User talk:Diannaa/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Landsforrådt

You placed a prod on this article inappropriately, since I had previously prodded it and the author removed my prod. Please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and please look at the article history of an article before you prod it. I request that you remove your prod. The article could certainly be sent to AFD, since it is just a dictionary definition, and not even of a word in the English language. If you have questions, please contact me. Thanks for your work to improve the encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Bridge pattern (remove copyright content copied from http://www.w3sdesign.com/DPMBasic0030.pdf)

Hello Diannaa, I have changed text and structure, please see Bridge pattern talk page. Thank you! — Vanderjoe (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The new version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hermann Goring

Hi Diannaa, In regards to the revert about the quote Goring said, I'm having trouble finding the logic in it. Goring was known to speak English fluently, but more importantly there appears to be many reputable citations and references which correlate that quote to him. Could you help me understand your viewpoint on the matter? Thanks! Garchy (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The place to go with content discussions is the article talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Revdel?

This article seems to have two big copy-pasted edits:

a) This edit was copy-pasted from here. But the bottom of the source page reads "copyrighted 2004-2014". Is it still copyrighted?

b) This edit was copy-pasted from this copyrighted page. And the source is older than the WP article. So, it seems clear copyvio.

BTW, these two additions are still there in the present version. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I found that the overlapping content from http://www.punjabispot.com/punjab/culture-of-punjab.html is also present in Kila Raipur Sports Festival where it's been present since 2009, which pre-dates the oldest archived version of http://www.punjabispot.com/punjab/culture-of-punjab.html. We will have to assume he copied it from there rather than the external website. The content from http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=3553 does indeed appear to be a copyvio so I have taken it out. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Copiright problem with History of Electrical small antenna

Dear Diannaa, The text about the history without reference violates the my copyrights: "In 1960, Harrington. related the effects of antenna size, gain and minimum Q for the near and far field diffraction zones for linearly and circularly polarized waves, and also treated the case where the antenna efficiency is less than 100%" . Please stop this copiright problem!Swadim (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Content has now been removed and revision deleted. Please stop edit warring over the inclusion of a citation or you both risk being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

[2] -- Swadim has readded the citation regardless. Keira1996 23:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Greetings! A user has been appending some copyright breaching material here, with minimal if any prose redaction (ex. "Even if they were acknowledged..." [3] [4]). Much of it is verbatim too (ex. "As a financially-independent householder..." [5] [6]). Can you please take a look? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The content on Ignatius Sancho was copied from Ignatius Sancho, where it has been present since 2006. I am unable to access the source book for some of the other additions so I have no way of confirming whether or not it is copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the dif & link for the first copyright breaching text ("Even if they were acknowledged..." [7] [8]). The second plagiarized text is from an open access website ("As a financially-independent householder..." [9] [10]). There may be other such plagiarized phrases, but I'm not sure. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing "As a financially-independent householder" appears to be copied from the article Ignatius Sancho. It was added there in 2006. The earliest archived version of http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_30.html is dated October 7, 2008, at which point we had already had the content in our article for two years. The article shows a copyright date of 2007 which post-dates the addition to this wiki by one year. So I did not remove this material from Black British because I cannot prove it is copyvio. Your other item ("Even if they were acknowledged...") has now been dealt with, as that Google link worked for me and I was able to view the source book. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Grand Unified Theory to Law of the Universe (your addition has since been removed). 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. Please do this even if you only add the material temporarily as a test or as a framework for future work. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

________

Thank you I didn't know that. I'm just giving the right form to the article. Firstly seemed to be a vandalism or a hoax, and now you say that it's a copy of a good theoretical exposiotin of Quantistic arguments. Let me check. For sure it is impossible that I copied material already written. Thank you again. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

All the scientists that formulated general laws pretended them to be universal. The G.U.T. is the final one, and is a theory.

In effect I found incomplete the information concerning the paradoxes of contemporary Physics and the difficulties in reaching grand laws or theories. I'm going to clarify the point. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I verified and in effect no modification has been historied from the intervention, so it is confirmed that there's has been no copying. Anyway you are right: I'm going to contact the University of Groningen in order to cite their book tomorrow, or I will change it with the original by Kant. In the meantime please dont delete the Article. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The decision as to whether or not to delete the article will be assessed by the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of the Universe, not by me. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Brutal deleting of others' painstaking work

I am still shocked at how can you be so disrespectful to newcomers, who work hard to crystallize a topic. You seem to be especially concerned about Nazi Germany: I hope then you can understand that if you keep back intentionally information about a dangerous cult, you are co-responsible for the tortures and deaths of victims, who, in good faith that Wikipedia informs neutrally, believe the falsely positive artcile about a violent torturer guru. If it was not a formal mistake only on my side, but some plagiarism or inability to write my own opinion, I would say nothing. But you should first study the history of the article and what is the background, before you decide to stampede on others' work. There is a reasonItalic text why I started to use so much quotations and worry anytime when I might make an independent conclusion (even if living in Nepal I have personally met many of the players from both sides, including journalists dealing with the topic!): that reason is that my former article Media on Ram bahadur Bomjon's Controversy had been nominated fro deletion exactly for that reason: that I used my own ability to write down the conclusions and summaries, after going through hunderds of media links and archives. I was accused of POV fork and UNDUE whatsoever, just because after readin about people abducted, thrashed, two people most probably even killed, and reading it in dozens of multiple Nepalese and international sources, I dared to express a few sentences as their summary.

If it is about leaving out citation marks, it is a technical mistake I could easily fix. You did not have to delete it immediately, you should have given me a notice. It was a question of 4-5 hours. I was thinking, seeing that the original article's author did not use them, that this is''' a way how Wikipedia publishes, that citation marks should not be used. I am sure you did not even read the article properly, to recognize that I was not trying to "steal" the texts of journalists, God forbid, I only thought that this is the proper format! You could see, if you looked twice, that after each single quote I added a reference number and linked to the archived source. So I did not even think anyone would consider this quotation style as an attempt to show it was my own "creation". Only superfluous reading could bring such a feeling. If you took the effort to check the history behind the edit, and the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies article, you could easily understand that I am not a plagiator. Because the topic of Ram Bomjon is so extremely controversial and sensitive, in this particular caseItalic text the need to prove one's conclusion by at least two independent mainstream sources is crucial! This is s serious topic, where media had been misused and hijacked for cult propaganda and continue to be so, and where cult followers are repeatedly falsificating data. That is the reason that multiple media sources are used, but you acted like a machine, without understanding the particular case and the need for extreme care and correct citations, when describing the controversial events. This does not mean I do not have my own ability to write down the story, but then tell RobertMcClenon and Bearian (Talk page to the Media on... article), not to accuse me of POV fork and UNDUE or similar. I can write down the WHOLE story by now totally from my memory for you, after so much precize research on the topic, knowing the geography, ethicity, religiou sissues etc. But then again, I would be accused of not quoting exactly the sources to prove my claims...!! So first better that you agree upon what is a priority in Wikipedia, ability to write an article with my own words (dsiplayed but shunned by RobertMcClenon and Bearian) OR ability to find exact quotations. (again, codemned by you as "plagiarism"!)

To describe you why did RobertMcClenon decide to delete my article: it was aroudn 10 minutes, not more, after I published it, he did not have time to properly read even one paragraph, especially because the article was also really very long. He had a "feeling" it was overly negative, not based on proper sources etc. I cannot help, if the mainstream media did not show much positivity about him after 2012. The main article (where you had deleted all my edits) is outdated, stuck somewhere in 2008! That is why I wanted to update it, as a long list of publicly known events had happened concerning Bomjon, but it seems that Wikipedia does not care about showing updated and relevant articles. Old dreamy foggy incorrect text without head and tail, plus falsificated data in two paragraphs - it is interesting that it was staying there for about ten years!, and you did not minded it. Maybe such an under-standard article is what Wikipedia stands for? I am very disappointed, because now I start to doubt the credibility of also other articles. People are lazy to do research and lazy to make conclusions: and a I see, even if they do, it can end up wrong on either side. Own conclusion is condemned by McClenon and Bearian, eaxct sourcing and quoting by you!

If you had seen copy-pasting, it was actually allowed (advised) on the blue sticker on the Media on.. article, but to know that you should have studied the case and not rushed to conclusions that it is a plagiate! I was copy-pasting from my own article on Wikipedia! If I copy pasted from media, that was always with displaying the link to them, and filling in the form of Citation with great care, not to make a tiny mistake in numbers, names and dates... I just don't grasp it, how could you, an experienced editor, apparently, show such a disrespect to another research and panmstaking filling up of Citation forms! It really hurts and shocks...

So can you explain me, is allowed on Wikipedia the propagating of dangerous cults who, as multiple sources confirm (and you had seen those sources already), torture and rape people? Why is that article there already many years nad not updated? Attracting vulnerable people to the cult who then become victims and two of them even dies? Could not a copyright problem have been solved in more civilized way than just deleting many days of research work and writing, and thus blocking the public from knowing the full truth about this person and movement?

Is manipulating numbers in a "quote" not breaching copyright? Apparently not, because it is the cult's source, which seems to be on the side of your sympathies. Cult followers apparently are allowed even manipulate data, make grave mistakes (instead of Halkhoriya they write Ratanpuri), but that is no problem. I am really diappointed how you cannot have a unified attitude, and do not discuss one's move with other senior editors. You are just using your rushing passion and headlessly delete people's work, instead of deeply studying what is it about, how important that information is, and instead of giving a chance to the newcomer to fix his/her mistake! One of you accuses me of having too daring opinion (actually just a conclusion and summary of the read materials!) - and the other - you - then accuses me of plagiarism because I am scared to write a single sentence according to my clear understanding of the story, not to bring RobertMcClenon's deletion verdict again! And then you come, and turn my efort against me: copyright breach!

You had just done a terrible mistake, when you have blocked the public to get a balanced information about an extremely dangerous false guru and cult, using violence, rapes and tortures behind the shiny holy image. Pleas understand that you are endangering many foreigners' lives and safety by this, also because Bomjon is planning his first visit to Canada, as he has many Canadian followers and even a temple built for him there. There had been people hacked by him to blood, he is a dangerous person. But you do not allow potential victims (especially women) to get a full picture about him. I just cannot understand what makes you take thsi responsibility again. Already many people had ben harmed by them, among them 4 foreign followers, exactly because Wikipedia showed them a false picture of this "guru"! The time can come when survivors will sue Wikipedia on the damages that the false information caused them. That will be surely much worse a court case than the wrongly applied scupulousness about copyright when citing sources. (and still, I agree that I can rewrite that all to avoid copyright breaching, just you did not give a chance!).

I wrote before: "Because Wikipedia supported a cult propaganda with the out-dated and one-sided Ram Bahadur Bomjon article, and ignored the overwhelming controversies described by Nepalese and international media over the years, many people, who in good faith, based on Wikipedia, arrived to the 'guru' had already been tortured, violently attacked and two of them even died. Those who intentionally keep back pragmatic media information about dangerous religious cults, are co-responsible for the harm done to their victims."

Yes I know already much too well that you will use new and new stigmatizing labels now, that Wikipedia is not a courtroom, not justice hall, battle ground, this or that. It is easy to throw these labels on inexperienced newcomers, and push them out from your "elite group". Then please also delete all articles about Hitler, as why should we write negatively about the Nazis, if we are not allowed to write negatively about a Nepalese violent guru? That is also POV fork and UNDUE...

Yet, we are not robots, we are human beings, and the readers are also human beings. Your extreme "correctness" concerning copyrigt in this particular case is totally unbased. First of all no one will sue you from Nepali media for my quotations from them (they wil be happy for the free advertisement). It is a Third World country, who has so much money for lawyers? Please be also a human being, not just a machine. You could have been less strict in this case, and give some time to fix the mistakes, add quotation marks, write conclusions with my own words. You cannot apply rules which are strict in the USA as similarly strict in Nepal. What is more improtant, copyright or saving human lives providing truthful information about dangerous cults?

And writng this, I am still not claiming that I could not fix that problem very easily, but first you should agree with McClenon about what you actually both want, and not tear newcomers in pieces. Do you want a fully only media sourced text, zero conclusion, zero opinion? Or you want to avoid many quotations and citings? You cannot have it both ways, you have to agree "inside" Wikipedia first, and not use beginners as a victim of your inner disagreements.

When I first decided to publish here, I could not imagine that I will bump upon insensitive people who support outdated and fake data of a hagiography, instead of correct and factual information based on colections of sources, and when I try to update and corect mistakes, they would delet it. What is the reason that you could not bear the sight of a balanced view on Ram Bomjon? Could you answer me sincerely? You have deleted only the quotes about negative issues, there had been many quotes which actually claimed holy things about him, those you left there! Why did you not find those breaching copyright? It looks biasedItalic text to me, and I am going to complain about this very clearly distinguishable bias, if you do not reconsider you mistake. DarkAges 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kaliage: You plagiarized from various sources. That's not hard work, that's intellectual theft. Diannaa was just protecting the site from the legal issues that could ensue if we allow your lazy plagiarism to remain on the site.

If you want to contribute here, you need to assume good faith from other users. That's the cornerstone of this site and if you cannot abide by it, you need to find a different site. Follow your own advice -- Diannaa is not a robot and does not deserve to have indignant screeds plastered on her page.

You also need to Paraphrase and summarize sources instead of copying-and-pasting material from them.

We're just here to summarize professionally published mainstream academic and journalistic sources, not "right great wrongs".

Finally, you can't "retain the copyright concerning my own edits". Right above the "save changes" button, it says "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You, as well as Dianee, did not even do such an effort as to check that I am a beginner, and also that I did use my own words in the formerly written Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, but that was exactly criticized by other senior editors (McClenon, Bearian) who ALSO did not make the effort to check if my words are based on real existing sources. In the same time, the "main article" in its original form had been refering to sources, but changed the data (numbers) to fulfil an agenda of promoting Ram Bomjon. That you di dnot apparently mind over around ten years! You or Diannee could have just give me a notice that I used too many quotes and avoided own conclusions and opinions (and as you see in my Talk comments, I DO have a lot of them, on the topic!), and you or Diannee could just warn me about my merely formal mistake to delet my quotation marks (if you did the effort to check the history of edits, you would have seen that I did use them everywhere where I was quoting!). So my understanding is, that you have a hidden agenda, and try to adjust any Wikipedia rules just to fit your agenda NOT to allow any balanced information about this person. It is easy to use any rules, be it POV Fork or Copyright, when you decided to block the balanced information to appear in the article. I am sure you do find many mere quotations and ZERO own writing in the "main article" (original), just that it was slightly changed, and manipulated to give different meanings. But you apparently did not mind it and still do not mind. This is called double-standard. So what is your stance about why Diannee deleted only my alleged plagiarism ONLY in the case of negative quotes, but left there those who support the positve image? It is disappointing to see that some senior editors who do not understand a topic, apply blindly the copyright rule only against new editors, but leave the original article based solely on (slightly manipulated) quotes there for ten years! First there should have been a discussion, I read it all-over Wikipedia rules, and concerning newcomers there should be a kind notice and giving a chance to repair it. I could write you an article on this topic without any source, as I know the country, spoke with many people about the topic, watching it 12 years in real, in the "terrain". But then again, other senior editors like McClenon and Bearian, would chase me with POV Fork and similar! I just wished to satisfy them, and started to use exact quotes to exhibit that my conclusions and descriptive sections in the Media on Ram B. B. Controversies had been based on reality! But at least those guys had some decency and gave me a warning, gave me time to fix mistakes and shifted it to discussion with others. By this they complied with the good practice as I understood from reading how Wikipedia should work. But Dianne did not give a chance and had no understanding for beginners. She/he also did not read the precedent article and did not pick up that I was trying to scrupolously avoid my own writing, to "prove" that I am not kidding when I am writng that this guy is an abductor, violent attacker and torturer of many people. I do not accept you limping argument, as it i snot based on Wikipedia rules and advices how to deal wit hbeginners and not following te procedure of solving conflicts. You are acting on your own personal mood and apparently ecven agenda (double-standard, supporting manipulatedand one-sided information about a dangerous religious cult).DarkAges 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, I just did that in my previosu attempt, Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies. Check that Talk page and history (I know you did not!) when you want to condemn me. There I was, on the other hand, trying to defend that my paraphrases and comments, descriptive and introductory sections DID have a firm base in multiple media sources! But my argument was not accepted and that article called a POV Fork. So I wanted to change it and display eaxct wordings of media sources, instead of my own words (who, by now seem to be an expert on this topic). Simply saying, I wanted to make McClenon and Bearian "happy", and I "angered" Dianne! Moreover, you should understand that the endless rules and terminology on Wikipedia are overwhleming to a beginner, and you could have shown some patience when seeing that I fell on the other extreme, by trying to satisfy the concerns of POV Fork. What I only see is lack of good-will, lack of effort to study the history of edits and Talk pages, and lack of respect to the work of others. And in between, because of Wikipedia allowing a cult to hijack it as a tool of propaganda and a means to promote a dangerous religious guru, other potential victims are getting attracted to him, and get then abducted, held hostage tortured, raped and beaten. And so little could have been done for a balanced image! Plagiarism would be if I was unable or unwilling to describe the story by my own words. As you can see in my Media.. article, that is NOT the case. Don't use the same filter for all cases like a machine. The article Ram Bahadur Bomjon was NOT FINISHED yet, and I was planning to add the paraphrasing texts from the Media on Ram B.B.C., but you did not give a chance. I wanted to merge the Media on Ram B.B. Cont. into it, as suggested by the Merger sticker. Before to do that, I wanted to correct the fake information, numbers, names, data, all the mistakes. I started to add the media quotes, but you did not give me chance to continue with the text itself. Moreover, you could be more country-specific in applying copyright rules, as in Nepal is far not so strict in practice as for example in the USA or Germany. I have never heard of any court cases because someone quoted four lines from a Nepali newspapers, while adding all the information like author, title, date, as I did so scrupulously! This is absurd. Instead of fearing this imaginary legal issue with media houses, you should fear rather suing by the more than dozen victims of this cult leader, 4 foreigners among them, for getting false, incorrect and unbalanced information about Ram Bomjon on Wikipedia before arriving to him to Nepal! That is a real possibility, especially after an US psychologist died in his premises. So think twice if that was the original idea of the founder of Wikipedia to help dangerous cults to attract victims to them by keeping away balanced information? I am sure that not.DarkAges 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did just that. I was summarizing in the Media on Ram B.B.C. article, based on mainstream media, while the "main article" uses cult-based sources and blogs! I was using journalistic sources from multiple, mainstream media, but it is not my fault that after 2007 practically ALL had been writng negatively about Bomjon! It is then obvious that my summarizing sounded negativitsitc to Bearina and McClenon! So I wanted to prove them thsi time, when I started to to edit the "main article" Ram B.B., that I DO have mainstream sources supporting my own summrizings in the Media on Ram B.B.C. article! It was anyway in te middle of merging, I wanted to prepare it for merging, and then you would have a lot of summarizing, plus only links and not so many quotes! But you did not check the situation and in what phase is this and the Media on R.B.B.C. article! You just arrived and deleted blindly. That is against all good practice, and cannot be called proffessional or academic behavior even if you try it.DarkAges 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh very nice! So now you want to use my edits to support a cult propaganda minus the balancing sources from the other side! Am I dreaming? This you call neutral view and academic and proffessional attititude? I do not agree and if I have to complain about this to your country's president, I will. It is OK that you block all balanced information to appear, it is your own personal decision and personal conscience. But you have no right to hijack the meticulous research results of another person to be used in cult propaganda, and delete edits showing controversial issues. That's even a bigger shock to me and called, among decent academics simply bias!DarkAges 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kaliage: At no point did I say that your edits have to support cult propaganda, and for you to say that I did indicates that you are not editing from an honest or rational perspective. By all means, go complain to my government, that won't be a waste of time rooted in grandiose delusion at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's face it, Diannaaaaaa, you're just a Nazi with very bad uniform. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought she was more like this, but in Canada instead of Somerset. Keira1996 13:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing makes me feel more like this :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So is there a new guideline page here are Wikipedia for "brutal deleting of others' painstaking work"? I have not seen it yet, especially from you, Diannaa. If so, then I suggest there should be one for "letting others' down softly while deleting their lazy work", as well. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Gallery Rifle Shooting

Please return the Gallery Rifle Shooting page to as it looked on 31 August 2017. Content is taken from http://galleryrifle.com as appropriate. I own http://galleryrifle.com and all content on it. I have acknowledged that all this content is now in the public domain. Images recently uploaded to the page are also mine published in conjunction with the appropriate organisation. I will sort the acknowledgements of these images out in due course and republish. NeilF (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Content is now released under a compatible license, and I will restore. Please see the note on your talk page for an example of how to provide attribution in the future if you add any further compatibly licensed material from this website. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Maurha

Hello Diannaa, How are you? Sorry for that, I was upload a data without copyright. can I upload a Short data without reference. because I am from Maurha. So i know about Maurha. Maurha is my Ancestors place.

It's okay to add information but everything needs to have a reference. What's not okay is to copy prose from other websites. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Mount Carmel East

I wanted to apologize for my misunderstanding of the limitations of Wikipedia and copyright. I didn't intend to break any rules and I didn't know the limitations of what I could edit while citing sources. I was under the mistaken impression that if you cited the source you could use their own material. I didn't know how much it had to be reworded or placed in quotation marks even when sources are cited. I still hope to build upon that article and help articles in my local area mostly as a photographer, but also using my time and willingness to attempt to edit correctly within the rules. Once again I apologize for this and hope this never happens again. Best regards Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Annie Silinga deletion

Hi! I only noted the deletion and started the Annie Silinga article again in my sandbox, I'd like to post it. Can I go ahead?Thobeka-77 (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have done some copyright clean-up on the draft and it is now okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion without consensus

I object strongly to User:Tornado chaser's unilateral merging of the Vaccine and Vaccination articles. Boldly barging in is all very well for modest changes, but these are two major topics that he has conflated in the face of no consensus (I for example just got an RFC today). I was tempted to revert his changes immediately, but as you apparently were aware of the changes, and have admin status, I thought I would ask for your reaction first. The topics are not only radically different, but large (they could easily be split further) and the question is not whether they were improperly composed before, but how they should have been improved. Piling the whole mess onto a single midden is not the appropriate resolution. Unfortunately, reconstructing the articles to deal with the justifiable objections their former structures will be a serious undertaking, but for an amateur just to hash them together in a few days is neither the proper course nor achieves the right result. Could you either please comment or direct me to someone who can deal with the matter properly. JonRichfield (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The discussion of the merge is centered on Talk:Vaccine, by the way. Seconded, though of course I opposed in the RfC. Keira1996 07:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

My only reason for visiting the page was to add the required attribution. I have no opinion on the merger itself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Cannabis in Pakistan

Dear Diannaa, I understand the problem well now, I was under the impression that citations would be sufficient to avoid plagiarism problems. However, I request you to somehow send me a previous version of the deleted article for my viewing only, so that I can paraphrase it and contribute to it again. Thanks in advance. (Sarmadagha2 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

Sent via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

SAP Business One page

The image removed (SAPBusinessOneUI) is not in violation of copyright. It was created by myself on my own SAP Business One system. I have read and understood the rules and therefore I am not certain why this is flagged as copyright violation. Could you indicate why?

(talk page stalker) Please read WP:DONATEIMAGE and WP:COPYVIO -- if the image she removed is suitable for use in the encyclopaedia, and you own it, you are able to donate it to us to use. However, without proving to us that you own the image, we assume it is a violation of copyright and remove it for legal reasons. Keira1996 09:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this copyvio.

This[11] says it's taken from another source. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is copyvio, both the prose and the photo. I have tagged the photo for deletion on the Commons. Perhaps the article can be saved? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about him, but there is a French Wikipedia version.[12] Doug Weller talk 11:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Deletion

Hello, I am authorized by Radford University to use materials from their website. Is there any way you can not delete all the edits I have made to the Radford University page? I can provide proof if necessary.

Nevermind, I will get authorization to donate our boilerplate.

Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi

Hi Diannaa, you recently removed copyrighted material from Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (good edit!) but it seems that in so doing you've hidden all previous versions of the article. Could you take a look at that and fix it if possible. Thanks. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand that. What seems to have happened here is that the copyrighted material had been in the article and was removed, but then recently readded. Every edit back to the initial one in 2005 was hidden and it seems unlikely to me that the original contained the copyrighted material (it being only a few hundred bytes larger than the copyrighted stuff) but of course I can't be sure. However, it does seem like this stuff was added in 2007, so there isn't that much of the history that can be preserved in any event. Thanks anyway. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Some was removed and re-added, but some had been present from the very beginning too. That's why the whole works was rev-deleted. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

ACRISS Car Classification Code

Help!

I run ACRISS.org an non profit organisation responsible for setting standards in the car rental industry regarding the car codes, car locations, airport locations used in all booking systems and the car rental companies own booking systems.

Our members noticed some errors in the Wikipedia pages and asked me to edit them but I have encountered problems as you can see from the responses you sent back.

I own the copyright on the acriss.org page and happy to give permission to use some of the material from our website, equally happy to keep the wikipedia pages to a minimum.

I was particularly keen to ensure the correct members are listed Avis, Budget, Hertz, Enterprise and Europcar but also that for the car classification code that you are referring to that the table I used be the one displayed but I am not sure how to format this.

Also it is imperative that no example of car models are used in the pages as this information changes constantly and has already caused us complaints with the German and French version of ACRISS Car Classification page. The German version refers to Sixt rent a car who are no longer members and therefore should not get any credit for using or following our standards.

I did not create this page but would like it to be accurate as much as possible and to be laid out correctly with content page and objective, history etc.. Happy to quote our website as the source material and even my name if that helps.

Regards Melanie Methven ACRISS Secretariat ACRISS.orgAcrisseeig (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. 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. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

editing feedback

Hi Diannaa - thanks for your feedback on HM Queen Noor's page. We are working together to update her bio...some of the content on her page was either inaccurate or incomplete, hence the updates. Better to publish her updated bio on our website (oceanelders.org) and biography.com first then update her page? Please advise. many thanks.

Delta_Sigma_Rho-Tau_Kappa_Alpha

Not my first article. I *thought* I had tweeked it enough to take care of the copyright infringement, but apparently not. I see a few choices.

1. I grab the infobox (which frankly doesn't have enough sentence structure to be a copyvio) and the article gets nuked as a copyvio as I start from scratch.
2. I keep tweeking, seeing if we can get it below the level of concern.

I fully intend to add additional sources and info, most particular from Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (for both original groups and the combined) and from the group's own website for things where Primary sources are acceptable. Please let me know whether you would prefer a full nuke or not.Naraht (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to get ready for work now and will be AFK for about four hours and other admins will be reviewing the page in the meantime. If you plan on attempting a re-write in the next few hours I suggest you post an message to that effect on the article talk page to stave off deletion for a bit. Right now the copyvio tool is showing a huge overlap with pretty much all the prose being identical, so starting over is a good option. You could copy the infobox to a sandbox as a starting point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding: Please don't copy any of the prose to a sandbox; it's all copyvio. You are of course welcome to save it in a text file on your own computer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I don't know if it is possible to wipe out all versions without deleting the article (there isn't a signficant change in copyvio-ness between the first and the last version. If it is possible, that's fine. If it isn't, I'll recreate.Naraht (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Once you've got it copyright compliant the violating diffs can be hidden using revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac went ahead and deleted it, but saved off the infobox. I've recreated it as a stub, don't have access to my other sources at work and so I'll leave it for this evening. Recreated the redirects (deleted by Twinkle) did the wl to it from both the combined honorary and the originals. Probably the best thing is the start with the pre-1923 sources for the originals and build from there.Naraht (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Student Startup Business Center

Could you review this when you get a chance (I'm away all today). Tagged as G12 and then rewritten. When I ran the rewrite through Earwig it comes up in the 20s, but with the exception of one sentence still appears to be either copied or a close paraphrase. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Did some more re-wording and it's coming up clean now. Rev-del done also. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Haitianism

Hello, this page got recently deleted by admin Primefac based on the false accusation of copyright violation, if he took his time to check he would see that the "violation" was actually just a Wikipedian mirror of Haitian revolution. Would you mind to reinstate the article or at least salvage the content so I can made any necessary amendments? Thank you. Appah Rao (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss with the deleting admin. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights copyright issues

Hi Diannaa, I recently edited the UNGP page for a university assignment and it was deleted for copyright infringement. I've gone and altered my citations and structure and submitted a new edit under the talk page as a suggested edit. Will this be acceptable from a copyright standard point or is there more changes I need to make? Markjoblin (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but your suggested edit has a 83.5% overlap with http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf and a 65% http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-protect-respect-remedy-framework.pdf. I have removed it from the talk page. Please stop posting copyright material to this wiki. Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am the course instructor for this student assignment. Although I have not yet looked at the edits/deletions in detail, the student is expanding on the UN Guiding Principles. The Wikipedia page should state what the Principles are. It is like stating what a law is - the Principle itself needs to be stated precisely rather than paraphrased, otherwise the Wikipedia description of the Principle will be inaccurate. In other words, it is appropriate to use the exact words of the relevant Principle rather than paraphrase it, provided there is proper footnoting and acknowledgement of original source. In addition, some of the source material is public domain material, ie it is copyright-free but still needs to be acknowledged.Humanrights4nz (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It is okay to use short properly attributed and sourced quotations as long as it it made clear that they are quotations and not original prose. But that's not what happened here. In addition to closely paraphrasing the principles with no indication that the material had been copied, editor copied large passages from copyright materials on the history and development. That's a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Daggafari

Hi Diannaa,

I have massive concerns about the notability of the neologism "daggafari". None of the reliable sources in the article discuss the term in any detail, and the creator of the article has a huge personal interest in pushing the term. He's also using the article to boost his own website. I've therefore redirected it to the neutrally titled article Cannabis in South Africa, and will be keeping an eye on the developments. Right now, the corresponding article in Afrikaans is the subject of a deletion discussion, and the creator of the article has been using the spurious argument that the enwiki article hasn't been proposed for deletion. Just letting you know - feel free to let me know if you have any strong opinions on the matter. --Slashme (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

William Lambe (philanthropist)

Thank you for your feedback on the draft article that I have submitted with the above title. I note your point about needing to follow the correct procedure with respect to acknowledging the extensive use of material that is in the public domain. I have followed the link you provided but it essentially boils down to the instruction to "add Category:Wikisource link templates with no link" whose meaning is not apparent to me. Would you be so kind as to explain what this means? I presume it requires only the most modest of tweaks given that in the article I have already clearly stated the source of the text used in Wiki Commons and explicitly stated that this text has been used. On a separate subject, I have inadvertantly submitted the same article twice but with slightly different names. So please delete 'William Lambe (cloth merchant and benefactor)' but please do retain 'William Lambe (philanthropist)'. Thanks.Alternativecarpark (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I must not have read it very closely because I see now that you did do that. Sorry for the mistake. For articles you copy from the Dictionary of National Biography, you can use the template {{DNB}}. I have added one of these to Draft:William Lambe (philanthropist). Another way to do it is by adding your source as a citation and including the template {{PD-notice}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed duplicate copies of the draft from User:Alternativecarpark/sandbox and User:Alternativecarpark. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Pastor Russell Evans

Hi Diannaa, I'm interested to create the page for Pastor Russell Evans but saw you deleted it. Can I ask what can I do to start it up again? Thanks Ngyahloon (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The previous version Russell Evans (pastor) was deleted for notability concerns and because most of the content was copied from https://www.planetshakers.com/russellevans/about/ and the page was therefore a copyright violation. Please review our notability rules for people and our WP:copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Diannaa,

I would like to apologize for contributing edits that include copyrighted material. I am dedicated to making wikipedia stronger and better and I meant no harm in doing these edits. I would like to thank you for realizing my mistakes and helping me become a better person. I promise you I did these edits to make the pages better and not to cause harm to the encyclopedia. I hope we can look past this and work together to improve wikipedia.

AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you for taking the time to post this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Katyusha (song)

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for removing the translation from KATYUSHA. I have one question: Apart from the lyrics, I added a lot of other materials that are NOT copyrighted and that either provide valuable information about the song or needed copy-editing. Should I restore those segments, or just let them go? Best, Brachney (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Brachney

? The only thing I removed was the lyrics. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Natore Rajbari

Hi, I can't see the source but am very suspicious about the copyright status of the History and Architecture sections of Natore Rajbari. Can you see it? - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Tricky but I found it to be copied from Buildings of the British Raj in Bangladesh published in 1986. Added to the article in December 2012. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well done. Good work. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Urban resilience

Hi Diannaa,

Wanted to reach out about your removal of my addition to the "Urban resilience" Wiki entry. The submission centered on the Island Press Urban Resilience Project. I work at Island Press, a non-profit educational publisher, and received permission to use all the information that was submitted in my entry. Please advise how I might be able to go about reinstating my submission. I'm unable to find the text that was entered. Thank you.

Kyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.230.115.226 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. 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. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Inserting material about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Avery Street Historic District

Hello, thank you for reaching out with information that I was unaware of. The Avery Street Historic District page has been edited, and I believe it is now in compliance. Is it possible for you to double check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuchsia Saarinen (talk • contribs) 00:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The material you added was public domain so it's okay to copy it as long as you provide the legally required attribution. I already did that when I added the {{PD-notice}} template so everything is okay now — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

CCI thanks

I tried to ping you here, but I bungled it the first time, and not sure the second attempt worked, so I wanted to make sure you knew how much I appreciated your involvement in this CCI. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jdchapman15 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Jdchapman15

Reply

I have received a message on my talk page concerning some form of allegation of "copyright". My problem with Your allegation is that it appears to be too vague to have any serious merit, and therefore appears to me to be abuse. You failed to disclose exactly "What" about or in the post is supposedly subject to "copyright", and whom the alleged "copyright owner" is. Therefore, based upon what you said at my talk page, at this time I feel that I can safely conclude that I am the sole rightful owner of the copyright to said material, and therefore request it to be restored, absent citation of specifics as to what the copyrighted content was, and reasonably credible sources indicating a third-party copyright actually exists, pursuant to the applicable requirements for copyright. If you can't provide the requested information within a reasonable amount of time, I will restore the content and mark the change as "reversing vandalism". Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

My Contributions to Articles on "Euthanasia" and "Abortion in the United Kingdom"

After my comments were removed, citing possible copyright infringements (this should not be an issue since the copyright states — "You may print copies of this work for free distribution. You may re‑format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks, provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use. Otherwise, all rights reserved. Revised: 9 November 1998") I completely rewrote both contributions in my own words and added them again.

These later contributions were also promptly removed.

The Abortion article includes a section on the Religious Views of Catholics and Protestants, and the Euthanasia article contains the views of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Why, then, should the Buddhist viewpoint not be represented? This is discriminatory.

Bhikkhu Pesala (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The material was removed as a copyright violation, as that license is not compatible with Wikipedia's. Our license permits all re-uses of the content, including its sale. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hollywood

Actually. I was the original contributor to the water and power site. I didn't realize there was the same information on Wiki for the Hollywood sign. My information is coming from family archives which consist of diaries, Board meeting minutes, new paper articles, photographs and much more. How should I handle this? I do not want to spend time searching all of wiki each time I post. All I am attempting to do is make the history complete and correct. Whitleyfamily ]] Hope I signed off correctly. —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So who is the source that wikipedia used? I would like to see it. How do I find it? Whitleyfamily ]] —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion of content from Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit

I have a question about your removal of "copyright content copied from http://www.wrbu.org/about/whoWeAre.html" from Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit. Being that the content was authored by Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit (WRBU) personnel, and WRBU personnel are government personnel, the content is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties, therefore it is a work of the United States Government, and works of the United States Government are not provided copyright protection, why should the content not be restored, with the standard caveat on the source, "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain"? Thank you. Cohee (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The page is marked at the bottom as © Smithsonian Institution. Checking terms of use linked at the bottom of the page, it says the content can be copied for "personal, educational and other non-commercial purposes" which is not liberal enough for our purposes, as our license permits all uses, including commercial use. The license also states that any content with no known copyright restrictions shall be marked as such, and this page has no such statement. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. The original thought was that since WP is non-commercial, putting the SI content on WP would be acceptable, and anyone taking it from WP would be responsible for meeting the SI terms. Cohee (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my own contributions

The material was removed as a copyright violation, as that license is not compatible with Wikipedia's.

After the quote from Ajahn Thanissaro's was removed, I added my own contributions to replace them.

These were also removed. No copyright restrictions apply to them, so please reinstate my contributions.

Bhikkhu Pesala (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It was not me who removed it a second time, it was User: Fightindaman, and he gave the reason "this does not seem relevant to the article". Please discuss it with them or start a discussion on the article talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

HaMerotz LaMillion 5/6 Attribution

Re: Message left on my Talk page

Hello. Trying to figure out how to go about working in the Copied template as you requested, since I didn't realize when I made the edit or I would have put it in the edit summary, my apologies. Pages on Amazing Race seasons all follow the same basic templates in their tables. With the number of editors that work on those pages, I unfortunately wouldn't know who originally developed it. Mark RaceFan (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The {{copied}} template is optional, and goes on the article talk page, not in the edit summary. For an example of how to use it, see Talk:Electromagnetism. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2010 in British television

I don't quite know how that happened, but thanks for the revision delete. This is Paul (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for leaving a clear edit summary that the issue was a glitch of some kind! makes for quick work on copyvio patrol. :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Felix Z. Longoria, Jr.

I worked for two days on that section and did not copy and paste. This section is very important to the context of the time and the State of Texas response to the national outrage,(Diannaa) What section do I need to reword, I will do it, but do not remove the entire section as everything was referenced and citations given. I will be happy to rework it, but it needs to stay, Thank you.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There were references and citations that took me days to research and to make me redo all that work is more than a shame. I had to dig through Texas state archives as well as news reports. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Then WHAT??? do I need to change???? You deleted two days of research, references and citations and I still do not know what sentences I needed to redo? Of course, there page will come up with much the same stuff as you can only write or rewrite the same information about the same subject and not have overlap. Texas House of Representatives holds hearing in Three Rivers, evidence is gathered, the committee disagrees on the findings, the report(s) are withdraw and now you can only find the summaries in the archives: How many ways can you write this???C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Great, you gave me the parameters in which to work, now can you give me back my reference materials so I do not have to redo two days of reseaching???? Also, "3" words rule is a bit hard when just saying 'Three Rivers, Texas' reaches that limit,or 'Texas House of Representatives Committee' violates it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I really do need the reference materials, that you deleted, ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• "FELIX LONGORIA AFFAIR". Texas State Historical Association.
• Carroll, Patrick (2003). Felix Longoria's Wake: Bereavement, Racism, and the Rise of Mexican American Activism (Cmas History, Culture, & Society). Texas: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0292712499.
• Carroll, Patrick (2003). Felix Longoria's Wake: Bereavement, Racism, and the Rise of Mexican American Activism (Cmas History, Culture, & Society). Texas: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0292712499.
• http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Longoria-affair-continues-to-be-debated-2673487.php
• "House Reburial of Felix Longoria, Investigation, Special Committee". Legislative Reference Library of Texas. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and I just rewrote it, again (without looking anything up), no cutting or pasting, just my words as to the facts. Please let me know if I need make changes. Thank you.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I found and removed a little more from the TSHA website that you added back in 2011. The article is now okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Kyaikhtisaung Sayadaw

• Kyaikhtisaung Sayadaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Diannaa. Since you are dealing with copyright monitoring, I thought that you may be able to help. While I used the {{Copyvio-revdel}} template once, I'm wondering what should be done when the edits were part of the initial article creation edit (consisting almost of the full article). I noticed that a lot of text originated from [13]. Does this mean that the article should entirely be speedily deleted? On the other hand the author appears to be responsive on the article's talk page and said that she would work on it. Thank you very much, —PaleoNeonate – 06:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have listed the article at WP:CP, which gives the contributor some time to perform clean-up. Meanwhile the copyvio core template hides the copyvio material from public view. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. So the history does not matter in this case (the content is part of the first edit)? Or will revdel still work and eventually be applied to the first revison? —PaleoNeonate – 09:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion will eventually be done, but the contributor will have access to the material for a week or two so that they can use it to perform the re-write. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, —PaleoNeonate – 09:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Blick Art Materials logo help

GAB suggested you might be able to help me. I would like to replace the logo on the Blick Art Materials page with the current one (the one now shown is obsolete), but I do not have permissions to do so. Please advise how to accomplish this? Thanks in advance. Asghunt (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I already responded at User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad: If it's the one on their Facebook page, you could upload it to the Commons. Here's the mark-up:

{{Information
| description = Blick Art Materials logo
| source      = https://www.facebook.com/BlickArtMaterials/
| date        = 2017
| author      = Dick Blick Holdings Inc
| other_versions =
}}
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademarked}}

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this material kept on Google drive copyvio?

I just found an article with a lot of footnotes to copyright material kept on a Google drive. Traced it to this edit. What do you think? Doug Weller talk 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

According to the citation, it's a copy of a chapter of the book Augustine and Social Justice and hence would be copyright material that shouldn't be copied here. It shouldn't be used as a citation either as we're not supposed to link to copyvio material. It would be okay to use the original book as a source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

EU law non-free?

Hey Diannaa

You did the following edit:

19 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . Europol‎; 23:15 . . (-1,434)‎ . . ‎Diannaa (talk | contribs)‎ (remove excessive non-free content, per WP:NFCC. No reason why original prose could not be prepared)

I fully agree with you and was about to rewrite the content into prose as soon as had some time. But to my question: Is EU law (the content of your edit) considered non-free by Wiki policy? At least EU copyright notices and decisions deem it as a free even commercially as long as its attributed? Please see:

• Except where otherwise stated, reuse of the EUR-Lex data for commercial or non-commercial purposes is authorised provided the source is acknowledged ('© European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/, 1998-2017').
• Reuse of legal, administrative and case-law documents and data published on this website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by a Decision of 12 December 2011.
• COMMISSION DECISION of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (2011/833/EU)

Cheers Shadowdasher (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not clear whether or not their license permits derivative works. But looking back in my talk page archives I see I allowed it in a similar case back in April so I guess the same should apply here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Indian Oil Corporation

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for removing the content from the article. I will work on this and write the content using my own words. Also I noticed that you put back the advert banner. The content of the article is now in a neutral tone and all promotional content has already been removed. Do you think that this can be removed? Let me know. Thanks Ananprat (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you are right; the current version is not overly promotional. So I have removed the tag. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Incorrect, linknovate.com actually pulls content from Wikipedia. The content I added was not taken from linknovate.com, please reinstate my edit.

 Done. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks a lot for removing copyright related problem at the article of Anil Bokil. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

HMCS Chippawa

dianaa — HMCS Chippawa deletion of material by you. You claim the material deleted appeares to be copyright material, yet the source was on a public domain web page that does not precent a copywright notice. Nor is ther such a notice anywhere else on the source’s website. I dont think your deletion is valid. Moreover the article as it stands not is not historicall accurate. Possibly the entire section called Namesake should be removed, rather than presenting the inaccurate and unclear information that is there now. Would you agree to that, if the Naval Museum Material cannot be presented? Dbd99 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

? The page is marked at the bottom as ©1996-2004 - The Naval Museum of Manitoba - 1 Navy Way - Winnipeg Manitoba - R3C 4J7. So it is definitely copyright. What you need to do is write the material in your own words using the web page as a source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Annie Silinga deletion

Hi Dianna, an update after your deletion of my Annie Silinga article: I've rewrote the piece and believe it is now good to enter? Can I go ahead? You can review it in my sandbox otherwise, Thanks. Thobeka-77 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thobeka-77. The new version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dhaka Polytechnic Logo

Dianna, you use Dhaka Polytechnic Logo. which is made by me. You delete my high resulation logo. why did you do that? Md. Anik Solaiman (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The same logo appears on the LinkedIn page of the college, plus the original logo appears on the college website. You don't own the copyright to this logo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Tysports

Hi Diannaa. In August you warned this user that he'd received his final warning about posting copyvios. Looks like he's created a new article and it was tagged with WP:G12. Just thought you should know. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User did not create the article, it's a cut-and-paste page move from Lawrence O'Toole Sr. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Adding: There was some copyvio in the article, but he added it when he created the article back in 2015, not after he received his final warning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Visiting Advanced Joint Research Faculty Scheme

details on this article are taken from www.pib.nic.in which is a government of india website under public domain Iamsalin (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

References

The copyright policy of that webpage states that "The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" which is not a liberal enough license for our purposes. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Northern Westchester Hospital

Hi Diannaa. You recently removed content from the Northern Westchester Hospital page because of copyright problems. If this information is coming from a Hospital published source, does that constitute as a copyright problem on Wikipedia?

You posted the following message: Your addition to Northern Westchester Hospital has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC).

Could you please reinstate the Hospital contributions to awards and accreditation?

The content was copied directly from the hospital's website, which is a copyright violation, so no, I will not be restoring it. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Awards need independent sourcing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Cadron Settlement Park

Hi Diannaa, it looks like the history section was copied from its source, the Arkansas State Encyclopedia. Can you confirm and then rev/delete if necessary? Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

[14]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Pedro Pinho

Hi,

Is it ok now? Should I change the text further, specify better the references to external sources?

Thanks,

JoãoJoãoMM (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The page is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyvios by IP 86.74.92.246

Hi - pinging you since you revdeleted a copyvio on Ali-Baba Bound previously. IP user 86.74.92.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) added a bunch of content to that and several other cartoon-related pages this week (removing redirects in the process). I caught them in the edit filter log attempting to remove sockpuppet tags from Antoine Lemperrière so they might be the same person. Funcrunch (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Also see this AfD. I was going to mention the copyvios but then saw that one editor claims they were the one who researched and wrote the articles. Funcrunch (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Content in Ali-Baba Bound was copied from Looney Tunes Wiki, which is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (Unported) license. I have added the required attribution and notified the editor (Corinne le bouch, who may or may not be another sock of Yay Dad) as to how to do this themselves in the future. The other edits by 86.74.92.246 were restores from old revisions so no attribution is required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio on User:Karlosvoy2

Hello. Karlosvoy2, a new user, added material copied verbatim from http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17974/preview/1119500 to their user page, so would you mind hiding it? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC) (PS. If you're not familiar with ESPNcricinfo you'll find the copyright information if you click on what looks like a numerical keyboard in the menu bar of the page...)

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

Previously you have advised me that when copying information from a source in the public domain an attribution template should used. Oftentimes the initial material is amended or clarified by subsequent more current sources. Recently, a template notice was reversed: "Removed attribution template for source for which is not used verbatim." So, is a template only used in the case of material that is used verbatim, regardless of how much is derived from the PD source? Thank you for any clarification. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The template I typically use is {{PD-notice}} which provides the following blurb: " This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." It should be added where the article contains any quotation or close paraphrasing from the PD source. It doesn't have to be verbatim, and it doesn't have to be extensive for this template to be appropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Also note that if someone else used and modified the original PD content, we may have a Derivative Work depending on how much it was transformed, so that content may have its own copyright. Crow^Caw 19:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ursula Hayden Wiki

Hello Diannaa,

I am actually Ursula Hayden's publicist and she owns all those pictures copyrights except for the Washinton post photo which i took down. The ones she is allowing me to publish are free domain. They can be publicly used. Thanks for looking out. If you could allow the photos to be posted that would be great. Thanks again

If Ursula Hayden, the copyright holder of File:SigningAutographs.jpg, wishes to release this image to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. This also applies to File:Modeling Campaign.jpg, File:UrsulaHayden.jpg, and File:Ringbabe.jpg. File:Winningamatch.jpg is an obvious screen shot of a copyright TV show or video, and will be deleted shortly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Waffen-SS atrocities

Dear Diannaa (or what else), what is wrong with sentence which I wanted to post? Champollion (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

There's problems with the wording and the grammar.

• "In the service of villain politics": What are villain politics? It's not a phrase in use in the English language. Statements that offer a point of view need to be attributed as well as sourced.

• "members of elite Waffen-SS" is not grammatically correct because the determiner is missing (the correct way to say it would be "members of the elite Waffen-SS"), and the decision was made sometime last year to not use the word "elite" to describe the Waffen-SS.
• "were involved in numerous atrocities during WWII" Of course it was during the war, when else would it be? Also, the preference would be to use the more formal World War II or Second World War rather than WWII.
• "on the battlefield, and behind" Not sure what you mean by "and behind". Perhaps in locations other than the battlefield? Redundant to say atrocities took place on the battlefield and off. So this part can be removed. The punctuation was missing from the end of this sentence.
• That leaves the useful statement that "Members of the Waffen-SS were involved in numerous atrocities" and the accompanying citation. I moved your addition further down in the lead, in the section where the atrocities are discussed. Here is where I placed it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If possible only

Hi ! This Triangeln railway station should really have the name Triangeln station, if you have some time only. Congratulations to all your Million Awards, by the way. Impressive - and heavy stuff as well. Important articles I mean. Boeing720 (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Boeing720 and thank you for your kind remarks. The page Triangeln Station does not exist so there's no reason why you could not move the page yourself. There's instructions at Wikipedia:Moving a page. Start a discussion on the talk page first if you suspect the move would be controversial. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Freelancing in India

Hello Diannaa, if you have a bit of time, could you look at the article's original version from 19 December 2016 please? The article seems to have been copied from an external source (formatting, broken reference boxes, one huge edit at once), but after a lot of searching for various search terms I am still unable to locate any possible original versions. Maybe the topic has been copied internally from a different deleted Wikipedia article? Aside from the obvious copyright concern, this situation also led to a broken referencing structure - the initial version did not have functional inline-references so several of them are likely misplaced now (after some possibly erroneous good-faith cleanup). The article is still quite a mess. I am not necessarily looking for a perfect solution :), but any advice how to deal with it would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe. I did find one snippet of copyvio but was unable to locate where the bulk of the material was copied from, if indeed it was. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for taking a look. I have already tagged the article, so maybe someone else knowledgeable in the area will help to clean up the content-related problems. Some parts of it seem to contain useful encyclopedic content despite the messy situation. GermanJoe (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Knox Chamblin

Knox Chamblin Thank you for your correct guide about the text written by me. I changed the text with the problems. Would you check one more please. Thanks 칼빈500 (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

(Philboyxp (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)).

Hello, I indeed do have permission to copy copyright statements from artresearchcentergroup.org website. - I can have the founder email you or some other way. we really need the information back on Wikipedia - the right way.please let me know thanks (Philboyxp (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC))

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. A second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No conflict of interest, I'm a third party/neutral opinion - was only asked to do this because I have a pc. They are all older people who dont know how to use one for Wiki, Someone messed everything up a couple of years ago. The founder of the group sent you guys 2 emails releasing copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philboyxp (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know when I can add the copy written statement back to arc wiki. Thanks (Philboyxp (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)).

If the copyright holder has no computer and doesn't know how to use one, it seems to me unlikely that permission emails are on the way, so sorry. I suggest you write the content in your own words using the source webpage as a source document. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Its already been sent 2 days ago, The founder of Arc has a laptop... They don't know how to do/use wiki. And this is my first time dealing with Wiki. So please be patient with me. I'm a newbie Also - A person keeps deleting the beginning statement - even though nothing was wrong with it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philboyxp (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You should ask them, not me — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Your note re: Site C dam article

In June you commented on my talk page about a copyvio. I've responded on my talk page here Sunray (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Future proof

I received a notice regarding copyright of the Principles of Future-Proofing and sent an e-mail back to wiki@wikimedia.org regarding your concerns and including permission to include them on Wikipedia under a CC BY-SA version 3.0 license. I am indeed the creator of both pieces of information you've been looking at. The slideshare presentation is for my Masters thesis work and I have taken the Principles and posted them on Wikipedia. Please restore the information you have deleted. A copy of my copyright permission e-mail is below (I have deleted portions of my name for security reasons):

I hereby affirm that I, Brian D***** Rich, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the definition of Future-Proofing and the Principles of Future-Proofing, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I am the copyright owner of both the referenced article that was posted on Wikipedia and the owner and creator of the content posted on Slideshare at https://www.slideshare.net/briandjo/futureproofing-historic-buildings-a-proposed-rating-system. The Slideshare version is an earlier edition of the same Principles of Future-Proofing that I created. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA version 3.0) Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Brian D***** Rich Creator, Sole Owner, and Copyright Holder 02 October 2017

Thank you. Richaven PLLC (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not an OTRS volunteer and therefore do not have access to their email. They are experiencing serious backlogs, so please be patient. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Phobosgate

Hello there. Over at RationalWiki we've had a little bit of a stir with a certain Bryan See involving something called "Phobosgate." He's been posting articles about it that kept getting moved back and forth between mainspace and userspace, culminating in this. You appear to be a Wikipedia veteran, so could you please explain what exactly Phobosgate is about? Thank you very much, RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, thank you for your time. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @RoninMacbeth: unless WP’s search function fails me, your posting above contains the only occurrences of “Phobosgate” on this site. However, from the principal’s Tweets it seems to be an idiosyncratic conspiracy theory connecting Vladimir Putin, Gamergate (which has indeed been a nexus for conflict & drama here, although it seems to have died down in recent months), and the failed Fobos-Grunt space mission. At first glance it seems particularly incoherent, but I didn’t trouble to try and work out the specifics.—Odysseus1479 19:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479:: Yeah, the guy's postings on RW have kind of been rambling and incoherent. Of particular note is this post on my talkpage. I'm guessing it's more significant on the Russian Wikipedia. Anyways, thanks! RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution, Iran–Iraq War into Siege of Basra

Best greetings.

I appreciate your guidance for the issue of attribution about Iran–Iraq War into Siege of Basra. Especially as you remarked:

"When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution."

Hopefully, I'll have more attention in utilizing the "summary" in relevant items based on your submitted "example", namely using the following formula:

"copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution."

Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

I think you have the wrong guy. The only change I made to Doctor Octopus was removing a poorly-sourced blurb about an unproduced Spider-Man script; there wasn't even any change reverted like your message said. Did you mean to post this on someone else's page? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it looks like I did. It should have gone to 190.158.26.48. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Have a nice day! -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Farooq Kperogi

In 2015 when I am new to Wikipedia, I innocently copied copyrighted material directly to created this article Farooq Kperogi which got speedily deleted then. After a while I now have full grasp of Wikipedia policies and even trusted with some user rights. I have couple of articles I created too.I am now requesting for its undeletion, so as to start afresh. Thank you. -Ammarpad (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot restore a copyright violation. Please create the article afresh, using your own words this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft AFC: Looking for the Truth: restored verbatim quote

Hi Diana,

Thanks for your suggestion regarding a verbatim quote on the draft article Draft:Looking_for_the_Truth.

After consulting Wikipedia:Quotations I have concluded a verbatim quote of around 250 words is legitimate and have reverted your deletion.

Bear in mind this is still a draft and may well be subject to further editing to elide some words and phrases in order to tighten up the copy before the article moves to the mainspace.

Thanks

194.80.204.233 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) 250 words taken from a source of ~1500 words (16% of the work), and used in an article of ~550 words (45% of the article content), seems excessive to me too... Crow^Caw 17:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the point is moot, as the draft was declined — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Keystone State Wrestling Alliance

Diannaa, this article has been nominated for DYK, and has been stuck due to copyvio or close paraphrasing, something I hadn't taken a look at until today. It looks like an IP twice attempted to remove large portions of the article several hours ago, at least some of which appeared to be problematic, but was reverted both times. The article's editor hasn't been around lately due to personal matters, according to a post on the nomination page.

There does appear to be significant copying from FN11 (one of the patch.com sources), so I think it needs someone who can assess what's needed and make appropriate edits and/or add templates and/or hide revisions. Thanks for doing whatever is necessary; I'll follow up on the DYK nomination based on whatever action you take. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(Cross-posted from Template:Did you know nominations/Keystone State Wrestling Alliance): I have checked the IP's removal and while aggressive most of the material they removed was intricate detail not of general interest and much of it was copyvio. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view and I have done revision deletion of the copied material. Additional comments at the DYK nom page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarah West reversions

You had reverted certain updates to this article. And left a comment on my talk page that this is due to copyright. I beleive that my updates qualify for the fair use exception. (eg https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/fair_use.html). (eg small amount, paraphrased/reworded, fact etc) However, I cannot see (or modify) my updates to justify the same. You had also suggested that daily mail was not trustworthy as a source. I beleive this particular article article to be trustworthy, but am unsure on the policy of blanket ban of sources. And ultimately I don't care or choose to get into disputes in this matter. Leaving it as is ... for someone who cares more and is clearer on the lines.

Barath s (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. Regardless of the copyright issue, the decision was taken earlier this year that the Daily Mail is no longer considered a reliable source for most purposes on this wiki. See Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL for more information on this decision. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Bacon and cabbage: my yummiest requested copyvio revdel ever

Howdy! Kindly take a look at this when you have a chance (ideally after lunch, unless you want to end up with a fiendish craving for Irish food)... Thanks as ever! Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: All versions through the present actually require revdel. I just recognized that the photo added from [15] appears not to be released under an appropriate license. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

... and, oy vey, all of user Etaoindoc's contributions will require revdel, as he/she continues to add images from the Irish Food Board willy-nilly. I've left a talk page message. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The way to remove the images is to nominate them for deletion on the Commons. I have gone ahead and done that now. It looks like another admin has already taken care of the prose revision deletion. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Major copyvios inserted in 2012 at Vindija Cave

Hi, I was planning to update this article, but found out that the bulk of the article is, unfortunately, a straight copy&paste inserted by an anonymous editor in 2012,[16] copied from here[17]. Earwig's results here for the specific edit[18] and the current version of the article[19]. The overall format is a direct copy, the entire content added by that anonymous edit is a direct copy, and it's unsurprising that key unusual phrases are also direct copies, such as this line "...disturbed primarily throughcryoturbations ice wedging, there are some stratigraphically separated hominin levels at Vindija Cave associated with humans and Neanderthals." Fraenir (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This was tricky to track down. Using Earwig's tool and http://cd.cs.odu.edu/ I determined that the thoughtco.com page is a redirect from an earlier website called archaeology.about.com. Using http://cd.cs.odu.edu/ I was able to locate this, which is dated May 30, 2012, which conclusively proves the copyvio. (The Wayback Machine does not have any archived versions of thoughtco.com going back that far). Cleaning now. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know how to prove the last bit since it had taken place a long time ago, but I had a feeling you'd be able to figure it out. Thanks for the investigative hard work in tracking that down. Fraenir (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

My additions to Kadaster and one more article

Hi, It was my over enthusiasm and ignored the basic rules. I am a newbie to this place and I will get a hang of all the rules for creating new articles, expanding articles etc. Thank you for clarifying things to be on the pages Kadaster and United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management. Thanks! @harsham (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Keystone State Wrestling Alliance

What was my page severely edited? Why is my work being deleted from copywriters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvstaylor1 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Keystone State Wrestling Alliance. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yung Han Kim

Hi. It is very glad to see your activity in wiki. Please consider Yung Han Kimartcile and Ky-Chun So?. God bless you. 칼빈500 (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Herbapproach Copyvio

Hello again Diannaa. I wanted to let you know that I Copyvio-CSDd three pages (notices at Alicetrann's talk page). The herbapproach site was already blacklisted for being spammed before, so I had to omit the https:// prefix for the URL in those tags (which the content was copied from). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved: Patar knight deleted the pages and blocked the user. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Diannaa. Hope you're well. Please could you help with the recent additions to Erle C. Kenton by User:Jhmilam1966. The main one is copied from the Find A Grave website. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts! This one is done. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for dealing with it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please look at this article

Please give a look at this article Tanay Gajjar, my only contribution on this page was rewriting lead and adding "Accolades" section and basic MoS formatting but while editing it I noticed the content below "Early life and career" was heavily plagiarized from this website. I have now understood copyright and I am sure this is copyvio, there is also some BLP issues as the website from which the content was lifted is an unreliable website with no history of fact checking. As you have experience in dealing with these things I brought this here plus your name was also listed at Category: Admins who are willing to handle RevDel requests. Thanks Anoptimistix (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anoptimistix. Revolvy is a Wikipedia mirror (i.e. they copied from us rather than the other way around). Earwig's tool and random spot checks found nothing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority

Why did you remove my edits? I am absolutely the author of all the material in the edits...I know it sounds like technical writing, but we are a government organization (I work at PICA), so that's what our writing sounds like. The only text I cite (properly) is legislation. It took me hours to update the page with correct information, and my boss is going to freak out that it's not done. I appreciate copyright protection, but, could you please put it back? Dje432 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with your addition. Much of the material was copied from http://www.picapa.org/docs/OW/AR_FY15.pdf, a copyright web page. 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. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. The remainder I removed because it was unsourced. Our articles should for the most part be based on content published in independent sources such as newspapers, books, or magazines, and should be sourced. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more information about sourcing.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, whereas some of the text in my edits does indeed appear in the document you cite, the original source document is state legislation, which I cited correctly in the original edits. Additionally, I created the document you cite as copied text, and I created and manage the copyright webpage. Everything else is in my own words. Again, I know the language sounds technical and mechanical, but that is what government language sounds like; that is how I am trained to write in order to maintain an unbiased tone. On that note, I want to stress again that PICA is a government organization; we do not sell or promote anything and have no need to promote ourselves, thus, I don't really see how a conflict of interest exists, though I'd be happy to disclose the potential COI on my user and talk page, as is required. The only interest I have is to add true and accurate information to the PICA page.

So, to be clear, I'd need to suggest the edits that were deleted, and someone else would have to add them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dje432 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

1. While material of the United States Government is in the public domain, material published by state governments is not. This includes the text of legislation.
2. I did see that some of the material was not copyvio, but removed it because it was unsourced. All content you add to this encyclopedia needs sourcing, preferably to third party independent coverage and not the organization's website.
3. Since you are an employee of this organization, you should not be editing the article at all, as you have a conflict of interest. Best practice is to suggest edits on the article talk page using the {{request edit}} template. An uninvolved Wilikedian will assess your proposed edit. Any suggested edits that don't have adequate sourcing will be declined.
4. Under our terms of use, paid editors are required to disclose same. Please see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for how to do this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Mawlana Shaykh Nurjan Mirahmadi

Hi Diana, thanks for the info regarding the speedy deletion of the page. Please note that it was originally deleted last year due to lack of media-related references. This year the Shaykh has published 2 new books and is the host of a religion tv show on Canadian television. I tried adding just this new information to his page. You said I have to go somewhere to request a review. Unfortunately I can't find this link that you've mentioned, and I'm very busy with my work. I have limited time to figure out all of wiki's policies. Can you please help me to get the Shayk's page back online. His hosting of a tv show should at least be note worthy to be mentioned on wikipedia. He's the first sunni shaykh (with ijaza - Islamic certification, traditional 'PhD-like diploma' in the islamic world) to host an english tv show on Canadian television. Thanks in advance!

Staffsmcav (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted in December 2016 as the result of this deletion discussion. At that time he already had books and a TV show. Being an author or having a TV show is not enough to establish notability that passes the threshold for having an encyclopedia article. The article has been repeatedly deleted under the titles Mawlana Shaykh Nurjan Mirahmadi, As-Sayed Nurjan Mirahmadi, Mawlana As-Sayed Shaykh Nurjan Mirahmadi and Nurjan Mirahmadi. Sorry, but the subject of the article does not meet our notability requirements at the present time. The place to go if you wish to pursue this further is Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Can you bring back this edit, i want to edit this text (can you tell which part of text was bad?) Ufufcguc (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph that was copied from https://muftah.org/economics-eastern-europe/#.WduY3mJSxsQ was removed as a copyright violation, and I won't be restoring it. The unsourced statistics can be re-added if you cite your source. If you don't know how to do that, please visit Wikipedia:Citing sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Keystone State Wrestling Alliance redux

Diannaa, I wanted to keep you informed on where this stands. I asked Moonriddengirl to see whether she could check the OTRS request here, since she's been helpful in past DYKs involving OTRS. She wasn't able to find the request and has pinged Gvstaylor1 asking for more information. Hopefully, Gvstaylor1 will see the ping soon and reply there. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Response

With respect to the Franks V. Delaware Article, First, there is absolutely no copyright involved in that- The United States, nor any other party, may lawfully claim copyright to the text of a court decison as a matter of public law (I suggest you study up on your basic copyright law on that point.) Secondly, When I give the citation as the reference, It's quite clear, assuming you were paying careful attention to the references, from that that I'm attributing the work directly to the United States Reporter. (Which is what the U.S. means between the two sets of numbers. The first number is the volume, the subsequent numbers are the page numbers within that volume.) So your problem is exactly what, unless your just trying to cause problems / trouble? I'd appreciate it if you would just stay away from me and my edits from now on. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you copied from a public domain document without stating that the material was a copy. You have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed or public domain material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

George Miller

Diannaa,

Thank you for your message regarding my latest contribution to the George Miller comedian page (George Miller (comedian)). However I do not understand why you removed my contribution. You claim it is copywritten material. This was from a news article by NPR that was released to the public on their website. I also specifically credited NPR by adding a citation yet you removed the whole thing. What is wrong with this specifically?

Regards BuffaloBlizz (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi BuffaloBlizz. The content of the NPR website is copyright, which means it's not okay to copy it here. It's okay to use their webpage as a source, but you have to re-write the content in your own words. Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright - a simple guide to Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Message

Hello,

Many thanks for your message.

No idea how to sign post so I'm gonna say:

Jenkin5 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Jenkin5 Jenkin5 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed sections from Adventist University of Health Sciences page

Hi Diannaa, is there any way to see what areas you removed from my edits to the page? I'm not sure what progress I've lost now since I can't tell what was removed.Adu mark (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I can send you a copy of the deleted material by email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be activated now. I look forward to your email. Adu mark (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

YGM — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Hey, thanks for the notifications! Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#An_offline_App_for_Physics and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#An_offline_app_for_History. We'll create similar pages for a whole subset of topics, just in case you see these again. Cheers, Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Stephane (Kiwix): The pages exist in mainspace, and I am pretty sure they should be in project space. That is, WikiProject Physics/Offline should be at WP:WikiProject Physics/Offline, and WikiProject History/Offline should be at WP:WikiProject History/Offline. It is probably possible for you to move the pages rather than starting over. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Just did so for one of them... and the other I messed up (I've put up a request). This is embarassing but thanks for the flag. Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like all is chill now. Sorry for the alarming messages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like you forgot to move one of the pages before deleting it:Wikipedia:Wikiproject History/Offline is nowhere to be found. Can I ask you please to look into the deletion log of Wikiproject History/Offline and copy/paste the text in the right place? Thanks and sorry about that. Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed now. Sorry about that, I must have been sleepier than I thought! But it exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Offline (camel case), not Wikipedia:Wikiproject History/Offline — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio on Value-added tax

Hello. User:Walterhellerstein has added a large block of text from http://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/international-vat-gst-guidelines-9789264271401-en.htm (direct link to the text as pdf) to the article, with minor changes to it (manly omitting a word here and there), in spite of the OECD, according to their terms and conditions only allowing short excerpts to be copied, and expressly not allowing any changes to their text. So could you please take a look at it? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also does not permit commercial use, where our license does. You were right to remove it. I have done some revision deletion. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• The user added the same material back again, obviously not having understood the copyvio-warning on their talk page... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, again. Another admin has issued a short block for copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You might mind this interesting

How Big of a Deal is Wikipedia Plagiarism? That May Depend on Who You Are--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyvios

Would you mind looking at the many copyvios on Neocameralism. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic. I found a few copyvios, but the article is also a quotefarm. It needs a total re-write or an AFD nomination. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio at Ali Khamenei

Hi Dianna. Please see this message where I mention the websites used in the copyvio, and these two versions of the sections I reverted at Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): newer version, and old version of a section called "Free Thinking Seats". One of the websites is in Farsi, but after translation by Google, the copyvio of both versions of "Free Thinking Seats" becomes apparent. Thank you as always. Dr. K. 09:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K. The content was added in September. Revision deletion is done. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of the content inserted by me was translated and reworded to avoid close paraphrasing. It's so so weird to see that the whole paragraph is removed by him. However, I'll try to use quotation marks as further attempt to assure no room is left for you to remove a whole section at once! Saff V. (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

While brief quotations are permitted, for the most part content you add should be written in your own words. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Can I know what parts were copvios exactly? Saff V. (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K. can tell you more about the translated parts. I confirmed that content was copied from http://www.negineiran.ir/article_22821_en.html. I am not going to reproduce it here, as to do so would be another copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words, I'd like to know which part of this source is illegally copied. Saff V. (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have compared the Google translated version of that page to the material you added from that source, and it is all practically identical. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

​Oh Dianna, don't say that please. You are an admin! "Formation of Free Thinking Seats was first suggested by Ali Khamenei in 2003 in a letter to some of the seminary students" was cited to negineiran. Was it a copyvio??? I can't find it in the page!Saff V. (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

But what you asked me was what part of http://korsiha.ir/page/about.php was copied, and my answer was "all of it". Please ask Dr.K. what his findings were on http://www.negineiran.ir/article_22821_f4a4cce12fcfe823e9949063a033356a.pdf. I am not able to check that one. He checked that one. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, I think you used Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#1 when it should not have been used. There were many edits in between which were unrelated (see diff). Since the revdel, we cannot tell which editor made which contributions, although we can guess based on edit summaries which are still visible. RD1 explicitly states "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used." Thundermaker (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Dianna. I should have been more clear. The second copyvio link was not from the pdf. My message on Saff V's talkpage mentions http://korsiha.ir/page/about.php and then http://www.negineiran.ir/article_22821_en.html. for both versions, also for the previous version. Dr. K. 15:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thundermaker: It's the way we normally do it. Contributions are not removed, only hidden, so the attribution is still present, but is only visible to admins. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Which typhoon has passed through the article's revision history? Are all of those edits inserting copyvio texts? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No typhoon. But all revisions where the copyvio appears have to be deleted. Dr. K. 17:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was asking Diannaa. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. She will tell you the same thing. :) Dr. K. 18:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion was done to remove from the page history a copyright violation added at 07:37, September 16, 2017‎. Content was removed at 07:11, October 7, 2017‎ and was re-added at 08:39, October 14, 2017‎ and was removed again at 08:45, October 14, 2017‎. The revisions containing the copyright violation were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy. The reason there's so many revisions hidden is because in order to completely remove the copyright content from view, all intervening diffs have to be hidden, from the point where the copyright material was added to the point where it was removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Diannaa. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Fact checking

I've kept the alleged diff untouched, so I can see the materials alleged to be copyvio. As a bilingual (who does not rely solely on awkward results of translation machines), I'd like to let you know what's going on. The whole subsection was consisted of four sentences (I tried to use uncompleted phrases or sentences to avoid further violations) :

First sentence

"Formation of Free Thinking Seats was first...seminary students"

This sentence is written using http://korsiha.ir/page/about.php website. This sentence is the reworded form of the following Persian text:

"...طرح ايده‌ي ايجاد كرسي‌ها‌ي آزادانديشي در مراكز علمي دانشگاهي و حوزوي به وسیله‌ی مقام معظم رهبري، در نامه ایشان به جمعی از دانش‌آموختگان حوزه علمیه در تاریخ 16/11/81"

The translation gives a much different En sentence and is briefly saying what was inserted in Khamenei's article. I really don't see any close paraphrasing leading into violation of copyrights. Also, I see that Saff v had made a mistake by translating "دانش‌آموختگان" into "student", which should be corrected to "alumnus" or "graduates".

Second sentence

"Later, in a sessions with the elites...utilization of collective wisdom."

This was one is written based on the following Persian text:

"و به صورت موکد در بیانات معظم له در دیدار با جمعی از نخبگان علمی کشور در تاریخ...در جهت تحقق جنبش نرم افزاری و توسعه علمی کشور مورد تاکید قرار گرفت."

Well, this one is more complicated. Although the original Persian text is much longer and different, I see that some key phrases are just translated and I agree that those parts of the sentence need to be written using quotation marks. The key phrases are "criticism, debate and free-thinking forums", "software movement and scientific development" and "rationality and utilization of collective wisdom." I think, these quotes are necessary to convey the concept of the Khamenei's suggestion. May be these phrases can be reworded to avoid using quotes (I have no idea at the moment), if there are excess number of them.

Third sentence

"The freethinking seats is described...and controversial subject."

Which was written using:

"آزادانديشي در مصادیقی مانند نشست‌های دوجانبه...یا هر موضوع علمی و قابل بحث عینیت می‌یابد."

The only close phrase I see is "bilateral...opponents of a theory" which can be simply altered.

Fourth sentence

"On 12 July 2015...which this capacity exists today.”"

The source of the above is sentence is source: leader.ir. The sentence is mainly consisted of Khamenei's quote which was properly accompanied by quotation marks and I don't see any violations of copy rights.

@Diannaa: These being said, can you please say why ALL of the section had to be removed? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am not the one who removed it. Dr. K. removed it. The reason he gave was "No, it's still very very bad. Please do not edit war this stuff into the artilcle." I performed spot checks, which revealed that at least some of the content was a copyright violation, so I performed revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree that "at least some of the content was a copyright violation" which could be simply resolved. Thanks anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it could not "be simply resolved". This is not the place to discuss this, but, as I have explained in detail on the talkpage of the article, that, aside from the copyvios, the grammar, language and relevance of large parts of that edit are really bad. Thank you again Dianna. Dr. K. 18:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"This is not the place to discuss this." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither is my talkpage. So, I repeat: Go back to the talkpage of the article, where you still have not refuted my detailed arguments that aside from the copyvio the text was almost incomprehensible. Dr. K. 19:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Schindler's List runtime

It has nothing to do with country. BBFC records the length of a given film to the precise second. It is the standard for all film runtimes on wikipedia. That is surely more reliable than some obscure book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante'sFilmferno (talk • contribs)

Now you've inserted a different run time that does not appear in the cited source. Your source says 187 minutes 4 seconds. Netflix shows 3 hr 15 min, which is 195 minutes. Perhaps some counts include the credits, and some do not? regardless, the data you insert has to match the source you cite. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Gandharva

Hello Diannaa, Thank you for your message. I fixed the copy so that it doesn't infringe any copyrights.
Nosmetana (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have paraphrased further as it was still quite like the source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor translated articles from other language Wikipedias with no attribution

See[20] بلهواري محمد فيصل who has never posted to a talk page. I'm guessing they are using Google translate given that using Chrome when I look at the translated French article it's pretty much identical. I'm not sure they even can write English. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like at least one of their article creations was Prodded for that reason. Here's what I would do: if the prose is unintelligible I would remove it. Any prose that is salvageable has to be properly attributed. Normally I do this myself for each article affected, and then post a message to the user explaining what we have to do and why we have to do it. Here's the message I use: "Hi. I see in a recent addition to <article name> you included material translated from the French wiki. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future." Since there's more than one article the message will need a little customization. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll tweak that asking them to do it as I want to make sure they understand English. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Biddle and Smart article

Boy that was quick, you proposed speedy deletion around 7 this morning, and when I went to contest it around 2 pm, the article was already gone. I wrote this article along with two other articles in an attempt to give more coverage to the once-thriving automobile body manufacturing businesses of Amesbury, Massachusetts. I clearly cited the source. If the text was too close to the original sources, I could have easily modified the text so that it wasn't plagiarism. Is there any way someone can restore the article for a few days so that I can fix it?? I went through the effort of linking about half a dozen pages about early automobile manufacturers. It would be a shame to have to re-do those links instead of just being given a chance to edit what had been there. Thanks.

Cbmccarthy (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I can send you a copy of the deleted article by email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. Note the deletion nomination was also for notability concerns, so you will also have to establish how the company is notable enough by Wikipedia standards for an article. The guideline for companies is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I will turn on my wikipedia email so that you can send me the article. Thanks. Regarding notability, this company is apparently of significant interest to classic car collectors. It is referred to as " the venerable Amesbury, Massachusetts, firm of Biddle and Smart" in the Classic Car Club of America's guide to classic cars, 1994. The company also gets a couple pages coverage in "Art of the American automobile: the greatest stylists and their work" by G.N. Georgano (1995), as well as in A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design by Lamm & Holls, 1996. Biddle and Smart were made the bodies of most of the classic Hudson automobiles until 1929. I thought it would be useful to create articles for all the Amesbury, Massachusetts manufacturers of automobile bodies because of their interest by car collectors. Some are only available on German wikipedia, which seems to be a shame. Here is the German wikipedia entry for Biddle & Smart. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biddle_%26_Smart. Here is S&R Bailey & Co. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._R._Bailey_%26_Company. Here is Crown Motor Vehicle Company https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Motor_Vehicle_Company. There are others, all of interest internationally to car collectors.

By the way, personally I have no interest in cars, rather I am interested in the industrial history of the Merrimack Valley region of Massachusetts. Is this response sufficient to show notability or do I need to do more? Cbmccarthy (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Email sent. Regarding notability, the company must meet the general notability guideline as well as the guideline for companies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The main thing you need to do is provide sources (preferably multiple sources) that provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Don't post your sources here; put them in the article. I am not going to be assessing your article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Humphrey Minchin

Most of the material you felt was copyright was in quotations in the original, which I thought was OK to repeat verbatim. The other bits I had rephrased. There is only one serious bit of information in the middle that you removed that needs to go back. The rest is more gossipy and I think can be expressed in a sentence without all the quotations. The circumstances of his death were referenced in the original from the Gentlemans Magazine. I have been unable to find that issue online but could use the original reference. Motmit (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean; R. Thorne's 1986 article appears to contain quotations from Gentlemans Magazine (1796). But it was not in quotation marks in the version you added to Wikipedia. It's okay to copy from public domain sources, but when you do so you have to add attribution. This can be done via the {{PD-notice}} template. Not all of the source article at http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/minchin-humphrey-1727-96 is public domain though; the bulk of it is copyright prose written in 1986. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Oncophage

The material included on this page was NOT taken from the resources you mentioned in your message to me. The material was, in part, material rephrased and quoted from various articles published in public domain, information from the European Medicines Agency (www.ema.europa.eu ), FDA (http://www.fda.gov), the company involved in the drug (http://agenusbio.com/), Researchers at MD Anderson, and on Onco'Zine (http:/www.oncozine.com/). Furthermore, the information used is NOT quoted verbatim. Also, note that the current version of the article (after you removed the incorrectly alleged violating material) is incorrect, outdated and needs updating to reflect the current stage and status of the drug. Finally, you've removed the outgoing link/URL to the company's website (I assume that this is in error, as it is common practice to link corporate names/IDs with their (external) website). Kindly waiting for your response.Hofland (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Additional copyvio from the abstract of DOI 10.2217/fon.09.46 was found when I inspected the article. We don't include inline external links; if the company has a Wikipedia article you can link to that. The link is already included in the External Links section at the bottom of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi Diannaa. Hope you're doing well. I've got a question about 3 Chains o' Gold#Epilogue. Would the epilogue in it's entirely be considered a copyvio? It sort of reminds me of WP:LYRICS. Anyway, I came across it while checking on the non-free image being used in that particular section. It's missing a non-free use rationale for the article and I was going to tag the file as such. However, I can't see how the entire epilogue can be justified as non-free content. So, if it has to go, then there's no need for the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an obvious quotation, and quotations are okay, but it should be sourced and it should add something to our understanding of the topic. I would be tempted to remove it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. I thought it might be a quotation, but thought it might be too much of the quotation (if that makes sense). Anyway, since the text is not a copyvio, then that only leaves the the non-free file to sort out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 4.0 and OTRS

Hi,

Are User:Pzez/sandbox and Gambling in Nigeria still copyvios? They were approved by OTRS under CC-BY-SA 4.0, which last I checked, was not okay for text, only files? Pinging Jon Kolbert into this as he removed the copyvio tags on that basis. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license, as 4.0 is not backwards-compatible with 3.0. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#cite note-2 — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought so. This means the content needs to be removed and the pages' histories revdeled despite the ticket? Adam9007 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. Both pages have been listed at WP:CP. Gambling in Nigeria was listed today, so per the rules of that page the editor now has a week to amend the content to comply with our copyright rules. The sandbox was listed on the 7th so it's okay to deal with it right away so I am going to do that right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I listed Gambling in Nigeria today (well, technically yesterday as it's 0:36am where I am). Would WP:IAR work? Also, I think they might have some free content, but am not entirely certain. Adam9007 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Earwig's tool shows the article might be salvageable so let's just leave it at that for now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi D. Based on this conversation, someone started a discussion at the OTRS template page about whether the CC-BY-SA 4.0 parameter should be maintained. You might be interested in weighing in. See Template_talk:ConfirmationOTRS#CC-BY-SA-4.0 TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for editing Josie Badger to remove copyvio. You probably figured out that the article was created by a participant in an edit-a-thon. All participants were instructed not to cut and paste but this editor may have not understood or may have not been present during the instructions. You went above and beyond the call of duty to retain content while fixing the copyvio problem - I appreciate that very, very much. I am embarrassed to admit that it didn't even occur to me to check this article to see if it was 'ok'. I assumed that it was and continued to edit it myself. Thank you again.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution Templates

Thank you for pointing out my mis-use of simple citations when attribution templates are required. How can I get the template to refer to a section instead of the article? See 17th Field Artillery Regiment#Heraldry? Also, how do I build a new template- I refer to the Center for Military History's lineages (both online and their published works) quite regularly, and both the lineages and the heraldry are something that must be done word-for-word, there isn't any way to summarize those items. Regards: :82redleg

Template:AIOH does not support that. The template I use is {{PD-notice}}, which I add as part of the citation. I have changed 17th Field Artillery Regiment#Heraldry to that template as an example and formatted the citation for you. I don't know how to build templates, so sorry — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You helped a new editor have a most excellent experience. Because of your help, they just may turn out to be one of those editors that go on to create amazing content. Also, thank you for keeping the rest of us on track about copyrights. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Esterite (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

re: "removed plot/undercopyright"

hello:

what did you do this for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincoln_in_the_Bardo&oldid=716957667

"copyright" DOES NOT restrict people from describing what happens in a story, or talking about it. it only restricts actually "copying" the text. or making new stories using the same characters & setting.

& which admin erased the edit history for you, please?

Lx 121 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

At the time (April 24, 2016) the article was a 23-word stub. The material I removed was a 131-word quotation from the Random House website, way out of proportion to the size of the article. The material is not technically a copyright violation, so I have undone the revision deletion. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

re: section blanking on "Sara Duterte"

Regarding your section-blanking of the content which were added under the article "Sara Duterte"

- I think there's a mistake considering that the content I added were under the attributable content as per IP laws of the Philippines. Please look up at other articles that cites those very same news websites as the basis. The basis of most of the content whose text I lifted from, is merely a reproduction/rewritten explanation of content from a Commission on Audit Report which was a public document from the Government of the Philippines. It's unlikely the news company would claim copyright content from a public document.

- In the future, please write on the talk pages of such copyright violations. Because I couldn't check the history now and confirm for myself if the claims that there are copyright violations is true.Gilligan gomers (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The material I removed was copied from copyright newspaper articles, not from government documents. I can send you a copy of the removed material via email if you like, but I won't be restoring it or removing the revision-deletion. Sorry but the high volume of copyright violations needing action (75 to 100 cases per day) means that it's not possible to discuss each violation individually. Our copyright policy permits immediate removal, so that's the way I do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright. The newspaper articles copied those content from government reports, so I thought it was safe if I also copied their content describing the content of the said documents. I will rewrite the sections instead to describe what they have discovered from the said documents. Anyway, I'll avoid directly lifting content in the future. Thanks. Gilligan gomers (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Lyrics and copyright

Hi,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ninjaman2 appears to have lyrics from this song, but they're in quotes. Is this still a copyright violation, or do the quotes make it fair use? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's in user space, where we typically don't permit non-free content. Removed — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright?

Hello I just noticed an that an anon has removed content from the linked page claiming that it was a copyright problem, however after looking at the page that they claimed the text was copied from, I'm not seeing (at least a direct copy) from that page. Could you give it a check over? Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 02:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I found it at http://ultimateclassicrock.com/ace-frehley-rock-and-roll-hell/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for your corrections and edits on the Lincoln article. You corrected my unintended mistake and I truly appreciate it. I only wish there were more like you here. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Like — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Hello, recently I have started a discussion in the [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volleyball WikiProject Volleyball talk] about how should a volleyball player article look like. Can you please give us some pieces of advice, we might be doing some mistakes without even notice them. Thanks in advance. --Osplace 18:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to help with this work. Thanks for asking. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	The Civility Barnstar is awarded to any user who excels at maintaining civility in the midst of contentious situations. I think it perfectly suits you. Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Mickey Heath

We are relatives of MLB player Mickey Heath and added photos and biographical information to his page. All of the information was written by his grandson, based on an autobiography that Mickey Heath wrote himself (never published, not copyrighted).

Who has the power to delete an entire page of information that took us hours to create? Why is it not possible to add information about this former professional baseball player when it is not copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nia011yw (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. The source web page is marked as "© SABR. All Rights Reserved". If you are or believe you are the copyright holder of that article and wish to release it to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert W. Bigelow, who wrote the article on a baseball research (not for profit or news website) page is the grandsone of Mickey Heath, the subject of the page. Additionally, the photos are in the Heath family collection and dated from the 1930's, long before copyrights. Can we reconstruct this to add the information? If this information is available by the family and he's a noted MLB player why can't we include it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.216.40.121 (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You have a couple of options. If you can prove to us that you are the copyright holder of the source article, you can release it to Wikipedia under license. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials if that's what you would like to do. As it stands right now, Wikipedia is unable to host material copied from that source, as the page is marked "© SABR. All Rights Reserved" and we have to assume that they mean it. Another alternative is to write some fresh properly sourced prose that does not already appear elsewhere online and add that to the article. Photos from the 1930s are still under copyright; please see the Hirtle Chart as an aid to determining the copyright status of photos. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue at User talk:MrX2077

Sorry to bother you, but your name always springs immediately to mind whenever there's a copyright dispute. Over at User talk:MrX2077, there's a user who seems to think that it's OK to link to a wayback archived copy of a page that contains a copyright violation when you are not allowed to link to the live page (it's a blog thing that reproduces the entire transcript of a TV series episode). He cites what I'm sure is his misunderstanding of WP:COPYLINK, but he won't accept my explanation of what I believe it means. Would you have time to have a quick look and give him the benefit of your knowledge? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice reply, thanks :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Berzin (scholar) Copyright

Please can I ask for your help. A year ago an editor, Ronz, applied to you successfully to have material deleted because of copyright infringement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive245#Alexander_Berzin_.28scholar.29). I would like to find out how to have that material restored.

The material was the bulk of the content in a biographical article on a Harvard trained academic widely recognised as an authority on Buddhism in general and Tibetan Buddhism in particular. He has written books but these days publishes through his own web site. Its features are:

- Named "studybuddhism.com", it consists of articles by him which he amplifies and updates. - Not for profit: He funds it entirely out of his own pocket. Everything is freely accessible and there are no fees of any kind.

As I understand it, the claim of copyright infringement involved material about Berzin's life which:

- was composed by a volunteer working on Berzin's site; - was posted first to studybuddhism.com with Berzin's permission and later to WP by its author; - originally had details of form in common on both sites which became the basis of the copyright challenge here but which had been changed over five years on each site separately; - had no claim of copyright over it by either the author or the owner of the other site, Berzin; - had been made public domain explicitly by Berzin at the request of a WP editor and - was misrepresented to you as plagiarism and theft of intellectual property.

In other words, it was not established that the letter of WP policy had been violated, let alone its spirit.

Further considerations are:

- The material was deleted at the height of an edit war begun two months earlier. - I had been most vociferously involved, but less so too had quite a number of other editors. It had made me physically ill and I had announced a temporary retirement from the discussion. Less than a day after I left the discussion, the article was attacked with a new challenge over copyright infringement and hasty treatment urged on you. - Until that the editor Ronz had attacked the article on two other unrelated grounds but abandoned them in the face of challenges to justify his claims. - I and another editor in particular had long before voiced fears that he was threatening to act unaccountably. - Again and again in discussion he conflated WP's material about Berzin with studybuddhism's and, notably, Berzin himself. - The material involved a religion. I know of another article on the same religion that has been attacked sporadically in the past by Chinese nationalist activist editors. - While Berzin's academic integrity is well-known to scholars, I have actually seen it traduced in discussion of another article by one other WP editor. - In discussion Ronz said openly that his intention was to reduce the article to a stub so that ultimately it could be purged from WP. - His accusations over copyright (as well as the two prior attacks) involved the form of the article, not its content but its content was deleted. Ronz has been unwilling to say why this is not mere censorship. - The page history of the article was also redacted. It can neither be restored nor referenced re Ronz's editing practices. Ronz has been unwilling to say why this too is not mere censorship. - In the article's discussion, what I have written most recently has been reverted by Ronz. Another editor who has newly joined it restored it and Ronz has reverted it again. This raises the question of whether the discussion too is being censored.

Needless to say, the edit war has brought all work on the article to a standstill for over a year now. I anticipate such coming attacks on other articles related to Tibetan Buddhism. I believe others share this but some seem to have retired as editors.

In conclusion, this highly contentious deletion was urged on you hastily and I feel it has damaged editing on WP. Please would you point me in the direction of finding my options for repairing that. Moonsell (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Moonsell. According to the Wayback Machine the license was added to the source webpage sometime between Sept 21-28, 2016. I will re-add the material that I removed at 18:39, September 28, 2016 and undo the revision deletion. The material copied from https://studybuddhism.com/en/who-is-alexander-berzin is released under a compatible license but appears to have been removed largely for editorial reasons unrelated to copyvio, so I will not be restoring it. That's a discussion you will have to undertake at the article talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa, for focusing the actual facts of the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You have mail (2)

I'd place the template here, but that's boring. MER-C 12:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

AHC300

He's composed (what I consider to be) a fairly good unblock appeal; I can't reasonably say that he doesn't understand copyright on Wikipedia based on that. Any objections to an unblock? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I will do it and will add to my list of people to monitor. Thanks for letting me know, kinda busy here suddenly :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say: if you want something done... Cheers Diannaa, will leave it to you. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Airlink

Hi Dianna. You removed part of my edit on Airlink ("Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed.") and invited me to comment... I thought the edit was OK (obviously), but unless I'm being very slow here, my original full edit has now been deleted, so I can't find out which particular point has been removed, let alone agree or disagree about it! It also makes it quite difficult to learn in what way you felt the rules had been broken. Thanks. Carbonix (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carbonix. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. I paraphrased the content and removed the copyright bits. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

To revdel or not to revdel, that is the question

Bad time to ask this as I know you are extremely busy, but your name came up in IRC in a mildly a more amusing way.

The good news is that it came up in the context of contributors falling all over each other to praise you, but based on one comment, I asked about the policy of doing revdels when one reverts due to a copyright issue. One respondent said that you do all your own revdells and another said that, no, in fact most of the revdells they did were in response to your requests.

My guess is both are partially correct. My guess is that sometimes when you do a reversion you do the revdel yourself but in other cases you leave a request to someone else to look at (four eyes concept?). If my guess is correct, can you share thoughts on your own rules for handling revdels? We discussed the four eyes principle before, and as a result, if I see what looks like a G12 I tag it but leave it for someone else to delete. However, when I do a partial reversion, I typically will revdel the relevant edits, so I'm curious to learn when you do that and when you leave it for others.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick! How nice to hear that people have been saying good things about me. Not so busy any more, as there's only 16 cases remaining from October 19 reports. I better take a break soon though and get outside for my bike ride in the heat of the day (it's 8° C as we speak!). I do my own revision-deletions; I've never filed any such requests. But for G12 speedy deletions I almost invariably tag them using Twinkle and leave them for another admin to double check. Sometimes I put a note on the talk page if the case looks like a tricky one. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. Glad to hear you are catching up, because I've got a thorny issue that's embarrassingly old. I doubt I'll get to it today but I may drop you a note in the next few days asking for some help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. Feel free to send via email or post here, whatevs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry on Bond Issuance, Sri Lanka

Hi Diannaa, the article as titled above was created based on functions of a Presidential Commission appointed by the President of Sri Lanka. I had to cite many news reports published by Sri Lankan mass media. There were of course similarities in the article with regard to those reports. But it was not the same copy paste of the reports except the contents quoted from the statements made by the Counsels, Judges and the Witnesses. I would like to request you to re-examine the article and restore if possible. Thanks. Dinuraeditions (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I won't be able to restore the article, as its content was copied pretty much exclusively from copyright news websites. For example enormous copyright violations were found from these websites:

• http://newsfirst.lk/english/2017/03/unusual-transfer-heads-revealed-presidential-commission-inquiry-cbsl-bond-issue/164050
• http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2017/09/10/news/crashed-computers-whistleblowers-dominate-pcoi
• http://www.sundaytimes.lk/170611/news/ptls-ceo-was-secretly-present-at-bond-commission-hearing-244856.html
• http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Anika-threatened-by-Ravi-s-relative-AG-s-dept-138613.html
• http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/NSB-EPF-and-SLIC-dealers-involved-with-PTL-benefited-as-friends-in-a-ring-DSG-136579.html

These are examples only. The remainder of the content appeared to be copyvio as well, so I deleted the article. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That's alright. I wish if you'd never be offered a bribe by a politician :) Dinuraeditions (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Could I have a copy of the deleted article then, please? Dinuraeditions (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sent via email. The version I sent is what it looked like before I started removing copyvio — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggested copyright policy update

I wonder if you might have any thoughts on my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Suggested amendment? The policy seems obvious to me, but our latest friend clearly needed to have it spelled out explicitly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I like it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Page

Hello Diannaa,

I resubmitted a page titled "Ursula Hayden" about a month ago and i was wondering if you might know when someone will review it? Thank you so much and have a beautiful day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindness33 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kindness33. There are currently 1600 pending submissions in the queue so it will likely be a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Thomke

I have re-written the short note on HBS Professor Stefan Thomke and have provided references (pretty much for every line). Please note that the earlier post is wrong as Thomke is not an economist. I was surprised that Wikipedia would deleted my changes due to copyright issues but did not feel it is important to correct entirely inaccurate information. I have kept it short this time. Please feel free to make any further wording changes as necessary. Appreciate your help. Important thing is to not let the wrong information again come back on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budhagupta (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

hi

[21] from [22] wondering if proper attribution was given, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa. It's pretty good. The only thing I would add is to wikilink Marburg virus disease. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Entrepreneurship copyright violation

Hi Diannaa, I've reverted some content cut and pasted from [23], and it may need to be rev/deleted. Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Also I placed a warning on the user's talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Regd. your message to attribute re-used Wikipedia text

Hi Diannaa, You left a message on a page that I created ("The Fourteenth Finance Commission of India") asking me to attribute another wikipedia page ("The Thirteenth Finance Commission of India"). At a first glance both the text do look similar but if you read through them you'll notice that they are completely different. I wanted to cite the commission's original report, but it isn't available online anymore so I cited some other web site instead.

Thank you.

Hardik.popli (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hardik.popli. The "recommendations" section is identical in both articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

They're similar, not identical -- the changes are extremely important. In fact, point 1 of the recommendations links refers to the 13th commission's report. Let me know if you have any questions. Hardik.popli (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Updates for Sageworks

Hi, Diannaa. Hope you don't mind my reaching out, I thought to do so as you're the most recent registered user to edit Sageworks and I wondered if you might have a few minutes to review an edit request for the page? My request is a proposed update for the History section. As disclosure, I'm making this request for Sageworks as part of my work with Beutler Ink; at Talk:Sageworks I've provided some background on the history of the page and why I'm offering new drafts. Let me know if you have any feedback or questions. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 03:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to help with that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa, I completely understand. Thanks for replying. If you have any ideas on other editors or WikiProjects where folks might be interested in this, please do let me know. I've reached out to the usual WikiProjects so far. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Trial of Satanta and Big Tree

Hello Diannaa, according to Copyvio Detector, there appear to be several blocks of cut-and-paste text added to the article from other sources. Could you take a look? Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The material it's highlighting appears to be only the block quotes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Working-Class Studies Association page

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your edits and pointing out the copyright infringement. As secretary and steering committee member of the WCSA, I didn't feel that I was infringing copyright by using language from our website, since I'm writing the article on behalf of the WCSA steering committee (by which I mean to say, I had permission, but not evidence of permission). I appreciate your clarification of the policy--which is a good one, obviously-- and am happy to learn of the option to donate copyrighted material. However in this case I just chose to rewrite and make the points in my own words, which is a better solution all around. So, thank you for your attention and work keeping Wikipedia free of copyright infringement! Macloyne (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Macloyne. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for drawing this to my attention, and for the helpful links. I am very sorry for engaging in this discouraged practice. The article is intended to be educational, not promotional, and I hope you and other editors will agree it fits Wikipedia's mission. I have disclosed the COI on my user page, and from here on out I will refrain from making major edits directly and otherwise adhere to WP:COI policies and recommended practices. - Macloyne (talk)

User:Rodrigocoelhoc

You left a message about copyright at User talk:Rodrigocoelhoc. Appears to be a purely planetyze.com promotional account? 2001:E68:542E:805D:96D:E06A:F27F:4424 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That might be true. I have placed a COI notice on their talk page and suggest if you think immediate action is needed you post at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution

Hi Dianaa thanks for help with the proper referencing on the Redback page, as I was intending that material (partial sentence) to be quoted, would it have been acceptable to simply enclose it in double quotation marks as an alternative to changing he referencing type?Robertwhyteus (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Redback spider. Not sure what you mean by "changing the referencing type"; what I did was add the proper title of the source webpage, attribution for compatibly licensed material, and a functional url. These changes go beyond a change in style, as they provide a much more useful citation. Changing the copied material to a quotation would be okay, but I think the way I did it is a lot more appropriate. I also removed a copy-paste error (some content was in there twice) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks good to know. I appreciate your help!Robertwhyteus (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio

You final-warned this user earlier this month, but they're at it again. See Alternative medicine for example.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User was warned three minutes ago (four hours after their most recent edit) by a different admin, so I am not going to block at this point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Diannaa, I left them a warning--two of the three links I looked at dropped journal articles on crazy websites like this and this. Is there something wrong with this OABot? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I will add a more specific warning to his talk page and monitor his contribs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. You should be on payroll too. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking closer at their contribs, the bulk do seem to be legit, it's just a few, but of course that's still too many. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Another Copyvio issue:

I have just had cause to leave a firm but gentle warning on this user's talk page. It seemed sensible to check all their recent page creations, and I found quite a few similar issues which I've listed. Only afterwards did I go back through their repeatedly blanked talk page and spotted you'd had need to leave a final warning for the same offenses on 16th April. I thought I'd bring this to your attention, though I don't think any fuirther action is warranted right now. I'll happily monitor their future contributions and report any further violations if they occur. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Nick Moyes: Thanks for your message. The articles you listed on his talk page need to be cleaned of the copyvio. If the editor does not do that in the next few days I will do it and then I will do the revision deletion. I have left a sterner warning and will monitor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Content removal on Keralam - Museum of History and Heritage

Hi Diannaa, thank you for reviewing the content on the new page I created. Yes, it is true that I have referred to the cited website source for the list of attractions, but I assure you it was not blind copying - I have tried to paraphrase it and link to existing wiki articles as much as possible. However, a list of attractions is a list of attractions (with only few words per points). So, I cannot imagine now if I can shorten or paraphrase it so much. Another concern I have is: I doubt if it is fair to "delete" content without even giving a 24 hours notice on a global voluntary platform. Ideally, I would prefer 48-72 hours notice (this would be fairer, especially to people from developing countries who don't have the luxury of having access to full-time electricity and/or internet even if they had the time). I had spent at least half an hour to carefully review content and prepare this page. Most of my hard work is in vain now - while I welcome your careful review, would I be wrong if I may deem such cut-throat deletion a disrespect to my voluntary effort along with a full-time job in a different time zone? Please let me know if I can at least have read-only access to the previous version contents, so that I can compare with the original and see what can be removed, edited or rephrased to conform the article to the Wikipedia standards. - Sahrudayan (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap.

Copyright violations are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical, as by the end of the week there would be literally hundreds of open items requiring follow-up and there would be no time to assess the new daily incoming reports.

Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. (For example, "Burial accompaniments belonging to the Iron Age" could be paraphrased as "Iron Age grave goods".) There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Diannaa for the information and guidelines. However, why do you delete the whole thing without giving me a warning or time to edit? I had painfully searched for existing Wikipedia articles etc. to link, why do you force me to repeat all this effort? Do you think this is the way you reward someone who puts voluntary efforts? I had a look at the ithenticate report now, but it does not show details of which part of the text was overlapping with existing sources - because the corresponding wiki article versions are already deleted. Is there a way I can see the original article version that you deleted, that can help me prevent reinventing the wheel? Sahrudayan (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The iThenticate link works fine for me, as it highlights the overlapping text in red. Not sure why it does not work properly for you. I am sending you a copy of the removed text via email, alongside the material from the website. It's all identical. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. It's a violation of copyright law and the copyright policy of this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the email that provides the version differences. The iThenticate link works for you probably because you still have access to the deleted versions whereas I don't. Please do think from normal user perspective before you take actions like this. I totally understand the copyright violation issue, but please give sufficient warning/notice (at least 24 hours) before blanket deletion of content. I thank you and appreciate your wiki gardening efforts once again! Sahrudayan (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There must be a glitch of some kind; I have tried the iThenticate link with my non-admin account, and it works perfectly. Sorry about that. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 13:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say, it won't be possible to give people warnings as there's right now 85 reports on the board waiting to be assessed. This represents six to eight hours work. If I give each person 24 hours to repair their edit that would require at least double the time. It's physically impossible for me to spend that much time online, as I would have to risk my own health and well-being to do so. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your message. I just have a passion for Japan and videogames and I have my favorite sources from those places. I will be sure to improve my edits adding multiple sources, thank you! Rodrigocoelhoc (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems – JSDEWES

Hello Diannaa, I would love if we can discuss what did I done wrong so my wiki article went on speedy deletion. What do i need to fix so an article about JSDEWES stays on Wikipedia?

Best regards, Klabura (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Klabura. The article was deleted because all of its contents were copied from this document. Wikipedia cannot accept copyright content unless the copyright holder has given permission and formally in writing released the material under a compatible license. What to do? You can either write a new article on your own words, or if the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

SMH

SMHHHHHHHH DIANNAA YeahImaBoss (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Hello Diannaa,

I belive that the editor Johnscribner is only looking for a playground. The data he/she added to the infoboxes were never present on the source webpage and seemed completely arbitrary. Is there anything you can do against it? Thank you in advance. Wildkatzen (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Your first stop should always be to talk to the user and I have gone ahead and done that. If the problem persists please let me know. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Hello, Diannaa. Could you check this content please for possible copyvio? It appears to be cut&pasted or lifted from another source. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zefr. I could not find any of the added material in online sources. Thanks for your concern, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

IP24.190.40.112

It seems to be the long-term vandalism, 24.190.40.112's copyright content copied edits are not only exists in List of supercentenarians from the United States, but also in Talk:List of supercentenarians from the United States. see page history.Inception2010 (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP is already blocked for a month. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I already Know that the IP is already blocked for a month. this edit are copyright content copied edits and must deleted, see revision history of Talk:List of supercentenarians from the United States.Inception2010 (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay I see that now. Rev-del now complete. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Inception2010 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not reading your message thoroughly the first time! My bad :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Jeromeenriquez is back to creating copyvio articles again with Alobo Naga. I've removed the violating content and revdel'd. I know you said the last time that the next step would be a block, but have never done a copyvio block before, so I'm deferring to you on how to handle this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. I had him in the virtual tickler file to check for copyvio and would have seen this next time I resumed editing. I checked his remaining edits from today and found nothing else untoward. I use an indef block, and add a blurb below as to how to get unblocked. This blurb and other useful talk page blurbs can be found at User:Diannaa/Copyright so that I don't have to re-invent the wheel all teh time. I have other frequently-used stuff on a notepad document. Now I will watch-list the user's talk page and see; hopefully we can unblock at some point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, thats what I thought, but also wanted someone else to check since I've somewhat taken him under my wing. I do hope we can unblock, but given how prolific his creations are and how prone they are to copyvio, I agree 100% with your call. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Diannaa a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Slightlymad 03:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Johnscribner

Hi Diannaa,

I see that you spoke with Johnscribner (talk · contribs) yesterday in regards to his problematic edits, it seems that he has not taken your advice. I have just reviewed several of his edits, all include made up statistics. Thought I would make you aware of the ongoing problem.

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have issued a sterner warning and will monitor his contribs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

English Patriot Man sock Sein und Zeit made 20 edits to Elvis Presley, [24] adding about 3,800 bytes. Rassenschande‎ is an article edited by quite a few EPM socks, so when a brand new editor with the account name "Elvis the King" makes its first edit to Rassenschande‎, it gets my attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's one of the articles I watch-list specifically for this reason. Note the choice of subject matter for the edit: racial defilement. I will send you the list of articles via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say, thank you very much for your help! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Flagcruft" on Manstein page

Could I please understand your thinking over removing the flags from the Manstein page when it comes to his Orders and decorations? Such use of flags is consistent with many other biographical pages on Wikipedia when it comes to the listing of honours, indeed it allows those of a vexillogical bent to immediately regcognise where an honour is from, indeed the vexillology and phaleristics are two studies that often go hand in hand.

I am therefore unsure as to the intellectual consistency of removing them some pages, but leaving them on others, especially when it seems to be the norm. Why do you classify them as 'cruft', when so many other pages do not?

Also my apologies if I have done this "talk" action incorrectly, as I am new to the talk option, or rather new to the need of it, so hope I havent fouled it up too much. :-/

I already opened a discussion on the article talk page where I noted several examples of articles that don't have such flags, and provide a link to the section of the Manual of Style that discusses why we don't include them. The shortcut to that section is WP:Flagcruft, which is why I used that word. Please post there if you wish to discuss it further, so other interested editors can post comments if they want to. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdel request

This may be just some made-up story, but if it's not, it's a serious unsourced allegation. Could you please take a look? Thanks. 32.218.35.237 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision deleted and oversight contacted. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)