renewed, but I don't know how they determined that. I've cross-posted this message on their talk, and at Ymblanter's talk, where they also inquired. — Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I imagine they did the same as I did - search the 1954, 1955, and early 1956 renewal records for Lovecraft or Supernatural Horror in Literature in the Books and Contributions to periodicals section, or The Recluse (the magazine in which it was published) in the Periodicals section. —Cryptic 23:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, I suppose it is PD. — Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Is someone impersonating you?

I take it you did not make this comment. ... 32.218.45.217 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not post that; it was 82.30.110.20. — Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course she didn't make it, as you well know. For someone who only started editing today, and whose only contribution so far has been to make some minor grammatical changes, add citation needed notices, persistent undoing of the edits of others based on personal opinion, while posting warnings to their talk page, and posting this complaint to the Administrators' noticeboard, you seem to know an awful lot about how to edit Wiki and bully others to get your own way. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 32.218.45.217

Wauwatosa West High School

So anyone can revert my edits and if I revert theirs I am the only one warned for edit warring? 82.30.110.20 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You were warned for List of school shootings in the United States, as was the other editor on that page. — Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to 32.218.45.217's reverts to my edits on this page.

You removed his post. Please don't do that. I don't think you can ping IPs. — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Correct, IP addresses cannot be pinged. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean his whining complaint that I inadvertently overwrote, or the reverts of my edits on Wauwatosa West High School that I undid, but had to stop before risking another edit warring warning? It seems the person who starts the reverting has the upper hand, whether their initial revert was warranted or not. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And here we go again with John from Idegon. His summary says it all. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have some evidence of some sockpuppetry, do you still take that seriously? 82.30.110.20 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like assistance with your concerns while Diannaa is offline, you can leave a message on my talk page - I'll be happy to help you there :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios on Dreamcatcher

Thanks for hiding the revisions. I should have thought of that. Check out the image files posted by that user to commons; the same ones that were in those revisions. When the user uploaded them, they claimed they were their own work. But I looked around at other, also commercial, websites with various claims and I'm not so sure that's true, even if that is their store they were copying content from. I've proposed a couple of the files for deletion over at commons, and pinged the uploader, but so far no response. If there's no response by tomorrow I think we should delete all the image files, but I'm not an admin on commons so someone else will have to do that bit. I appreciate more eyes on it. Thanks! - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin on Commons either. Thanks for getting them tagged though. — Diannaa (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

BatissForever

Thank you very much. The article about the film Aban and Khorshid added their own description.

Keys of the kingdom

Hello, I noticed the deletion log mentioned at Keys of the kingdom and I am guessing you're talking about the portions quoting the bible, right? If so, I found this:

Copyright Information

The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows:

These Scriptures are copyrighted by the Biblica, Inc.™ and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or reposting on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form and must remain in their original context. These Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale.

So after reading this, my understanding is that so long as the clause is included and the limits are not breached, the quotes at that particular page are fine, right? Thank you for your attention to detail and adhering to the wiki rules :) - HafizHanif (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is kind of moot, as other editors have since removed the material. Regardless, the quotations were not Bible passages, but quotations from here. The website is marked as © Urantia Foundation. All rights reserved. — Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Oleg Marshev

Would you take a look at Oleg Marshev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There are possible copyvio issues.[7] Its an older article, so I'm not sure if our material is copied from elsewhere or if others copied from us. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

I endeavor to provide edit summaries for all my Wikipedia edits, and believe you will find similar edit summaries for my historical edits which copied material from one Wikipedia article into another. Thank you for bringing suggested formats to my attention, and I shall attempt to use them in the future. I nearly always edit the copied text extensively -- similar to editing content of reference sources for appropriate focus and information flow within the article structure. I would value your guidance about using the {{copied}} template where editing has been extensive. Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. Thewellman (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Copied template is confusing, that's for sure. A recent example of a placed where I used it is at Talk:Minarets of the Temple Mount. Content was moved there from Al-Aqsa Mosque to create a new article. The same was applied at the talk page of the source article. Feel free to let me know anytime in the future if you need help with its use (or any other topic where you think I can assist). — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

U left a message on my talk page

Thanks for your message. As you can see from the article's talk page I am still working on it. The original article seems to have been included both unreferenced material and very poor machine translated material. At least one of the quoted English sources contradicted the content so that was updated. Presumably you are saying that when copy editing each time another country's wiki is used you should identify those sentences as translated from there? I haven't seen that in the copy editing pages but I will re-read that before finishing the CE of the article. Isthisuseful (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Isthisuseful (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What I am saying is that when you import content from another language wiki like you did with this edit, you need to provide attribution in your edit summary, saying where you got the content from. Sample edit summary: "Attribution: this article contains material translated from the Spanish wiki article of the same name in April 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution." — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Thanks Diannaa, for the reminder. I have added some content again on the United Nations Forum on Forests page about the Wangari Maathai Forest Champions Award winners but without copying any text. Hope that is OK. Will take more care in future.Valoradam (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's okay. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Tse

Hi there! I'm not sure whether this is the right place to put this, but here goes.

I saw that you recently edited Sarah Tse and I was wondering some things about the page. I am not affiliated with the subject of the article or the editor who remade the page; I was looking through Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and noticed that the page exists even though the request to undelete it was denied the same day the page was recreated. In my view, the page should not have been recreated, but I am unsure whether it is necessary to reopen the discussion about the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tse. The subject's notability and the article's neutrality seem to be in the same state as in 2010 even though copyright information was removed. Thanks. 2602:306:3BBE:2E60:5162:C647:631A:D97F (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have checked the version deleted back in 2010 against the most recent version, and the articles are very similar, so much so that I am going to have to delete it. I think the reason I missed this is because I was focused on the copyvio, and the version I was working on was created at Sarah tse, which did not have any deletion discussions attached. Thanks for your research helping out with this case. -- — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Digitalartgal

Hi, just a heads up that user Digitalartgal is back and adding copyrighted content to Australian art articles. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've warned the user not to use so much non-free content. Your edit summary here was rude and inaccurate. The user isn't "banned" from anything. — Diannaa (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry for the trouble, I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles. I work for the owner of the source of the copyrighted content. Have you got any suggestion as to how I could use this content on Wikipedia? License from the copyright owner? Because it seems that even paraphrasing is not allowed if the amount of the content is not considered small. Thanks. — Digitalartgal —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to paraphrase adequately when you only have one source to draw on. If the copyright holder wishes to release the material to Wikipedia under license, there's instructions how to do it at WP:donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. — Diannaa (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Thank you Gerda! Always nice to hear from you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Images on article HIAG

Hi, can you please help? I want to review the article HIAG but I am unsure if all the uploaded images are adequately licensed. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

File:SSWallonie.jpeg: This one has no source information, and no evidence that the copyright tag is correct. N it's gotta go
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 192-299, KZ-Mauthausen, Himmlervisite.jpg: Bundesarchiv image, everything is in order.
File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg, File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.jpg, File:Book-cover of Narwa by Richard Landwehr.jpg, File:Kurt Meyer and Paul Hausser at a HIAG convention.jpg, File:Paul Hausser and Kurt Meyer-at HIAG meeting 1957.png, File:HIAG assocation, post-World War II.gif, File:Der Freiwillige 1959 cover.jpg, File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg: Properly tagged as fair use and each has a source, so the licensing is okay.

So what we've got is 8 non-free images. Each needs to have a solid reason for inclusion. Where pics like this usually fail the WP:NFCC is on criterion #1 and #8. #1 says that non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. In many cases non-free images can be readily replaced by prose describing the event. #8 says that non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. So a pic of two guys at a conference does not meet that criterion. I think the photo in the info box can be justified, and two or three of the best examples of book/magazine covers, the ones that illustrate points raised in the article or cover material in their captions. I think the Der Freiwillige cover should stay, and The Myth of the Eastern Front. So, keep three non-free images: File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.jpg, File:Der Freiwillige 1959 cover.jpg, and File:Kurt Meyer and Paul Hausser at a HIAG convention.jpg. That's my opinion. I can cross-post this to the GA review page if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment. Please post at the GA review page. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted there, — Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Diannaa, Thanks for correcting me. I will surely follow all the Wikipedia:Copyrights guidelines in future. Kate A. Steel (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Financial Technologies Group

Hi Dianna,

Why did you hide the revision? Revisions fall under the copyright category too --- Changed visibility of a revision on page Financial Technologies Group: content hidden (RD1: Blatant copyright violations: http://www.ftindia.com/aboutus/managementteam/LeadershipProfile/Jignesh%20Shah.pdf)

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you're wondering why your reversion of the copyright violation is hidden, it's because the copyright material appears there too, as well as the diff where it was added. — Diannaa (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible Copvio

Diannaa, can you check Northern Plains Resource Council for copyvio? I think the expanded version is a copyvio from the organization's web site, but as I have a small COI on the issue and already reverted a similar copyvio in the past, I don't feel I should be the one to do the digging. Can you do your magic pixie dust check and handle it accordingly? Thanks! Montanabw ^(talk) 17:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Current version appears to be okay.
This revision (which someone else has already reverted) is loaded with copy vio from the corporate website and its subpages. I have done a revision deletion. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Chiaravalloti copyvio claim

Your recent edit to the article for Nicholas Chiaravalloti didn't merely "remove copyright content copied from http://www.saintpeters.edu/news/2011/04/14/saint-peters-college-welcomes-nicholas-a-chiaravalloti/"; it completely gutted the article, including material that is undeniably not taken from the source or covered by copyright. Please consider mechanisms that allow me and other editors to constructively address whatever issues may exist rather than destroy the article. Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have double checked my work and there's no mistake; the content I removed was all present in the source webpage http://www.saintpeters.edu/news/2011/04/14/saint-peters-college-welcomes-nicholas-a-chiaravalloti/. If you like, I could email you a copy of the material I removed. — Diannaa (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt that there may have been a copyright issue. But the claim that you made that the entire article should be blanked because no part of it was not a copyvio was patently false. That this issue could have been addressed without destroying the article should have been evident to anyone with a good faith interest in building an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I never said that the entire article should be blanked, and I did not destroy the article. All I did was remove some copyvio material not vital to the article, phrases that are better suited to inclusion in a resumé than an encyclopedia article (he provided assistance to clients, he oversaw operations, etc). — Diannaa (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Social Work

Before going for blocks kindly look into what is really happening. Editors like Softlavender and Jim1138 actions are synonymous to persistent vandalism. They edit out elements. They edit out sourced content. They are not willing to engage in a meaningful discussion. There objective is harmful to the the article. I am not sure and not going into research of there past activities. But to restrict access to talk page or article page is an extension of there need to close any good contribution. Many of those links are just labeled for personal interests. There are some genuine ones, but looking at the talk page one could find them resolved. Kindly look through thoroughly before granting these editors there wishes.61.2.171.197 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.197 (talk)

Kindly check, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#IP-hopping_vandal.2Ftroll_from_Kerala.2C_India_still_at_it._Need_a_permanent_solution. Also if any real concerns are there change the article edits to autoconfirmed managed by qualified editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Work. Opening talk page discussions after a week or two, if valid concerns were there is also a good attempt. So many of the flaming issues could be settled. It is important that it should be managed by editors with good track record from editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Work. Other editors who actively engage in reversions and blocks in it are not fit to handle the article.117.241.21.127 (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I did check, I looked at the diffs presented at ANI before I protected the page. There were over fifteen diffs presented where posts were vandalized or removed. This is an unacceptable level of disruption. All of the IPs involved are from Kerala, India, so I have to assume all this trouble is being caused by one person only: you. Please find something else to do with your time. — Diannaa (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Schutzstaffel

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Schutzstaffel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chesnaught555 -- Chesnaught555 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Diannaa, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect copyvio history deletion

Hi,

On this page Track_hub, @Justlettersandnumbers: requested that the history of the page be redacted as the original version of the article I created included blatant copyright violations. However, I feel the last revision of the page I made (22:23, 22 March 2016‎) no longer contained any copyright violations, let alone blatant copyright violations, and in addition Justlettersandnumbers first edit included "[removing] some of the unreferenced material". So I think that my last revision should not have been included in the copyvio-revdel, and I'm requesting that that one revision be restored so that I can add citations as needed. Hope this is clear and not too controversial. Many thanks, --Dan Bolser (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan Bolser. The revision deletion was done correctly. The copy vio appeared in the first revision and was removed by Justlettersandnumbers at 16:27, March 29, 2016‎. In order to remove the material from the history, all the intervening diffs have to be hidden. — Diannaa (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa! – I wasn't able to check that for myself. However, I do recognise that removing both unreferenced content and whatever residual copyvio there was with the same edit was careless on my part, and does indeed make it difficult for Dan Bolser to add references. Perhaps e-mail him the non-offending part (if there is one)? It seems that the notability of this concept is pretty minimal – the page should probably be redirected if there isn't comprehensive coverage in independent sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Would this be of any use to you, Dan? — Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I follow, my first commit had copyvio, but by the revision that contained my last commit, it was all gone (despite what Justlettersandnumbers wrote in that edit). What's wrong with restoring the last version where I made a small commit? In any case, please do send me the text of that commit. Thanks, --Dan Bolser (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost all of the copyvio was gone but there was still a small amount in that final diff. I have sent you a copy via email of the page as it existed as of your 22:23, March 22, 2016‎ edit. — Diannaa (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Schutzstaffel

The article Schutzstaffel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Schutzstaffel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chesnaught555 -- Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

re Fallon, Nevada

Hi, Diannaa, when I moved text from Fallon, Nevada into Grimes Point I clearly stated that I moved the text into main article. 3 paragraphs were moved. All the best, Eio-cos (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What you need to do is put this info in the edit summary at the destination page as well, please. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion of content on Catalcam, Dargecit

Please restore my edit on Catalcam, Dargecit. I spent 2 hours writing that section, and I meticulously rewrote everything in order to avoid a feeling of it being copy pasted. I can't even copy the prior edit and paste it into a word doc to readjust it because you locked me out of the prior edit and made it impossible to access. It should also be noted that I actually got the info I copy pasted and rewrote from a different source which AINA copied it from. The original source is cited in a different part of the article, and I am lead to believe it is the original source because it is written in a travelers personal blog, while AINA is a news organization that represents Assyrians- Catalcam is an assyrian village so someone may of added it to AINA. AINA was simply an additional source to back it up. I never would of cited it had I known my edit would be deleted- and I can't even try to fix or adjust it because I got locked out of the older revision I did.Cirflow (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The same content also appears on this blog post which (like the AINA web page) is dated October 2013. You did not paraphrase it adequately, as there was still far too much overlap, with a lot of what you posted in your edit being identical to the source. I won't be able to restore it. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I spent ample time paraphrasing it. Now because of you im going to have to copy paste it to the article, spend an hour or two rewriting it AGAIN, delete the AINA source that itself copied the information from a ( link- https://insearchofunusualdestinations.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/the-monastery-of-mor-ahothe-holy-crossdayro-daslibo-catalcamdayro-daslibo-mardin-turkey/ ) travelers personal blog, and replace it with the original source that I originally got all that from which didn't copyright the information- all because you refuse to restore it. Honestly, I don't even want you to restore it- I just want to see what it was I wrote so I can fix it and paraphrase it correctly rather then redo the entire thing and waste my time- but you deleted both the edit and the revision history, so I may be forced to do just that. You basically used your administrative powers to lock me out and delete my edit without consensus, and literally made it impossible to argue against. Im not even sure that's allowed under wikipedia policy as I didn't plagiarize the information and I spent time rewriting it in order to ensure it was original, therefore it should not of been speedily deleted as a copyright violation like you did. Could you at least tell me what was written there originally if you have access to the revision? Cirflow (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cirflow: Copy-pasting non-free text (other than “tair use”, properly attributed quotations) is simply not allowed on Wikipedia, even if it’s immediately reworked; our licensing requires a ‘clean’ attribution history for the benefit of both authors and reusers of the content. Subsequent editing just creates a “derivative work”, so all material based on a copyvio gets deleted, even if it’s no longer recognizable. Regarding the source you say “didn’t copyright the information”, every (recent) piece of writing is presumed to be copyrighted, whether or not there’s a notice or a © symbol on it, unless there’s an explicit free licence or “copyleft” statement.—Odysseus 1479 08:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

To sum up, you are not allowed to copy copyright material here, not even temporarity while you work on it. All the material you find online is copyright, even web pages that are not marked as such. Copyright protection is automatic, including for blogs. — Diannaa (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits to RespectAbility article

Hi Diannaa,

Thank you for trying to ensure that the RespectAbility entry meets Wikipedia standards. I noticed that you had reverted several of my edits to the page, and I certainly did not intend any wrongdoing in continuing to develop the content there. Just to give you some background, once she found out how much of a Wiki-holic (!) I am, RespectAbility founder Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi (who I know and have worked for) actually commissioned me to create and develop a RespectAbility Wiki page and personally recommended that I include the content that already appeared on the website. As a matter of fact, I didn't feel that the content I included on the page should be identical to that of the website and actually made the effort to reword certain elements myself (admittedly, I could have done a better job of that). Regardless of how it was worded, I feel (and believe Mizrahi would agree) that the essence of that content was important. Do you think it would be alright if I make another effort to integrate that information into the article, reworking the language a bit and/or summarizing it better? Unfortunately (from my perspective), many of my edits have been grayed out in the article "History," leaving me with less of a baseline to start with in reintroducing that content; given that I had already changed the words around (albeit slightly) from what was on the website, I would now need to start even further back- with the original content from the website, which- since I cannot remember exactly what modifications I had made- ends up making the graying out of my edits seem rather counterproductive. I don't suppose it is possible to un-"gray" those sections?

Also, what are your thoughts on upholding copyright violation laws, even when the CEO/developer of that content has authorized me to reproduce it exactly in this Wikipedia article? Does she/he need to provide some sort of written authorization?

Any advice or perspective you could add would be appreciated! Thanks.

-Matt (RockNWrite82)

You should not be editing this article at all, as you have a relationship with the founder. That means you have a conflict of interest. The website is worded very differently than an encyclopedia article, and is not the type of content we are looking for regardless of whether or not you have permission to post it here. For example, have a look at the material I removed in this edit. It looks like it was written by a public relations person, not the author of an encyclopedia. It's not the kind of content you would find in a paper encyclopedia, and it's not appropriate here either. I am not sure the organization meets our notability guidelines, and am tagging it for deletion on that basis. Another admin will have a look and decide what to do next. — Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, fair point regarding the conflict of interest; thank you for bringing my attention to that. In terms of the content being "advertorial," as you worded it in that edit you just brought up, I understand how certain articles can appear to be almost like promotional materials of sorts, but I felt like I did a fairly solid job of just sticking with facts about why the organization was founded, what it stands for, and the work it does, all while citing sources for much of this content. I agree that it is not worded like a typical encyclopedia entry, but I sort of thought that was the beauty of Wikipedia; it doesn't need to be a "conventional" encyclopedia! Perhaps that's my (mis)interpretation. I did not realize the rigidity of the policies that are in place. I admit that I could absolutely improve the article, but I don't think that alone is grounds for deletion of said article, as- I would like to think on a more objective level, others (not just me) would agree- this organization has a role to play in shaping disability policy and discourse around the subject matter. On that note, I appreciate your having another admin take a look at it.

As a final note, I would just like to say, I was not attempting to cause any harm or conflict by creating or continuing to edit this article. It was not my intention to just mess around on Wikipedia and recklessly edit and create pages at my own frivolity. I was simply trying to include information about an organization that is gaining prominence on the national scene. Part of why I love Wikipedia is that I enjoy learning and sharing knowledge I have gained myself and spreading factual information about important topics. In fact, you will notice that many of my previous edits to articles have involved correcting inaccurate information or reverting vandalism, often by citing (legitimate) sources. I consider it a privilege to edit Wikipedia and certainly had no intention of abusing that privilege by flooding it with meaningless articles. I would like to think that most other editors, including you, share these above sentiments. Thank you. - RockNWrite82 (talk)

Copyright?

Excuse me please. Wanted to ask why did you think that I copied the so-called summary for Re:Zero? Moreover, assume I got it from the site of www.MangaHen.com that I don't even go to. I'm not upset, just wondering what made you conclude that I was doing copyrights. To fill-in brinks for upcoming updates is all I'm trying to achieve. If I'm no good than I'll leave it to you or someone else.

Respond if you like, thank you. Nanashi II (Talk) 10:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The same plot description appears here, where it has been present since November 2015. Also here, dated July 2015. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Tanya Sharma

Hi, Diannaa! I see that you create-protected Tanya Sharma. It's back in our midst as Tanya Sharma (actress). If it's to be kept (and I've no opinion on whether it should be), then the disambiguation probably isn't needed. Since I'm here, might as well add that I'm not too confident that the image is OK. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The image looks to have been on her Twitter page since January, so I've tagged it for deletion over on Commons. She is still non-notable so I have A7'd it and creation-protected the new title. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mike Nussbaum

Per WP:DCV, rather than removing material you believed to be a copyvio, I would have preferred if you had first addressed any concerns on the Mike Nussbaum talk page. All the material you removed was properly attributed to its source and/or was also uniformly rephrased, per WP:WHYCITE. Even if you had concerns about close paraphrasing, although I believe my edits were all consistent with WP:CLOP, there were better methods of addressing it: from flagging it to discussing it, before deleting it. I take exception to your wholesale removal of this much content, so I have reverted some of that wholesale removal. This will enable the conversation on the talk page that should have preceded that removal anyway. I'm more than happy to discuss any edits, line by line, if necessary - and just as happy to rewrite or remove material, as necessary. Just as I expect you to be open to self-reverting, as necessary, if further discussion/consensus concludes that your edits were excessive. But your unilateral removal of that much significant content, without discussion, went too far. So as to centralize the conversation, please feel free to respond at the article's talk page. X4n6 (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What I take exception to, X4n6, is editors who repeatedly add copyright violations to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Diannaa's removal of content did not in this case go far enough: I've removed a mass more copyvio from Mike Nussbaum, which I have to assume was added by you, as it wasn't in the article before you edited it. Diannaa, since you've already edited there and will see this, I've not added a copyvio-revdel request. X4n6, I've also blanked Suzi Bass Award and Jack Mitchell (photographer), where in both cases there seems to have been extensive copy-pasting of copyright material from the day you created them. As I asked on your talk page, how much more of this is there? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned on your talk page, Justlettersandnumbers, what I also take exception to, are editors who use tools but don't seem to possess the necessary discretion to properly apply them. Or who fail to follow policy. I invite you to review WP:DCV, revert your edits and list your concerns on the appropriate talk pages. X4n6 (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's never okay to add copyright violations, as local consensus cannot override WP:copyrights, an official Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. Excessive quotations violate our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, also a policy with legal considerations. I have placed some further information on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, this doesn't get better: I've rolled back a huge copyvio from 2007 at Henry King Stanford, and removed the remains of another, not so huge, at Terrelle Pryor. Two questions: do you think a CCI is needed (that's five hits; contribs are here); and given the total unwillingness or inability to understand and respect copyright policy, should editing privileges perhaps be suspended? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If you've got five instances, that's considered enough to open a case. I will add to my post on the user's talk page to make sure he understands that this is a final warning, and will commence monitoring his contribs. — Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have reviewed your notes on my talk page and will respond here so as to centralize the discussion. As I have just responded at Talk:Mike Nussbaum, but will also say here in general terms: my usage of quotations always seeks to conform to WP:NFCCP, which permits limited use of attributed copyrighted text. As also already mentioned, my edits attempt to adhere to WP:CLOP which itself notes that: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." Like proper nouns, organizational names, place names and quoting verbatim, after attribution, an organization's stated mission statement. But Justlettersandnumbers's announcement that he is now Javert in search of every single time a phrase - within an otherwise completely different sentence - scores a hit with Duplication Detector in my entire edit history, is textbook overzealousness. As is that user's wholesale tagging of articles I have worked on - sometimes 4 to 9 years ago - on the basis of one or two sources in articles that contain dozens of references with no issues; and which have been edited by dozens of users since. If that is not excessive, then the word is meaningless. I have already stated on multiple occasions my willingness to discuss, review, defend, address and/or rewrite any of my edits at article's talk pages. I even voluntarily removed and rewrote content here, to conform with your concerns about excessive quotes. That is a reasonable and appropriate response on my part. But this is not a court and I am not on trial. The tone needs to be much less accusatory and more collaborative here, per WP:AGF. In that vein, how can you say this is a "final warning" when this is the first copyvio issue I have ever been asked to address? X4n6 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's happened before that editors have worked here for years without their problematic editing has been noticed or brought to their attention. This is a good edit, and a good example of how you need to work in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your acknowledgment of my ability to edit well and be responsive to concerns. Bringing this issue to my attention is all that was ever needed. All the rest: the threats of warnings, blocks, watches and investigations of years-old edits, not to mention the tone, were all just way too much. Message received moving forward and I'll consider this matter closed. But as further good faith, I'll also rework all the articles Justlettersandnumbers tagged, provided you'll remove those tags and enable me to do so. Those are all subjects which deserve good articles on this project. Rather than just going on tag sprees, if Justlettersandnumbers also wants to demonstrate a capacity for collaborative editing, I'm also more than willing to work with that editor. Then that should be the end of it. X4n6 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There's really no wiggle room when it comes to copyright violations; they have to be removed whenever and wherever they are discovered. Sorry this experience has been so stressful for you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I promise, no stress was involved. But the notion that I would be asked to defend nearly 10 year old edits is ridiculous. As is the notion that those edits, years later, would warrant article blocking by a non admin. Especially when a simple rewrite, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, could have removed any questionable copyvio, while tagging everything just leaves it for other editors to fix, while making it impossible for them to do so. So thanks for removing the tag on Henry King Stanford. As mentioned earlier, I'd also appreciate you removing the tags on Suzi Bass Award and Jack Mitchell (photographer), so I can address concerns there as well. X4n6 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Those two articles have the "copyviocore" template. Please read the instructions on the template to find out how to proceed. — Diannaa (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Chris Epps article

I do have questions. I'm not able to review the deletions you made to the Epps article because you seem to have removed any trace of the considerable text that I'm unable to recover. I got the material I had added to the article from a large variety of sources. I can't restore any of it that did not come from the article for which you've posted a URL because you've objected to me copying an article from a paper I've never read, the existence of which I was unaware, written by a reporter I've never heard of. Some of the material I used was extremely difficult to find and assembling it involved a substantial amount of research, reviewing sources that were from this year as well as years old. My sources included the Clarion Ledger, The Jackson Free Press and the JFP Mobile, the Mississippi Business Journal, and the Mississippi Link, a blog - Jackson Jambalaya, a press release from the US Attorney from Mississippi and I think possibly, the New York Times. There may have been others. I've been editing Wikipedia for ten years and I've never experienced anything like this happening before. I suspect that you won't be able to supply me with the material you deleted, but I do hope that's not the case. You can email it to me. I'm perfectly happy to paraphrase anything that could constitute a copyright violation, if such exists. Activist (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your addition was picked up by a bot and reported at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/28. The source article that I provided was an Associated Press story published here on April 12, and the same story was published in the Sun Herald the same day. Your addition took place on April 14. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that we can review the copyvios report, which is here. — Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks very much. I'll take a look and fully expect I can make it acceptable. I had printed out the DJ story so it will be a snap. I don't believe I saw the coverage in the Sun Herald, which I have very infrequently read, either, but it probably got much wider distribution than those two papers. It/they also may have depended heavily on the source document(s), the most recent US Attorney's press release(s) which is/are not copyrighted, of course. I appreciate all the info. Activist (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I started to make changes to the Epps article, but in so doing I was led to another that much more seriously needed work, which led to another, and another... I then made a great many edits to the Epps article, plus substantial paraphrases and I expect it's acceptable now, but I'll check it against the rest of the DJ article tomorrow after work. It's also much more robust than it had been, as I found materials in various sources that had escaped my original attention that filled in critical gaps in the narrative. I think I discovered what the problem was. Numerous reporters were in court and got a copy of the 21-page indictment and rushed to make their print deadlines. So they were all writing similar stories since they hadn't the time to go through the whole indictment, fact check, etc. They also used many of the same quotes from parties who were involved. The Jackson Free Press, whose editor usually covered this beat himself, deferred at first to an AP article and published an incomplete version of it, without the AP reporter's name on it. So I had seen a version of it, but not the one the bot flagged. Thanks for your patience. Activist (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oleg Boyko

Hi there, Just going through the edits you made to the Oleg Boyko page. Thanks so much for the copyright guidelines, I'll rewrite accordingly.

--Equalhared123 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Euralius- copyrighted material

Dear Diana, thank you for this information. We would like to revise the text that is currently uploaded on Wikipedia on EURALIUS Project. We previously used the information that we had on our website on Wikipedia but you instructed to re-write the information in order to be uploaded. So, did we. We re-wrote the information and we would like to publish it with a new structure on Wikipedia. Kindly note that we are the copyright holder and authorize the publication of this document (the re-written one). Thank you for your co-operation and hope this issue is settled. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information (Roland Hidri (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC))

If you are affiliated with the organization, you should not be editing the article at all, as you have a conflict of interest. I have placed some information on this topic on your talk page. Also, Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a webhost, and is not the place to advertise, or to go into extreme detail about an organization or its mission. That is not the kind of information you would see in a book-based encyclopedia, and it's not the kind of encyclopedia we are trying to build. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. — Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Dear Diana, We would like to re-structure the information that exist on Wikipedia about our project and we believe this is something Wikipedia allows, notwithstanding from the source. Kindly be informed that We are not using Wikipedia as a webhost, for that we have our own website. We simply want to have a better presentation of Our project on Wikipedia as the information provided currently is not complete - wikipedia is a source that can be frequently edited and added with information by anyone, so we believe that a better organization of the page should not be an issue at all - in contrary, it is in the best interest for both parties. Given this situation, we would kindly ask you again to upload the text we requested you to publish. In case you have other issues about it, please advice what way to use to re-organize the information on wikipedia. We want to thoroughly organize it with a better structure and more information. Thank you for your understanding." (Roland Hidri (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC))

Please read and follow the instructions I placed on your talk page about conflict of interest and paid editing. — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ibrahim Lodhi's Tomb

Dear Diana,

Seems I ended up CREATING TWO ARTICLES on Ibrahim Lodhi Tomb on the same day, second one being the exact copy of the first one because I thought I had deleted the first one without being allowed by the wikipedia to save it but i was able to copy paste it and went on to recreate it, seems erroneously two exactly the same articles were created by me within few minutes. Please help me by deleting one or teach me how to do it. I am good with computer programming and referencing, etc but I am still finding my ways in relation to deleting, relocating articles on wiki. This is my page where you left your msg, User_talk:Thecutehero#April_2016 Thanks. Thecutehero talk

Your original msg on my wall is reproduced below "April 2016[edit] Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ibrahim Lodhi's Tomb a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)"

Only administrators can delete articles. Another editor has turned the mis-spelled one into a redirect. — Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Earnest (opera)

Can't understand your posting on my talk-page as the use of text from The Importance of Being Earnest was already credited. Smerus (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I must have missed that somehow. In fact I still don't see it. My apologies. — Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Note 7. Best,-- Smerus (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:j at DRV

Just FYI, from back in the wp:GOCE days, the word-joiner redirect Template:j got deleted, so I made it a separate template to explain "j" means to "join words" but was Bot-removed from 1,300 pages and deleted again. Over those 6 years, it was interesting to watch many users put {j} in infobox phrases to control the word-wrap, etc. But many people forgot to use it, and then TfDs are very quiet these days. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the template {{Nowrap}} has a similar function? — Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Union Special article...

Dear Diana - Please see my response to your speedy deletion request for the Union Special article here.

In addition, I believe you were overzealous on the deletion of the content on the Union Special wiki page. The page used as a source was not only not copyrighted, but also I wore the content out in an effort to avoid copyright issues.

I would like to ask you to restore the deleted content. Dinkytown talk 22:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I won't be able to restore the content, as reviewing it confirms that the content I removed is identical to some of the content on the source page. Just so you know for the future, all prose you find online (with a few exceptions) is copyright automatically under the Berne Convention, whether it is marked as such or not, and whether the work is registered with a copyright office or not. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Union special

Hello! I hope you don't mind, but I removed the Speedy on Union Special, and added three decent refs. My sense is that this is a large (and very old school) company for which the references are mostly going to be pre-Internet. The ones I did find show there is a lot of hipster-love for the company and its machines; that they are being used in several "maker" type companies. In any case they definitely seem notable, and the new refs are enough to ensure its survival, I hope. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind, I'm not very good at assessing notability, so I appreciate the second look. — Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

In reference to my edits on Salviati. Thank you for pointing out Wikipedias's policy on copyright. I figured (incorrectly) that my citations in each sentence made it clear where the material originated. I am new to Wikipedia and did not understand the requirements. I will reedit the page, rewording sections and use double quotes for any directly quoted material. What is the best way to rework the page before posting it live? Can I bring back the removed text and work it over somehow?

Also, I know people in the family that used to own Salviati up until World War II. What is the proper way to cite information obtained orally from them? I assume that oral sources are acceptable?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncsny (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lot more complicated to edit than some other websites such as LinkedIn or Facebook. We have a fairly strict set of rules as to what can be posted here. All content you add to this wiki should be written in your own words please. Avoid using quotations at all. Information you receive orally from people is not acceptable, as we have no way to verify it. There's a whole collection of helpful links on your talk page. For sourcing, please see identifying reliable sources. For verifiability, please see verifiability. And for copyrights, please see copyrights and plagiarism. — Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I will follow those guidelines. How do I recover what I wrote so I have a starting point? It was considerable work to track down those sources and organize it. I would like to take the organization I used and rewrite it. This is my first Wikipedia article, I have been donating for years and decided that I should contribute in certain areas. I knew that there would be a learning curve when I started :) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncsny (talk • contribs) 00:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Your addition has been hidden from view as it was copied directly from the sources, which were http://www.salviati.com/history/ (which you used for the History section) and http://web.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/cgi-bin/wordpress/memorial-church/history/memorial-church-history-overview/ (which you used for the section on Stanford Chapel). http://salviatimosaics.blogspot.ca/p/about.html was also listed as being one of the sources, though there was not any copy vio from that source. The prose you already posted is not a good starting point, as it is all a copyright violation. You need to re-write it using your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, I am really not trying to be difficult and I am hoping that you can support a new contributor for Wikipedia. Not all of what you removed was copied. I researched and added several links for buildings that have Salviati mosaics (all of which are gone). I found and referenced the geologic data for the earthquake that destroyed the Stanford Chapel. I organized the narrative from multiple articles. My only mistake was that I truly believed that Wikipedia preferred/required quoting sources as closely as possible -- unlike scholarly papers in which you do not-- I was wrong -- you pointed that out. I have a PhD in engineering from MIT and I am extensively published. I was trying this article out to learn about contributing to Wikipedia before diving into more technical (and some historical) articles. Are you really going to make me start from scratch? Can you send it to me through email?, or are you really suggesting that I give up and forget about helping Wikipedia? Ncsny (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I found that there was one paragraph that I removed by mistake, as it was not a copyright violation. So I have gone ahead and re-added that. My apologies for that. I am emailing you the remainder of the removed content, but I repeat, this cannot be re-added to the article as all of it is copied directly and pretty much word for word from the two sources. It can be used as a starting point only. Sorry if it seemed as if I was implying that you should give up and quit Wikipedia; that was not my intention. — Diannaa (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Rogue Wave

Hello Diana, Thank you for pointing out that there may have been a copy vio on my edits of the wikipedia article on Rogue wave. Rather than reverting hours and hours of my work, of which I am certain that 99% does not contain any copyright violations, can you please identify the word or sentence which you believe may have been incorrectly attributed or copied.

This work added additional causes from the Oxford paper and was appropriately noted

Can I please query why these edits were reverted by you, there is no copyright violation for any of this work.

My removal did not undo all of your work, only the addition you made in one edit, which I have temporarily unhidden so that you can have a look at it. This is the edit in question. And here is the side-by-side comparison with the source paper, as provided by one of our copyright detection tools. All content you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I thought that I did more rewriting than that. I will be more careful next time. Cheers. AWHS (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rev-del?

I just reverted some puerile vandalism at Diana, Princess of Wales. AFAIC it’s nothing to be taken seriously, but it mentions a LP and I think most people would consider it “grossly offensive”; I‘m not sure where the line is usually drawn, so I thought I’d ask you to have a look and hide it if appropriate.—Odysseus 1479 20:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it qualifies for revision-deletion and have emailed to oversight to see if they want to do that as well. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try and recalibrate my offensimeter accordingly.—Odysseus 1479 21:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

An oversighter has already hidden it further, so yeah. Offensive enough to be thoroughly gone. — Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Woman with Bicycle deleted by you - help?

Hi Diannaa- You deleted the image Woman with Bicycle from wikipedia. This is a photo that I took of a public artwork, Woman with Bicycle by Knox Martin. I understood it to be under fair use license, as below: {{Non-free 2D art}} Fair use rationale: Used to illustrate work by Knox Martin on his page. Also used to illustrate Woman with Bicycle on Woman with Bicycle page.

Can you advise me how to restore the image? Under what license? I am not sure that it should have been deleted.

Thanks for your help!

There's a couple of reasons this file was deleted. Our fair use policy is pretty strict, and each non-free image must have a complete rationale for each usage of the image. That is to say, you need to provide a separate detailed rationale for each article in which you include the image. (Simply saying "to illustrate the article" is not a detailed rationale.) In order to qualify for fair use, images need to meet all ten of the criteria listed at WP:NFCC. In addition, there's two elements to the photograph: The incorporated artwork, which is a derivative work, and the photograph itself. There's no reason why the photograph itself could not be released under license, while the non-free artwork has a fair use rationale. Please seee commons:File:NNC-US-1913-5C-Buffalo Nickel (TyI-mound).jpg for an example of how this is done. Note there's one license for the coin, and a separate license for the photograph. — Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa- Thank you for your reply. This is a photograph I took of a public artwork by Knox Martin. The mural has since been covered over, so there is no way to get new photos. I am bit unclear about giving a more clear rationale - the image was on the page about Woman with Bicycle, kind of hard to have the article without a photo of the artwork. On the Knox Martin page, the work is one of his most recognized murals. I don't think the buffalo nickel is the right comparison, since it says: "This image depicts a unit of currency issued by the United States of America. If this is an image of paper currency or a coin not listed here, it is solely a work of the United States government, is ineligible for US copyright, and is therefore in the public domain in the United States." HERE we are talking about an artwork, that is copyright protected, but is a public artwork, so a photo is mine, but the artwork is Knox Martin's. I think I need more help with this... please — Preceding unsigned comment added by UBU07 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You are missing or not understanding my point: The image needs two licenses, one for the photograph and one for the mural. That's why I showed you the coin image: It has two licenses, one for the coin, and one for the photograph. — Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, I get that I need 2 licenses, not sure which ones. It is confusing when you are using the coin as an example...can you give an art example? UBU07 (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's one: File:Cat in Repose sculpture.jpg. The sculpture is non-free, and the photograph is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License. — Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations?

Hello, you left a notice that I've copied content from news sources without permission and you have reverted my edits. I don't think this applies to any of my edits. Can you please tell me specifically which edit you are talking about where I have copied content from a news source? My edits to the article in question have been very minor and don't think this could possibly apply. Juzarbhai (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The article was 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) and the copyright source from which you copied material was http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/With-death-of-Syednas-uncle-his-succession-suit-abates-HC/articleshow/51717768.cms. All prose that you find online is copyright, and you can't copy it here. Everything you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the page edits, the ones you reverted which added a lot of text were by another user Muffizainu where a large chunk of text 1781 characters was added. I had made smaller edits where the most was I added 177 characters. I don't remember what now exactly and the edits are hidden from me but I'm sure I didn't copy anything verbatim to near verbatim out of that article. So I'm confused why I was the one who got called out as copying material when the offender appears to be another. Can you please clarify? Juzarbhai (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I gave the warning to the wrong person. It was the user "Muffizainu" who added the copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your follow up. Juzarbhai (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly MariaJaydHicky's sock

Special:Contributions/WLfan, User:Annvarie and User:I loves Meghan Trainor are possibly MariaJaydHicky's socks. 115.164.218.179 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

None of these people are lighting up my watch-list as having edited the usual targets, so I would have to say no, they are not socks. Please feel free to provide evidence if you have it, as I don't have time to search their contribs, I am very busy with copyright clean-up. — Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot Descriptions - Help Request

Hello Dianna, I am a newbie, few days old here. I saw your recent post on guidelines for plot descriptions - books, that it must be original content compliant with WP policies - I was the one who created the article Scars Do Heal and the article had a plot summary/description as an original text in the initial versions. I was told that the article needs to cite reliable sources even for plot summary and that got removed by fellow editors. Just need your opinion if I can contribute an accurate yet original plot summary to any book without citing reliable sources if it is compliant with WP - I would like to use this as a reference template ? And since Scars Do Heal has anyway been put up for deletion, can I use that to experiment without running the risk of being flagged for conflict of interest by other editors ? Thank you AM (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The plot summary you added was copied word for word from Amazon, and was therefor a copyright violation. That's why it was removed. Normally what people do for plot summaries is read the book and then write a plot summary. Plot summaries don't require sources. Experiments should not take place on live Wikipedia articles. Please do your experimenting in a sandbox, either at User:Ashleymillermu/Sandbox or WP:Sandbox. — Diannaa (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, let me explain - There were two things, one was the 'plot synopsis' which was sourced from Amazon as you had pointed out. But just below that plot synopsis was a fairly impartial 2000+ word "plot description" that I had written after reading the book. I haven't saved a copy elsewhere and much appreciate if you could use your benevolent superpowers and somehow retrieve for me those 2000 words.AM (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Now I understand. That material was not present in the article when I arrived, so I did not realize. I have placed it in your sandbox. It's too long right now, at 816 words. Plot descriptions should be 700 words or less. — Diannaa (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much. One last query - in terms of style/flow, is the way I have described plot description good for other such books I may intend to include plot description in future ? AM (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The style is okay. We normally use present tense throughout. I have done some copy edits and trimmed some of the less important details. This version is 592 words. — Diannaa (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So kind of you. AM (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Carters Steam Fair: Revision history

User: Diannaa,

I just wanted to let you know that I had been a member of the Wikipedia community since 2005, and your edits yesterday to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carters_Steam_Fair, reverting all my considerable work have finally made me see there is little point in me continuing to contribute, or rather try and contribute further to Wikipedia.

For what it's worth, all the edits and updates had been approved by Carters themselves and they had asked me to try and update the article to be more in line with their own website, but that doesn't matter now.

I shall no longer be logging in to the site, donating funds to Wikipedia, telling people to check Wikipedia for anything they want to read up onm nor reading any talk pages or email from Wikipedia.

I would also like to add that deleting all the article revisions I'd made so they are no longer accessible and so I cannot even access them to take text for my own purposes rather callous and unnecessary, in my opinion. Similarly, removing books from the "Further reading" section just because they are self-published is laughable. They are still piblished books, no matter who published them, and all have entries in the British Libraries catalougues. Still, doesn't matter any more...

Your heavy-handed actions and attitude alone have led me to finally make this decision. I just wanted you to know that.

James (UK) (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Jams Watton. Sorry to hear you will be leaving Wikipedia. The material was removed and revision deleted because it was a copyright violation, copied from the corporate website without any evidence of permission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. We do this to protect the rights of copyright holders. The content of a Wikipedia article is not determined by the subject of the article; the articles are written by independent volunteer editors using third party reliable sources. Organizations that are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article typically have received coverage in independent third-party newspapers, magazines, and books. This is the type of sourcing we are looking for, not the corporation's own website and self-published books. The type of material a corporation puts on its own website will be a lot different than material in an encyclopedia, as it will be written more like an advertisement. Another problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or on behalf of someone with whom you have a personal relationship is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Proper Attribution

In your Capn Crunch research, you didn't notice that I had crafted the section of the original article that I copied to Flavorist.842U (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I do try to check and see of this is the case, but must have missed it in your particular case. Sorry for the unneeded notification. — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: File:Times_Music_Logo.jpg

Hi, Diannaa. Do you judge the user's other uploads, File:Junglee_Music_Logo.jpg and File:Times_Living_Logo.jpg, to be {{PD-textlogo}} as well? I don't feel like I have a good enough grasp of the threshold of originality in such cases to make the call myself. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the country of origin. The threshold of originality is much lower in Great Britain than it is in the United States. These are logos of a corporation in India, where the same rules are used as the UK. So my opinion is that these are Not PD-textlogo. commons:Commons:Threshold of originality — Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting page

Hi Diannaa, I am really hoping you can help me. Someone keeps redirecting the page titled Future directed therapy to Future-oriented therapy. These are two completely different therapies and have nothing to do with one another. They were developed by different people, one is a cognitive therapy and one is a dynamic therapy which are two different modalities. The page Future Directed Therapy was created first and then someone came along two days later and created Future Oriented Therapy then deleted Future Directed Therapy this happened in 2010 and now again recently in last month. The Future Directed Therapy page was reposted with its original content. Is there a way to prevent these two pages from being viewed as the same thing so one does not keep getting redirected? Greatly appreciate you assistance. Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by EW225 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)EW225 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason I removed your article is because it's a copyright violation. All the content is copied from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-5949.2011.00235.x/full, a copyright web page. Please don't re-add this material. Yesterday I posted some information on copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia on your talk page. Please read that and follow some of the links there to find out more. — Diannaa (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiChevrons

		The WikiChevrons
		In honor of all you have done in the era of history which entails Nazi Germany and World War II, I award you WikiChevrons, for: 31 Good Articles; one of which is now A-Class, and 8 which have won the "Million" award. And also thanks for your high-caliber copy-edit work, as well. Kierzek (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the recognition. — Diannaa (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Plaque Hypotheses

Dear Diannaa; Can you please explain what's happened with this page? Why can't I see the late revisions? It might help me salvage my work from the objectionable material. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the content had to be removed as it was a copyright violation. I can send you a copy of the removed text via email if you like. But you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way around that? If you have a W.email, couldn't I send to you, and you to me? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't you place the text on a page, and then destroy that history? Am I being too hopeful? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation added by another user, and the source was http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fcimb.2014.00092/full. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your Msg on my wall re SULTAN GHARI

Dear Diana, You left me this msg on my wall. User talk:Thecutehero#Wikipedia and copyright

I have replied there on my wall and reposting here because I am not sure if you would receive a notification if I just replied on my wall and not on your wall, I know a lot of wiki stuff (how to edit articles because it is similar to writing simple computer code, which I know) but I am bit lost how reviews, messaging eachother, etc works, I find wikipedia not so intutive, help pages are tooooo long with tooo many policies and not short-and-sweet useful answers (seems too many overenthusiastic people have written too much blurb in overengineering too many policies, lol ...nothing wrong but may be you can steer some of it in a SIMPLER DIRECTION as I am assuming you know lot more wikieditors than I do).

Coming back to the topic, this is what i had replied @Diannaa (talk) I just visited that article, a lot of my edits are still there as I had provided the references, and wrote the text in my own language (not copy paste). Seems SOME OF MY EDITS might not have been acceptable if they were too similar to the sources that i have referenced. In that case, I will revisit and where appropriate I will apply the edits after making necessary changes. Thanks for the feedback to help me enhance the articles.

Also, I had accidentally created two exactly same articles on "Ibrahim Lodhi's Tomb" because i thought first article was not saved. see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#Ibrahim_Lodhi.27s_Tomb How do I delete one, can you teach/guide me please, thanks for the patience with me je je je ..hugss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecutehero (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

A possible case of copyright violation.

The introduction paragraph of the All England seems like copied and pasted or closely paraphrased from the All England's official website. So, I thought you might want to have a look at it. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's the other way around (they copied from Wikipedia), as we have had the content since 2006. — Diannaa (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: If that's the case, then the whole introduction is uncited. So, shouldn't it be removed? - NitinMlk (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Leave it in place, and add a {{Citation needed}} tag. — Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: As whole intro is uncited, where should I put the tag? - NitinMlk (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole article is essentially unsourced, so instead of a "citation needed", I have placed a {{refimprove}} template at the top of the page. — Diannaa (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the help! - NitinMlk (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Workman

So what was it about what I added to the article that was copyrighted? I mean if it's not supposed to be a from a person's physical biography by a legal, reputable source, then where do you suggest I get the information? There are scores of websites using the same information, yet they're still operational. I figured it was public domain, given as it's for pubic record and consumption. Would've been nice to see the mistake(s) I made instead of being reversed outright and then having no opportunity to see what was wrong, considering the public logs have been amended. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but everything you added was word-for-word from the source page http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/current-justices/justice-workman.html, so I removed it. If you like, I can send you a copy of the diff by email. — Diannaa (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

how to quote a book source

Hello Diannaa,

This must be somewhere, so please accept my apologies beforehand if I'm asking too much: you must be damn busy; still, I just thought it would be faster and more effective to check with an expert like you rather than navigate through policies.

So my question is if this way of quoting an ebook is correct or not really: 'Spain in the EU: Fifteen Years May Not Be Enough' (p. 170) by Manuel Balmaseda and Miguel Sebastian, part of "Spain and Portugal in the European Union: The First Fifteen Years", edited by Sebastián Royo and Paul Christopher Manuel; first published in 2003 in Great Britain by FRANK CASS AND COMPANY LIMITED Google Books ISBN 0-203-49661-2 (eBook).

Not sure if this is the right way to quote. In particular, when looking at the internet tab, it shows 'Google books' but when looking at the first page of the electronic book, there is this Frank Cass publisher reference. How should a case like this be quoted? Frank Cass or Google books or both (as I did). Then there's the question of ISBN: at the first page of the electronic book different ISBNs are given for different editions (ebook, cloth, paperback...). I guess the ebook's ISBN is enough? If you see other issues which I didnt mention, please...

If you have couple minutes to spare with this, I would be grateful for your expert feedback.MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 21:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Google Books does not actually publish books. Frank Cass is the publisher. Please use the ISBN for the format where you actually got the content, as the pagination may be different between different editions and formats.

Have you ever thought about using citation templates? It's not very hard once you get the hang of it. {{cite book | last1 = Balmaseda | first1 = Manuel | last2 = Sebastian | first2 = Miguel | editor1-last = Royo | editor1-first = Sebastián | editor2-last = Manuel | editor2-first = Paul Christopher | title = Spain and Portugal in the European Union: The First Fifteen Years | chapter = Spain in the EU: Fifteen Years May Not Be Enough | year = 2003 | publisher = Frank Cass | location = London | isbn = 0-203-49661-2 | format = ebook | url = https://books.google.ca/books?id=84yRAgAAQBAJ | page = 170}} produces Balmaseda, Manuel; Sebastian, Miguel (2003). "Spain in the EU: Fifteen Years May Not Be Enough". In Royo, Sebastián; Manuel, Paul Christopher (eds.). Spain and Portugal in the European Union: The First Fifteen Years (ebook). London: Frank Cass. p. 170. ISBN 0-203-49661-2. You might consider looking at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/3 if you want to get started doing this. It's completely optional of course. Please let me know if you want any help getting started using templates. — Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks a lot for your feedback. About citation templates, I've been wondering for some time why there is no 'button' at the edit page so that the template appears and we only have to fill it in with the book's data, I guess there must be a reason for that. I will look at that wiki markup stuff you mention. Thank you again.

(as I wrote this, I paid a look and there is this 'insert' button with wiki markup, I will keep exploring).

If you go to Preferences→Gadgets, there's an option to use refToolbar, which adds an improved button to the editing toolbar; and there's an external website http://reftag.appspot.com/ where you can input a Google Books url and it will generate a book citation; and there's some blank citation templates at User:Diannaa/My cite templates (you can find a link to this page from the handy links at the top of my user page). — Diannaa (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thank you. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 14:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Kenneth E. Iverson deletes

Hi, you've deleted whole sections of text from my edits of Kenneth E. Iverson's page, justifying it by saying it's "excessive quotations from non-free works". Please tell me what constitutes "excessive quotations". Even better if you can point me to a Wikipedia page that answers that question.

In my opinion, at least some of the quotations would be acceptable in an academic paper. For example, the quotes from I.B. Cohen's books I would consider acceptable in an academic paper: 3 paragraphs from two full-length books. There are others. Roger Hui (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I note that the page for Enrico Fermi, a "Featured Article", has five quotations from copyrighted works: [43], [66], [85], [120], and [122]. The key quotations you deleted from the Kenneth E. Iverson page are not any longer than the ones in the Fermi page. Roger Hui (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The related policy page is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The most relevant sections are #1 (no free equivalent) and #3 (minimal use). There's also an informative essay at Wikipedia:Quotations. In general, quotations have a free equivalent in that they are replaceable by prose that we write ourselves. I have done a comparison with the Fermi page and discovered that Enrico Fermi is 7,082 words long (including the quotations) and contains 813 words of quotations (11% of the article). That may be excessive, and if you wish to pursue it, I suggest bringing it up at that article's talk page. Kenneth E. Iverson had 3,930 words (including the quotations) and 1,425 words of quotations (36% of the article). Definitely excessive. — Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; I'll ponder on it. You seem to know a handy way to find the word count of a Wikipedia article. What is that handy way please? Roger Hui (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've installed the script User:Dr pda/prosesize in my User:Diannaa/common.js page. If you need help getting started with scripts, please let me know. — Diannaa (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've restored some of the quotations to the Kenneth E. Iverson page, and I've transferred this discussion to Talk:Kenneth_E._Iverson. Please respond there. Thank you. Roger Hui (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-free image use rationale

Hi Diannaa, could you clarify for me if I should update the fair use rationale for the article The Myth of the Eastern Front to the book cover template Template:Non-free_use_rationale_book_cover?

Also, is it correct that if a non-free image is used on multiple article, each needs a fair use rationale? I'm not sure how to update for each individual article, as when I click on the image, I'm taken to the image file. If you could show me how, it would be much appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The file description page needs to include a separate fair use rationale for each usage of the image. The specific templates are better, because then you will be sure to have covered all the required elements of a non-free rationale. Trimmed versions of the most common ones are available at User:Diannaa/My Templates (you can find a link to this page from the handy links at the top of my user page). For instances where the image is not in the info box, instead of | Use = Infobox you will need to use | Purpose = and give a detailed rationale as to why the image meets the non-free content policy for that usage. I've got it started in User:Diannaa/sandbox. All you need to do is enter a detailed rationale for the usage in Waffen-SS in popular culture in the "purpose" field and then it is ready to copy over to the file description page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services and Catholic Charismatic Renewal Copyright issues

I have the copyright permission from the owners to publish both materials. Please help me about how to donate the permission to wikipedia to publish tose contents.

Rohitjy (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)rohitjy

If the copyright holder wishes to release the material to Wikipedia under license, please have them sent a permission email to us using the instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. Regardless of copyright holder's permission, not all content is suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Specifically, in Catholic Charismatic Renewal, it's not appropriate to give registration information for the event in Rome (although a brief description might be included). It is probably simpler to write up a brief description of the event using your own words. For International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services, I note the organization may not meet our notability requirements for organizations (see WP:CORP), and the article would likely be deleted for that reason, regardless of the copyright issue. — Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment on Austen

Your comments on Jane Austen asked about the nice edits by the late Wadewitz. Attribution here is specifically to the late Wadewitz. She was top editor for two articles "Jane Austen" and "Reception history of Jane Austen" which are in process of peer review upgrade which involves rewrites/updates/re-editing. The upgrade process has been taking me and Rotrope much of the last two months and might require another few weeks before both of the articles are at the higher peer review status. I am a supporter of the nice edits made by the late Wadewitz and it might be possible to complete her plans for getting the higher peer review status for both of her articles on Jane Austen which she was unable to complete prior to sadly passing away. Wikipedia peer review guidelines have changed somewhat since 2013 and its been requiring more contribution time from me than I originally thought was needed to bring both articles to the same peer review status. I have now marked the edit history to indicate Wadewitz as the top editor of both articles as you commented. I am a supporter of her nice edits. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, and for carrying on her work. — Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Did you receive my last email sent on 16 April? Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 22:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did, but since you are topic banned on the subject matter in question, I did not reply. Please don't solicit people off-wiki to do things for you in your topic ban area. You will get in trouble. — Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Demetra Kalogerou

Hello! Could you hide visibility on the appropriate copyvio edits on Demetra Kalogerou? The material I removed was a copyvio here. I had asked the creator to remove it but they ignored the request, so I removed it. The cpyvio was in the first version of the article, all the way up to my two removal edits today. I placed a warning on his/her talk page, which makes three if you include the one you left him/her! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I also found copy vio in Kokam Co.. Thanks for warning the user, but I am going to have to issue a block now. — Diannaa (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's good when admins use the mop for repeated violations-- that's what it is for.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is copyvio on some other pages s/he created. This is just from the April-May 2012 of his/her history. Yikes. Is there a tool to correct this quickly? Let me know how I could help, as I am inexperienced in this area.

Makarios Earth Station -- 58.4% report
Timossi-Ferrari_'Arno_XI'_Racing_Hydroplane -- 91.2% report
IMH_Media_Group -- 63.1% report
Kikis_Kazamias-- 67.1% report

HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no quick way to do the clean-up. I will look at these four right now. — Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Timossi-Ferrari 'Arno XI' Racing Hydroplane is a false positive. — Diannaa (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

See also FirePro Systems (Europe). Is there no tool to detect this kind of thing in progress? It seems odd in this day and age that a user could create copyvio articles over four years and not be detected/stopped. There is a way to determine copyvio likelihood computationally, and there is a way to detect users like this with high numbers of copyvio pages over time... they just need to be put together :) 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

We are trying to get that in place now. Thanks for your interest in helping with copyright issues. — Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-24/Special report

User talk:Mdennis (WMF)#Search for a new API for copyright violation detection

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T125459 — Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Big computer runs batch script once a week to cath repeat violators. More:

*Harris_Georgiades report

*Cyprus_Investment_Promotion_Agency report

I think there are dozens.EIghty percent (of the ones I looked at) return likely/possible. I may write a script to automate detection... if I ever have the time. :) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

FirePro is a false positive. — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you give me a quick explanation as to how to identify the false positives? When I look at it, I see several sentences directly matching-- so I am not understanding it at the level that you are. Any instruction is appreciated.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The webpage is not dated and was never archived by the Wayback Machine. It may be copyyvio, but I think it's a lot more likely that the editor was a paid editor, being supplied with copy by the subjects of some of these articles, and the same copy was supplied to other websites. Note Harris_Georgiades still has a big match with LinkedIn, which was not archived, so we can't prove it is copy vio either. — Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Request: Edit summary deletion

Hi. Would you please delete these edit summaries?[8][9]
Both IPs [10] and [11] trolled some articles with inappropriate edit summaries and vandalism, another example is this one.[12] --Zyma (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

They are both done now. — Diannaa (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Crickhowell Castle

Sorry. I noted it in the edit summary for Crickhowell [13] but not in the new article. I mistakenly thought it had come from the castle article (which was a redirect) in the first place. Deb (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Époisses de Bourgogne

I noticed that you made a particular revision of Époisses de Bourgogne hidden, but:

The revision you hid was the one that had the inclusion of the text already removed.
You mentioned "copyright violations", however, this is a large part of a official decree from the French government. As far as I know this is public information and there is no copyright on it.

This being said, that text should have never been included in the first place... Dhrm77 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have hidden the correct diff. Thanks for spotting this. Copyright law for government publications varies by country. Our article on French copyright law states that "There is no specific provision for government works or laws: the copyright is normally held by the relevant public body." — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying

Thank you for you message. I was not aware of this rule and will be adhering to it from now on. --Ghaly (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons License Conflict

The Crucible contains a couple of character descriptions copied from [14]. The content there is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which does allow copying. It requires attribution (which it isn't, though that could be fixed.) However, it also requires that content not be used for commercial purposes, and that any modifications must be released under the same conditions. This conflicts with our own licensing, right? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Crucible also contains content from [15]. I can't tell if that's compatibly licensed or public domain, though it seems like there's a chance, given my school is blocking it as an academic fraud site. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the latter copied from us. Somebody probably needs to use their "report this essay" feature to flag it as such, but other than that, nothing needs to be done for that. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

antiessays.com/ is a collection of copyright essays that are for sale. The essay on The Crucible is dated September 7, 2013. Comparing our revision 571578061 from September 4, 2013, from our article shows that they copied from us rather than the other way around.
tvtropes.org is released under a non-compatible Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Any content copied from this site has to be removed as a copyright violation. However, like the antiessays website, it looks like they copied from us rather than the other way around. Looking at their editing history, the overlapping content was added to their wiki on 13 May 2015, at which point it was already present in the Wikipedia article. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible follow up on Austen

Thanks for your comment on Austen. Recently, I saw your name at the GOCE page as the coordinator emerita and had the thought of contacting you on your edit and review skills. It occurs to me that the Jane Austen nomination for FA is likely to be the last one associated with the late Wadewitz, and that it might be nice if someone who actually remembered her might like to be part of the review process. If time allows at some point in your busy schedule possibly you might be a able to do a review of the article. Earlier this week, I've added the final section of the current "Critical Editions" subsection and the article is ready for a top to bottom reading/critique/criticism review. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this. I don't think I should do it, as I am super busy with this copyvio work I've been doing. You might consider filing a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hi Diannaa,

I generally have been working on patrolling the new pages , recently I have started contributing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I have edited two pages

Can you visit these pages and check if there is still any Copyright problems in these pages? Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Carl Amari: The article was created in 2012, and there's an OTRS ticket on the talk page for the Hollywood 360 source. The content at falconpicturegroup.com on the date the Wikipedia article was created was extremely similar to the content on the Hollywood 360 page. My guess is that the same copy was supplied to the Hollwoody 360 website, the Falcon Picture Group website, and added here at Wikipedia by someone associated with the subject of the article. I would have to say yeah, it's as clean as it is going to get.
Giles Richard Cooper is clean now. I have done the revision-deletion and removed the copyviocore template. Off to the farmers' market now, ttyl. — Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, thanks for the clarfication about Carl Amari, certainly it is very helpful, I will look into the details and clean the page. Another page, Laurie Mansfield on Copyright problems/2016 April 23 seems to be pretty close to clean. Can you please visit this page and check if still there is any Copyright issue? Kavdiamanju (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Malala

For the complete list, see User:Diannaa/Soundtrack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD-EqKLZj_k

Life in Bunker deletion

Hi,

I had noticed that you have put a copyright infringement deletion tag on my Life in Bunker page, I have tried to re-edit it as most as possible but am not sure which part needs re-editing, Are you sure it isn't the system requirements section that triggered the copyright part off, can you let me know what part I need to re-edit so it won't be deleted. D Eaketts (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Gameplay" and "Features" sections still present exactly the same ideas in exactly the same order as the source page at Steam, with only minimal paraphrasing. Please see WP:Plagiarism for why this is not okay and constitutes a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, will re-edit both sections so it won't happen again.D Eaketts (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone removed the speedy tag, but I think there was still way too much overlap. Please have a look at my paraphrasing so you can learn how different it needs to be. — Diannaa (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for editing my page and have just looked at the Life in Bunker page will remember for future pages I create.D Eaketts (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello. Would you please "hide" this edit and my revert that followed it? It's a clear copyright violation, see my messages to the user at User talk:Matthew.j.obrien#April 2016, where you'll find links etc. TIA. Thomas.W ^talk 20:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Only the one edit needs to be hidden; the diff of the removal does not need to be hidden. Also, it's not possible to hide the current revision, — Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For the past few years he seems to have done nothing here but spamming own photos on a considerable number of articles, including one (File:243 WSSM Olympic Arms AR15.jpg) where a person who probably is he himself is the most prominent part of the picture, and then he adds blatant copyvios... Thomas.W ^talk

He now readded the text like this, adding "according to" etc followed by the same text as quotes, writing "“Shooting Times” states the following, “Subsonic .300 Blackout may be used for hunting at close to medium distances, but humane/ethical game kills become more difficult to make as distances stretch due to lower velocity and kinesthetic shock, as compared to supersonic ammunition.”" and "According to Game and Fishing Magazine, “More and more states are legalizing suppressors for hunting. This is a wise since it reduces the potential for hearing damage. It also makes sense from the aspect of limiting noise pollution in urban areas were deer hunting is permitted. Currently, the most popular subsonic hunting cartridge is the .300 AAC Blackout.” instead of just the text between the quotation marks, as he did in his previous edit. But it's still the same text, copied verbatim from the sources. So would you mind taking a look at it? Thomas.W ^talk 21:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

why wikipedia is deleing my page ?

It is not a copyright voilation it is the content of the school which is established on kathmandu thali under the licences of the NEPAL GOVERNMENT and page was created in wikipedia from which people know about the school and it is helping to give the education to the student of poor people. Every time it is deleted so from today i will not give my contribution to wikipedia . Bye for wikipedia Samirbudhathoki (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was deleted as being an advertisement. — Diannaa (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Copy vio and excerpts from reported cases

Hi, have responded to your comment on my talk page. I think there is potentially a bigger issue here that we should try and bottom out. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

published an image with wrong type of license

Hi Diannaa, I have published an image with wrong type of license QAHER-1, it meets all the 10 criteria here [16] including

No free equivalent: In a war zone, plus it's an image of a missile
Minimal usage: will be used in 3 or 4 related articles
Previous publication: published from news agency then to several media channels
plus other 7 criterias mentioned

I would like to either to delete this one plus other images I uploaded, all copy righted but meets the requirements to upload, marked them as creative commons license by mistake where they meet either Non-free_content#Images or Non-free_content_criteria, so that I upload a new one with the correct license, or modify the license of this one, I have nominated this image for deletion plus other images, I have read all the rules and now aware how to post, I got 0 warnings on commons, don't want to exceed that :). 967Bytes (Contact) 15:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't delete images on the Commons, as I am not an administrator on that wiki. Non-free images need to be uploaded to this wiki, not the Commons. — Diannaa (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean I can only upload those files if they meet the criteria I am claiming in the wiki through this: Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard, and use it only on the uploaded page? It seems that I mixed up, thought upload manager is the same for both. 967Bytes (Contact) 17:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Upload them to this wiki, not the Commons, and make sure each image has a valid fair use rationale for each usage. It's okay to use an image in more than one article as long as you have a good reason to do so and write a separate rationale for each article. — Diannaa (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have uploaded my first image that I think it follows the rules, image, Thank you for your help. 967Bytes (Contact) 21:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged it for size reduction. A bot will come along and reduce it shortly. — Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. One more small equerry, if I want to use the same image in the same article but in different language, do I have to upload it again, or mention in the current description that I will also use it in the mentioned article but in another language, according to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Other_Wikimedia_projects it's same as the other wiki (Wikipedia Arabic) I want to use it in, but the question is do I have to upload it again in that other wiki, or just use the English link to that image. 967Bytes (Contact) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You will have to upload it separately to the other wiki. This is only true for non-free files though; freely available images that reside on the Commons can be used on any of our wikis. — Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your information and time, I have gained some good knowledge. 967Bytes (Contact) 17:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia and copyright

Hi, I'm aware one must use their own words, however, I had not yet finished the article and was using the crimelibrary.com text as framework - the article also was lacking citations in proportion to its length and had multiple sections incomplete or completely absent - so I hope you see it was not an attempt of plagiarism and just a 'draft' of sorts for an article which had issue tags dated nearly seven years ago before I started editing. Thanks. Zaostao (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't import copyright material onto this wiki, not even temporarily while you work on it. To do so is a copyright violation. Use an external text editor. — Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Okay, I won't in the future. Thanks. Zaostao (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Public domain question

Hi Diannaa, I have an article that I received from my library via email.

The bottom of the email states:

Colonel James R. Robinson is a logistician in the Individual Ready Reserve, US Army Reserve. [More about the author]

This content is in the public domain.

The link information above provides a persistent link to the article you've requested. [Link only works if you are connected to the library network]

If I understand correctly, it means that this work can be used in Wikipedia as is, without paraphrasing (provided the source is cited, as normal). Is that correct? It's also my understanding that I may need to use a proper template, such as {{PD-USgov}}. Where would I place such a template -- on the article's talk page? If you could clarify for me, that would be much appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman. The template you are looking for is {{PD-notice}}, and it should be placed immediately after your citation on the article itself (not the talk page). Sample diff of where to place the tag — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Since I'm using sfn cites, I put the template in Bibliography, next to the source, rather than to each individual citation. Is that the right approach? The article is Operational level of war:

In the U.S. military doctrine, operational art is the planning and execution of military efforts to achieve political aims. It correlates political needs and military power. Operational art is defined by its military-political scope, not by force size, scale of operations or degree of effort. Likewise, operational art provides theory and skills, and the operational level permits doctrinal structure and process.^[1]

References

^ Robinson 1997.

Robinson, James R. (1997). "The Rommel Myth". Military Review Journal. Retrieved 8 February 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

Is that the right approach? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly how to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

copyvio botas

I saw a notefrom you that neither of the bots were running--do you know what the staus is and what the plans are? DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG. The search for a replacement API is still underway. You might be interested in the discussions at Maggie's talk page and the Phabricator ticket. The EranBot is catching at least some of the copyvio article creations, but whether it is comparable to what CorenSearchBot was finding, I have no way of knowing. — Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The WMF is following up on this also. I wonder whether we need an additional stage of manual checking for new submissions, because most of the NPPs do not really check, and it will not be trivial to get them to do it properly. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Crow mentioned that he has been checking the new pages feed for copyright violations. New page patrollers can and should be helping with this; every incoming article should be checked. I don't have time to help with this myself though, as I am barely able to keep up with EranBot, which is daily posting 100-125 diffs to be examined. — Diannaa (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Manual was tough when Earwig was still working, now manual via Google is very slow. There's gotta be a ton slipping through now... :( Crow^Caw 14:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.klikdvd.com/product/detail/10596/shaun-the-sheep-the-farmers-llamas-2015.html

[FOOTNOTERobinson1997-2] Robinson 1997.

[1]

[1]