User talk:Diannaa/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Attribution ?

Can't really find what was copied from University of Cambridge, wrong article? --Muhandes (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, forget it, I found what you mean.  Self-trout --Muhandes (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oberlin, Ohio

I think the history section might be largely copyvio.104.163.159.237 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your interest in copyvio clean-up. The current history page at http://www.cityofoberlin.com/for-visitors/history-of-oberlin/ appears to have been created in 2014 and we've had this content since 2002 so I can't prove it's copyvio. Old archived pages such as https://web.archive.org/web/20020917013652/http://www.cityofoberlin.com:80/city_history.html have completely different content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with probable libel

This seems like a candidate for revdel. Can you help? 32.218.40.151 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for reporting. I have contacted the oversight team as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the oversight team? 32.218.40.151 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a step beyond revision-deletion in that it hides the edit from admins as well. Please see WP:Oversight for further information. You can email them yourself at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Help please

A (short) while ago (21 April 2018) I spotted what I thought was likely to be a copyvio on Rodney Brooks, but I couldn't identify what it was a copy of. In what felt to me was almost no time at all, (it was actually 20 hours), you'd identified the source. Could I bother you to tell me what tool(s) you used to identify the source? With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf and thank you for your interest. I was led to the Rodney Brooks article when another article Baxter (robot) was listed at CopyPatrol and I checked that editor's contribs. Here is a link to the Copypatrol report, which lists that url as a potential source. Another way is to do a search using Earwig's tool, or sometimes I check sources listed as references in the article, or sometimes I copy snippets of likely-looking prose and do a Google search and see what turns up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Same Article

Hello!.I have now understand and I think Soon Valley and Soan Sakaser Valley are both same article.Please check it.If these are same, then Delete one of them.Thanks.--PakEditor (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi PakEditor. I don't know if they are on two different topics or not, but all the content is completely different. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Moonlighting Film Production Services, Philip Key (film producer) and Genevieve Hofmeyr (film producer)

Hello Diannaa

Recently, you requested that my articles be speedily deleted. I have rewritten them extensively in my own words and made them much shorter. Could you please revisit them and accept? I'm sorry for the original mistake - I am new to Wikipedia and still learning. Thank you very much.

Kind regards, Mockby 123 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Mockby 123, Diannaa is not a draft reviewer, and is thus unlikely to review your drafts for suitability on Wikipedia. I see you have asked the original reviewer for assistance, but there is also the AFC help desk where you can ask for advice. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Content on Utah Valley University Page

Thanks for your attention to the UVU Wikipedia page. As noted in the comment with the edit, the content reverted is a required disclosure that UVU must include with any statement regarding its accreditation under the standards of the accreditor and US federal law. That text must be used verbatim and in its entirety under the NWCCU Institutional Advertising, Student Recruitment, and Representation of Accredited Status Policy any time the university discloses its accreditation status, and the address and telephone number must be included under 34 CFR 602.23(d). As an act of legal compliance by the university official editing the page, it is not meaningfully subject to copyright. 161.28.198.47 (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Jeff Johnson

I am not the person who removed the content. The source webpage is marked as Copyright © 2018 UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY so I will not be undoing the revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Academic Tenure copyright review

Hi Diannaa , thank you for pointing out my mistakes concerning use of copyrighted material in the Academic tenure article .I have adjusted the United Kingdom section using material from the Lecturer article , and adding new material .

Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneather (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you check if World Conference on Science was from an open license source

Hi Diannaa

I just notice that World Conference on Science was deleted because of a copyright infringement, see User talk:Susan Schneegans#Speedy deletion nomination of World Conference on Science. I think that the text actually came from an open license source and was deleted incorrectly. Would you be able to check and see if there is an open license source given for the text? And if so reinstate it?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi John Cummings. There's no indication on the source webpage or the UNESCO home page that any of their material is released under a compatible license. "Open access" means that we don't have to pay to read the material; some open access articles are released under license, but many are not. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So unless the source material specifically shows a compatible license, we have to assume it's copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for your help, I'll try to sort out the licensing notification. John Cummings (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello , I received your message in my talk page in few minutes ago, I need help (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC))

Hi Mr.Mani Raj Paul. I already added the required attribution. If there's some other assistance required, please let me know what it is and I will try to help or direct you to people who can. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and More

Cachorro de Bichon Maltes	A bit of Puppy Love
	Thanks for your help last year, I still appreciate it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the puppy! so cute ;) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A heads-up, should you wish to get involved in a discussion

• User talk:Church of Britain#Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution (your post)
• Talk:Parable of the Mustard Seed assorted recent contributions by various editors
• See also the recent revision history of Parable of the Mustard Seed

Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

YGM

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.

—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential copyvio

Hi - could you check this diff and see if it needs to be deleted as a copyright vio? Thanks, Marianna251TALK 13:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marianna251 and thank you for the report. I have removed the material and done revision-deletion and warned the person who added it. It was copied from this paper. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw your message - thank you for taking the time to let me know about my idiot revert and bone head move had Bob not already let me know about it... I appreciate it a lot, and it's good to know that someone will say something so that I can fix it. I wish you a great rest of your weekend and (of course) happy editing ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Oshwah and for blocking the editor. His most recent addition was copyvio as well so I was just on my way over there to issue a copyvio block! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

This message has been sent to you to inform you that a case involving FreshCorp619 has been filed at SPI, and it has come to my knowledge that you may have prior history with this user. As such, your input may assist with the case. That case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreshCorp619. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Marchjuly#typo and see if anything further cleanup needs to be done with respect to some content added to Story of Seasons? — Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) looks copied/close paraphrased off [1] Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I was afraid that might be the case after reading the post on my user talk. The minor tweak I made then is most likely not going to be enough to clean things up. This also makes more concerned that there may be more copy-pasted content previously added by the same editor. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I have cleaned this copyvio and added a note to the user's talk page. Spot checks do not reveal any other copyvio by this user. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Diannaa. Also, thanks to you too Galobtter. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Charlotte Brontë

Hi Diannaa. I wonder could you have another look at the recent edits at this article? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it looks like it's copied. Unfortunately I am unable to view the source journal article, so I have removed it presumptively. I will not be doing revision deletion for this one. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The Incredible History of India's Geography

I noticed that you removed the content from The Incredible History of India's Geography from the article Genetic studies on Gujarati people. I apologize for this edit. I was not aware that it would lead to a copyright issue. Is it possible for me to readd this information in the article by adding the content from "In 2010" to "Bronze Age" on page 24 of this book in block quotes? A145029 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi A145029. Copying that much content from a book is not okay, even if you put it in quotation marks, because that would be a violation of our non-free content rules. 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. You must put all information in your own words and structure. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have readded the content in my own words. A145029 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Hi,

Do you reckon that the closely paraphrased text of this source in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deathlycrane is a copyright violation? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of it was copied, so I removed it and alerted the user as to our expectations. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hanseatic League

Hello Diannaa. You added some text to a copyright violation I think I found and while I agree that they copied WP, I don't understand what you're suggesting I do. (First timer w/© stuff) Could you be more clear about what I should do next? (If anything)

Riventree (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Riventree. Thanks for your interest in helping with copyright clean-up. You don't have to do anything further. I've added a template to the talk page of the article in question noting they copied our article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexander V. Gordon.jpg

Hello Diannaa. I received the permission for public usage of this image and sent an email with its copy to Permissions email. Let me know if any other actions needed. Thanks, bpkosh Bpkosh (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bpkosh. I've added an OTRS Pending template to the photo. It might take a while for the permission email to get processed, as they have a large backlog right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Arts of West Bengal

On April 25th, you warned editor বাক্যবাগীশ about attribution when copying within Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the editor concerned had created Arts of West Bengal earlier on the same day and made many copyright violations in the process. Three come up when I check with the Earwig tool, but there is a lot more information copy/pasted from Maria online and its subpages. I'm leaving this in your capable hands! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:John L. Volakis

Dsiaf (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Hello Diana. You apparently deleted my draft page called John L. Volakis. I know that I am not supposed to coppy directly from elsewhere, however this eas just a draft for me so I can have a sense of what I am supposed to write in the next weeks. Is it possible to recover the article? Thank you Dsiaf (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dsiaf. We can't host copyright content anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. I can send you a copy via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Jean-Michel Blais

Hi Diannaa, How would I use copyrighted material in an article that I do have permission to use? In other words, how do I show that I have permission to use that text?

Artsandstuff1 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. However, in most instances, promotionally worded material from the subject's own website is not suitable for use in Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

22:40, 8 May 2018 Talk:Chatelaine (magazine)

‎ Diannaa, you deleted 1,844 characters as a clean up and copy edit. "Removing unsourced material and puffery." The material was sourced and "puffery" is subjective. Please relook at the edits. I would like to resolve the difference collaboratively. --Mediazeitgeist (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

copyright

You deleted some material that I posted stating "addition(s) have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder." This is not possible, the material was a summary by my associate that was written for wikipedia specifically. There was no copied material nor copyright material in a list stating the books that were published by the author- with a small summary of the content. Please revert the material. (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2018 (PST)

I am not the person who removed the material; that was done by another editor for reasons other than copyvio ("undue and unverified"). The material was previously published at http://srath.com/book/books, so we can't accept it without written permission of the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

COI

Diannaa, you make a claim of Conflict of Interest with my post on Chatelaine. While flattered, I am a constant student of media, always searching to expand my knowledge base to better my skills as a business professional, creative, and mentor. I have no association with Chatelaine personally, nor does family, friends and employment organization. I don't work for or with magazines. I do have a love of media and a passion for history and iconic brands. Please amend. --Mediazeitgeist (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ronnie Johnson

Hi. Could you unprotect Ronnie Johnson? I want to create an article on Ronnie Johnson the basketball player. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

File copyright question

Hi,

Do you reckon that this file is actually free? The content on that website is licensed under CC-BY 3.0, but I wasn't sure if that applies to the logo, so I assumed it doesn't (I know Wikipedia's logo is licensed under the same licence that its content is, but I didn't think it wise to assume that that is also the case here). Was I right to do this? Should I perhaps ask there? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the logo is released under a CC-by-3.0 license, https://tcrf.net/File:TCRFLogo.png. Perhaps it would be best to ask there though. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Your addition to Greater Western Sydney Giants has been removed

With regards to Greater Western Sydney Giant and your action of removing this edit. I am going to rewrite this factual historical truth about the history of Greater Western Sydney Giant in my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.62.230 (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Your addition was removed, because it was copied from http://www.blacktownsportspark.com.au/about_us/history and was therefore a copyright violation. Please stop adding copyvio, or you will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC in the Dawenkou Culture

Hi Dianaa. In RFC section of the talk page of the article Dawenkou culture, there is a user (User Zanhe) who does not know anything about the topic of the RFC, but has jumped in to make an opposing vote and attack me. When being asked to explain why a connection between the Austronesian and the Dawenkou culture (in the present-day Shandong, China, c. 4100 – c. 2600 BC) is unreasonable and give sources to prove that. This user can't even write a word. In that case, is such an opposing vote invalid ? there is another user (Kanguole) who is the original opponent of the RFC and has keep silent until that moment suddenly jumped in to cite WP:BURDEN seemingly to save user Zanhe from having to explain the connection between the Austronesian and the Dawenkou culture since that is a very difficult thing to do and requires a deep knowledge of this topic. My understanding of a RFC is that: a voter in a RFC should have a certain knowledge of the topic concerned. If he/she is clueless about the topic but he/she still makes a vote, then his/her vote is invalid. Is that correct ? As I don't know about WP:BURDEN, so it'd be better to ask you.

Both user Kanguole and user Zanhe seem to back each other, where the former seems to know about the topic of the RFC, but the latter seems to be clueless about the topic.Gustmeister (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa:Please tell me about WP:BURDEN applied to the RFC vote or where I could ask about this. Gustmeister (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to help with this. I suggest you ask at the Teahouse. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa:OK. thanks. Gustmeister (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

middlebrowcanada.org

(cur | prev) 22:19, 8 May 2018‎ Diannaa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,454 bytes) (-863)‎ . . (remove copyright content copied from https://www.middlebrowcanada.org/Magazines/Chatelaine/tabid/3193/language/en-GB/Default.aspx) Hi Diannaa, I spoke with MiddleBrowCanada.org, the facts shared on Wiki and used on the MiddleBrow site is in the public domain. Perhaps an edit is required. Can you reinstate the post and I can amend to ensure there is no perception of infringement in any way and only the sourced facts are used? Many thanks in advance. I'm still learning! --Mediazeitgeist (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the page is marked at the bottom as "Copyright 2011 by University of Strathclyde" so I won't be able to do that. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material under a compatible license, we need to have documentation that shows they have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks --Mediazeitgeist (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Viniyoga

Hi Diannaa I am new to Wikipedia editing so not clear on what you have laid out as your rationale. I do know that a big chunk of what you have deleted was my own writing from my own website and the supporting PDF email reference was from my personal emails. So both the email quoted and the introductory text preceding and following it were from my own website and my own composition. I can see that you would not know that from just my user name. So can you clarify more please? Thanks Yoga1008 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoga1008 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Frank Benton

Hello Dianna. The article about Frank Benton was deleted. I understand the reason, I tried to change sentences but there is so little info about Benton. I'll rewrite the article with my own words. But before that can I show you the text for approval? I really don't want to have a problem with that article. Benton did great things in his life and i think there should be an article in Wikipedia about him for sure. Thank you in advance!

Zetalion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zetalion. I could definitely do this. It would be best if you sent the draft to me via email so as to avoid placing any more copyvio live on the website. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Backendgaming is back

He goes by "Kenneth Beadles" now. BTW, Backendgaming is also a promotional name, which violates username policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.122.180 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. I have filed a report at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backendgaming. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Near Death Experience page

Hello Diaane, on the Near Death Experience page I made a few edits. These were reverted.

I tried to engage the editors on the talk page but it was to no avail (do you want me to send you the Diffs?) Nobody would jump in and discuss

I read through the dispute resolution guidelines but all the methods proposed require you to thoroughly discuss the issue on the Talk Page. Now since this some not seem possible, what am I supposed to do?

Thank-you in advance for your help Best Josezetabal (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

IPs don't have watch lists and can't be pinged, so they may be unaware of your post. You could try leaving a message on their user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank-u Diaane, I have left a note on the IP's talk page [2]. I will wait a few days and then revert the deletion if no answer. Best Josezetabal (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Which part is Copyright violation?

Hi, Apparently, you deleted my draft on Taxation in Turkey. Which part is the problem? Is it the table that I received from "http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/investmentguide/investorsguide/Pages/Taxes.aspx" web page. Because if so, how can I put some statistical table. Also I cited to that web site. Also, I took some other statistics from other pages and put them on table. If the table is the only problem(I still don’t understand how can I use statistics otherwise), I will delete them and write the same article again. Looking forward for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ŞahinTaha (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The content in the draft was copied from http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/investmentguide/investorsguide/Pages/Taxes.aspx, http://www.gib.gov.tr/sites/default/files/fileadmin/taxation_system2016.pdf, and https://www.coursehero.com/file/p6asnce/Taxation-period-in-BITT-is-each-month-of-the-calendar-year-Taxpayers-declare/. There was enough overlap with these three copyright documents that none of the draft could be salvaged, so sorry. Please read through the information I posted on your talk page regarding Wikipedia and copyright and let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Noble McNeely

I removed a couple of copyvio paragraphs; they've reappeared in slightly modified form - you might like to have a look and see whether they're still too close a paraphrase of http://www.presbyterianireland.org/Utility/About-Us/Structure-Leadership/The-Moderator.aspx . Thanks. PamD 23:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Editor copying large amounts of text to other articles without attribution after your warning

You warned Morrister (talk · contribs) but nothing has changed. I suspect that almost all of his edits including article creations are copied without attribution. In doing so he's not just copying text without checking the sources but in copying the sources not taking across enough information to verify the sources. There's a big problem also with copying and not actually checking the sources. I quickly found (as I thought originally he'd copied from a webpage and added sources) that one source didn't back the text it was meant to source. I've found to often going back to check sources in articles that the source originally related to relevant text but that somehow, perhaps because the text was deleted or new text added before the source, no longer verified the text. I shudder to think of how many sources may be in articles that no longer back the cited text. I wish we didn't allow editors to copy from other articles without verifying the sources themselves, although I realise that can be difficult. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You Made A Mistake on Michael Sonnenreich

Diannaa 🍁 (talk)I'm confused as to why you removed information that never had anything to do with Georgetown University. This article is about Michael Sonnenreich only and never referenced any information from that source " https://linknovate.com/affiliation/georgetown-university-615/all/?query=product+direct+cost ." Content that has been added has been in my words too except for the one quote I stuck in at the bottom. Please feel free to contact me directly at - User:Lemonpasta (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Train horn.

I disagree with the assertion that my edit to Train horn was a copyright violation, can you explain why specifically it was?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 03:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation because the source document is marked as © Copyright 2015 Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, by that logic, literally nothing anyone on Wikipedia is using can be used, since most sources are under some form of copyright. What does the RSSB own the exclusive rights to ever have that information in table form? My table was different then theirs, in the format of the other tables on the page.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 20:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the table structure or listing the various signals. The problem is that the descriptive prose is copyright. It would be okay to list the signals and format it as a table if you re-worded the descriptions in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, You read the descriptions right? They are barely a sentence. One of them is three words, two of which are hyphenated. So how exactly do you expect to see them reworded, without changing what's being communicated? Further, If you want this fixed, how did you expect me to even do that given you deleted/blocked access to the edit having with the problem. You did that, then told me it was wrong, as opposed to telling me it was wrong so I could even fix it. We don't even do that to vandalism edits for crying out loud.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 22:55, 15 May 2018 (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. As you can see, each description is identical to the source document. There's no reason why the content could not be re-written to comply with copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. For example "To give a warning to anyone on or near a running line" becomes "Used to warn anyone on or near the tracks that a train is coming". "To give an urgent warning to anyone on or dangerously near to the line" becomes "A more urgent warning used when a person is in imminent danger". And so on. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

So, that link doesn't actually show anything since the edit's been deleted. Frankly, I don't think we're going to come to a point where we're going to agree here so I'm submitting a dispute resolution request.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 01:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link to the request, there's a section on it for you to enter your summary of the dispute. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#User talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn. discussion--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@The Navigators: Diannaa is one of the more experienced editors currently active when it comes to assessing copyvios, etc.; so, if she suggests "re-writting" as a way to resolve this, then that might be the best thing to do. In addition, asking about this at DRN is probably not going to help much since DRN tends to deal with content disputes and not copyright related matters; moreover, those that tend to mediate disputes at DRN might have neither the WP:ADMINTOOLS nor the experience to view and assess the content which was removed. So, if you still want to further discuss this at a noticeboard and see what others think, then you might be better off asking at WP:CP instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I activated my email. Kick me the material so I can do it correctly.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

YGM! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it, but that's not the the table. The table I created was formatted differently then the others on the page. Does the one I created no longer exist at all because the edit was deleted?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 01:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, re-sending the correct table. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I got it, this one is the correct table. Thanks, have a good one.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 06:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Governance

Hello Diannaa, could you revdel the last 2 large additions to this article please? My copyvio check crashed (Internet connection is terrible these days), but the content was obviously copypasted from an external dissertation. Thank you in advance for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship (Los Angeles version)

Thanks for the catch of the copyvio on this; I've nominated it and a sister article citing COPYVIO and being thin and contextless in general, also mentioning your removals of the COPYVIOs. Nate • (chatter) 19:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I decided to have a look when I got the ping. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is giving me the same concerns. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

He didn't create that article and there's not a hella lot of copyvio in it. But I will clean it up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hey, I could use a 2O/input over at my talk page, if you wouldn't mind terribly. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Criminal Behaviour Order

An article that you have been involved in editing—Criminal Behaviour Order—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. WPCW (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A Gentle Reminder

I know that you know the rules better than I do. The gentle reminder is only that you have arguably become an involved administrator and should go ahead and delete and redact any more copyright violations but leave any block to another administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing copyright violations and performing revision deletions are administrative tasks and performing these tasks does not preclude me from performing blocks on persistent violators. This is because performing administrative actions does not make me involved, as defined at WP:INVOLVED, which states that "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Part of me thinks I should just this go, but this raised a question in my mind. I'm trying to help out in the copyright area (although I cannot possibly keep up with Diannaa :) Sometime in the last week or so, I addressed a copyright issue, then noticed that the editor's username was a violation of the username policy so blocked the editor. I'm totally on board with the notion that revdel is an administrative function and interaction with an editor for purely administrative functions does not constitute involvement. That said, I'm not sure it as clear that removal of a copyright violation counts as administrative action. We certainly don't have any requirements enforced by our software that preclude any editor from removing a copyright violation.

We do suggest that investigations of copyright issues at WP:CP should be handled by " a copyright problems clerk or administrator", but that's not binding and is probably applicable to items raise their not run-of-the-mill copyright violations found by editors in the course of reviewing articles.

Many times, when I investigate something that pops up at CopyPatrol, I see that someone has already removed it and marked it as a copyright violation. In many cases these are not admins.

At this point, I find myself in the awkward position of arguing that removal of material due to copyright considerations does not constitute an administrative action, and therefore with a strict reading of WP:INVOLVED, that editor should not then block the offending editor either for an inappropriate username, or repeated attempts to reinstate the same material. However, I don't like that position, and I feel it is bureaucratic overkill to expect an admin in that situation to search out another admin to carry out the block.

In fact, it just occurred to me, that if reverting a copyright violation is not an administrative act, then the very common process of reverting the edit and following up with the rev Dell would have to be handled by two different admins. That sounds like the height of absurdity.

I invite @Robert McClenon:'s thoughts on this matter (including the possibility that this discussion belongs elsewhere).--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I visit these articles is to remove the copyvio. Note WP:INVOLVED states that making "obvious edits which do not show bias" does not make an administrator "involved" as defined by the policy.

Expanding on Sphilbrick's points: There's only a few revision deletion requests on the board at Category:Requested RD1 redactions right now, but sometimes there's as many as thirty. I would be adding circa 20 new revision deletion requests to the board every single day. People would wonder why the heck I am not doing them myself. Similarly, I can only imagine the response I would get if I were to go to ANI or AN to request a block of a repeat copyright violator; people would wonder why I didn't just handle it myself. Robert McClenon, you probably don't realize that when I discover a repeat violator and give them a final warning, I usually add them to my Google calendar and monitor their contribs. Right now I have about 5 that I am monitoring daily and about 10 more on a less frequent rotation. If I don't do the block / unblock myself but instead post somewhere and get someone else to do it, then would I also be expected to monitor these people for unblock requests and subsequently monitor their contribs once they get unblocked? (Because if I don't monitor them, who knows how many copyvios they will commit before the bot spots one and it gets reported at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. Many things slip through.) It just seems like a lot of bureaucratic whatnot that would serve no useful purpose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Diannaa, User:Sphilbrick - The explanation is coherent and straightforward. I am sure that some repeated copyright violator will sometime (again) either take a complaint to WP:AN after they come off block or request unblock tendentiously on their talk page. I will (at my convenience) research whether I think it is clearly addressed in the involvement guidelines, because it should be. That is, I agree with Diannaa, but I see too many plausible-seeming arguments about admin involvement and "admin abuse", and anything that can be done to keep the rats in the ratholes is helpful. Okay, thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Blatant copyvio is less obviously wrong than blatant vandalism, but equally wrong and just as destructive to Wikipedia. Having kicked or hit a particular rat in the past shouldn't keep you from poisoning the rat or turning a terrier loose on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be acceptable for an admin, whose sole involvement with an editor is the reversion of copyright violations, to block that editor if they continue to attempt to replace the material. That said, I can imagine a tendentious editor attempting to argue that it is a violation of involved. I wouldn't mind if we were to clarify the situation, and explicitly state that such an action is acceptable, if the community consensus is that it is within the letter of the rule, or amend the policy to allow this action, as I firmly believe it fits within the spirit of the policy. Given that such clarifications or amendments can sop up valuable time, it may be worth waiting until there is such a case.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You 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.

Doctor Papa Jones • (Heeya!) 17:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation on A Million Little Things

Hi Diannaa,

I noticed multiple sentences were copied from the reference source themselves. Feel free to take a look for yourself. — Lbtocth^talk 22:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing all 38 revisions on A Million Little Things was quite excessive. You could have simply added {{Close paraphrasing}} instead of removing all contributors' attributions and removing important information about the characters of the series. I would ask you revert your deletion of the 38 edits (not your actual edits just the revisions) so I can have a chance to paraphrase them better. Thank you! - Brojam (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have temporarily undone the revision deletion. In addition to the character description, I removed the plot description and a paraphrased a little bit in the lead. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers fort he welcome

Hello Diannaa, I meant to get back to you thanking you for welcoming me here, but just didn't have the time to get around it. What do you prefer to be called anyway? Diana or specifically Diannaa? You may call me by this name only as that's what I prefer to go by here. Have a good evening.--Posuydon (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Those articles already previously had those edits. It was only afterwards that I restored them there after they were removed.--Posuydon (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You can use "Diana" or "Dianna" if you like. My last name starts with the letter A, hence the extra letter. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on 1Malaysia Development Berhad

Hi Dianna, only certain parts is a copy from Sarawak Report and not the whole part. What you have cancel off is almost more than 50 changes done. Please kindly revert back all the changes and I will edit it within 24 hours. Thanks. Please consider this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veron4best (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright material on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. I can send you the deleted material via email if you like. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Copyright infringement

Hi, Can I restore the speedy deleted content if I get the copyright permission from external website admins? Vinoj Varghese (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please get permission first before adding any copyright content to Wikipedia. There's details at WP:Donating copyright materials. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any chance to restore the deleted content??Vinoj Varghese (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I can send it to you by email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for your support. I have updated my email on Wikipedia, can you please send me the speedy deleted content. Vinoj Varghese (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

YGM. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I got the permission from the website to use thier contents to wikipedia...I forward the mail to wikipedia for use that contents..But I didnt get any replay mails from wikipedia..Is there any another process to get the permission to use that contents??? Vinoj Varghese (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The people who review the permission emails have some large backlogs right now. Please be patient. Another alternative would be to write the content in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Evolution from solar system to first cell and from first cell to solar system. There were two different websites from which the material was copied: https://theyouth.in/2017/08/25/indian-proves-western-philosophy-on-life-wrong-gives-a-new-chapter-to-the-theory and http://zeenews.india.com/science/indian-professor-from-kerala-claims-he-can-prove-charles-darwins-theory-of-evolution-wrong-watch-video-2007857.html. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I write my own content in same Draft:Evolution from solar system to first cell and from first cell to solar system. ?? Vinoj Varghese (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

OTRS received

I've put a template on Talk:Blood management regarding permission received by OTRS. Based on the URLs you put in the edit summary, I'm not sure it is sufficient to restore the content, but I'm notifying you if you want to check. The source URL with permission is listed in the template. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Thanks for all the work you do as an OTRS volunteer. I temporarily undid the revision deletion to confirm that unfortunately none of the copyvio material I removed came from that particular web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nagarathar

Hi, Ashokml (talk · contribs) just pasted a big chunk from here into the Nagarathar article. I have reverted and warned but it could use a revdel, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for reporting this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Wise

Hi Di. I think you're meant to be the wise one. Something tells me you may have to have a look here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC) or maybe not, it seems.

I've done some revision deletion. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for removing the copy vio versions on Talk:Owl. You might want to do the same to those on Talk:Polar bear, by the same editor (Knowledge of Fact) - it looks like a straight cut and paste from here. Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Morrister

Just to let you know he was a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. He wasted a lot of time for a lot of people. :( — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I know now

I know now that l cant copy and paste it, i will try to write with my own words, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Done

Hi again, if l made it wrong again please dont remove it, tell me what to change. l have used my own words now and l have also quoted, l think l have permission to use it.

Regards Nemrud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Seoul Baekje Museum

Thanks for the RD1 for 5 edits for it. I declined the CSD as the topic is savageable and notable. Hope you won't mind. Improved it with RS already. Will warn the user for copyvio (single used for newcomer) --Quek157 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Done warning --Quek157 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dunkirk evacuation

I usually know to wait before editing over a possible disputed edit. I didn't think of it this time. SlightSmile 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing issue

Hi, a new contributor massively expanded Gulabi Gang last September, mostly in one edit, but appears not to be active now. I'm really concerned about it, as noted at Talk:Gulabi_Gang#Close_paraphrasing. Any chance that you could spare a few minutes to take a look? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am so tired; I'll get to this one later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User SOKO Super Galeb

Hello Diannaa. I've noticed your message on the SOKO Super Galeb's talk page (when I was visiting it today) and his editing habits (viz. unattributed copypasting from other articles, rarely an edit summary, editing generally similar topics, some quirks of spelling etc.) strangely reminded me of HMAS onslow (currently indefinitely blocked, and itself a sock of ARA SANTA FE). I'm nearly sure that this account will turn out to be another sock puppet, but I have no experience with initiating a sock puppet investigation. I'm not asking you to initiate it, as it can be premature - I've read on sockpuppet investigation, but what's still not entirely clear to me - and what I'd like to ask you - is what amount of evidence is generally required to open the investigation? I do not want to start acting without sufficient evidence - on the other hand I was one of editors who attempted to make some sense of HMAS onslow's edits, and I'd like not to go through similar thing again, at least not for so long. --ז62 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello ז62. Here's some ideas for things to look for:

• Compare the creation date of newest account compared to the date the previous account was blocked. Here it's four days, which is adequate time for the autoblock to have expired on the previous account.
• Compare the time of day each account performs edits. There's a pretty good match for these two accounts.
• See if there's any articles in common. Here there's four, which is a lot when you consider the new account has only edited seven articles.
• Look for idiosyncratic phrases in their edits, talk page posts, and edit summaries. Present these as diffs in your SPI report. Similarly, if the new account elaborates on or restores content added by the previous account, you could add that to your report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointers. I would wait for few more SOKO Super Galeb's edits/some time anyway, even if not for other purpose than having larger amount of edits to compare. (I also kind of hope, that even its approach can perhaps lead to enrichment of the Wikipedia content - if properly attributed, with more details and adequate sources added etc. - so I do not want to be overly harsh on SOKO Super Galeb, in case the new account would be more reasonable in its editing.)-ז62 (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to tell him you've filed a report; it's optional. I never do. That way if you're wrong there's no hard feelings. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for another point, as that's another issue I was bit concerned about. (Although I kind of thought - and somehow still think - that it would be perhaps better to attempt establish some kind of personal contact with this editor first.)-ז62 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio recommendations for New Pages Feed

Hi Diannaa -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a WMF product manager working on an improvement to the Articles for Creation process. I know you commented on this effort a few weeks ago, but I wanted to check in again because we're currently thinking about some copyvio questions, and I think you would have valuable opinions. The plan is to add AfC drafts to the New Pages Feed, and to score all pages in the feed with copyvio and quality scores. We're running into some technical challenges around copyvio, and the engineers on the WMF could use opinions from people experienced with it to help guide us. It would be really helpful if you could take a look at my most recent project update and leave your thoughts on the talk page. Thank you! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Braydon Coburn

Hey Diannaa! I was wondering if you could protect Braydon Coburn. I requested protection last night but there seems to be a huge backlog. I thought it was safe to sleep but after reverting this this morning I think protection is still necessary. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page through the weekend. If the problem persists please re-list or let me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Another thing

Now that I think of it, would you also be willing to investigate June 2013 Egyptian protests? In addition to being relatively inexperienced in early 2014, I remember being frustrated with the AfD back then, so I might have resorted to close paraphrasing here and there in order to expand it and save it from deletion. I made a minor cleanup a while later, but I always keep forgetting about this issue.

Also, did you check Ottoman-Portuguese War? Would it be okay if I started merging some of it into Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations? I'll probably reword most of it anyway. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) I will check out June 2013 Egyptian protests tomorrow or on the weekend. (2) No, I didn't check Ottoman-Portuguese War, because articles that are overloaded with quotations are extremely time consuming to check and you stated the problem was excessive quotations, not copyvio. Have you got a concrete reason to suspect copyvio as well as excessive use of quotations? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I normally suspect direct copypasting from non-free material when I read stuff like this in an article whose author is not a native English speaker: Indeed, it should come as no surprise that the Ottomans considered the Portuguese as a huge threat to their monopoly in the area. Professor G. Casale puts it best saying the Ottomans launched.. That being said, I randomly picked the 'Ottoman background' section and found no traces of copyvios or close paraphrasing in about 40-50% of the text. The remaining material consists entirely of quotations, which I would call excessive.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out how to make room for that stuff in Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations. Hopefully it won't be deleted before then. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2013 Egyptian protests has now been cleaned. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I never realized it had so many issues. This is frankly embarrassing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

HenryGarden1000

Note that the last two contributions of this editor to [[Economy of Nazi Germany][] have had the effect of emphasizing the "Socialism" in "National Socialism", which could be indicative of the current right-wing crusade to get Nazism re-classified as left-wing and not right-wing.

I filed an SPI on HG1000 and Soapbox Sam recently, and Bbb23's conclusion was "Possible socks. A bit more likely meat".

I think it's worthwhile keeping on eye on both for attempts to skew articles to the "Nazism is left-wing" direction.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Quick question for a newbie

I tried to update Judge Elmer Gordon’s Wikipedia page. Most come from news paper articles back in 1992. My question is, when a person wikis him some vile and hateful things come up. They are the first thing the reader sees. The edits have been removed but for some reason they still show up upon his wiki search. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!!! Po Campo (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not coming from Wikipedia; it's a Wikipedia mirror (https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Elmer_Gordon_West.html). You could try contacting them to get it removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Over use of quotations Peter H. Raven

Hello Diannaa,
The Peter H. Raven article contains a number of lengthy quotes that seem to border on copyright violation. Most were added here on October 2, 2017. Although tagged with a WP:Quotefarm template in March 2018, the quotes remain. What do you say? Woodlot (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's far too much. Please go ahead and remove some or all of them. Suggested edit summary: "remove excessive non-free content, per WP:NFCC" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on your advice, I made a stab at reducing the number of quotes, but I did not wish to exceed my editing skills. Perhaps the offending editor will take note and clean up the article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Re-created Anna Luna (actress)

Hi Diannaa,

Just a heads up that I re-created the page Anna Luna (actress) which you had once deleted because it actually referred to a different actress, Yam Concepcion. Anna Luna is a different individual who has recently received increasing critical attention, so I wanted to create an article on the subject. Hoping everything I've done here is in order.
Thanks, - Alternativity (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

RevDel request

Copyvio from Prothomalo to Shaykh Abdur Rahman. - Mar11 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Alan Hinkes article

Hi Diannaa. Sorry re the violation on the Alan Hinkes article. I thought, having read some Good Articles, that it was good practice to add relevant quotes into a reference/citation so the reader doesnt have to always open the reference? Can I use any quotes in a wiki article (even if cited and referenced)? Or was it the length of the quotes? Do I have any chance of restoring some of these ? Sorry to bother you but this article was a mess and vandalised previously, hence my desire to upgrade the standard of referencing and fact base. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Britishfinance (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please have a look at our non-free content criteria for the policy on the use of quotations. I don't think the quotes within the citations are necessary, especially if the sources are readily available and can be checked by the reader, and nobody is challenging the material. Removing these quotations along with the block quotes reduced the size of the article by a third so I think you will agree that the volume of quotations was excessive. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. Some of the issues in this article are contentious (and the topic has attracted a degree of vandalism because of that). If you don't mind, I would like to restore some of the quotes but will only do so where it is essential ? Thanks again. BF Britishfinance (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's okay, but you need to be super selective to stay within the non-free content policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Understand Dianna and will respect that. One final question, having read WP:QUOTE and WP:NFCC. If I am referencing a newspaper article, but the headline/main content of the article is not what I am pointing to, should I include a quote/first sentence of the section that I am pointing to in the reference/citation? Would that be considered good practice? thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you don't need to do that. But if you're citing a book or a multi-page pdf or journal article, you need to provide the page number. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Diannaa. Britishfinance (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

5G article

Sorry, I have no idea what text you deleted. I am completely re-writing a page on key new technology that had no useful information two weeks ago. If you see copyrighted text that I have not re-written, I would appreciate a note rather than a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawerchuk (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you recover the deleted page for me so that I can fix it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawerchuk (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I deleted some content (definitions) that were copied from https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R-REC-M.2083-0-201509-I!!PDF-E.pdf or elsewhere online. I can send you the deleted material via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, email should be enabled now, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawerchuk (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

YGM. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Regeneron Article

Diannaa -- So just to be clear (in fewer words than the library item you pasted on my talk page), you wanted me to put my changes in quotes? They were clearly not too long to violate 'fair use' doctrine, and they were taken (as footnotes said) from US gov press releases. BTW, such press releases did NOT show any copywright mark. Or were you hoping I'd figure out something else from the library item? Player4747 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the source document has a copyright mark on it or not, because under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About the Russian Theatre in Riga (the removed text).

Hello Dianna!

Thank you for the trouble you have taken! However, you have it backwards, sorry: the source http://www.rigathisweek.lv/object/tourism-info/others-sights/mikhail-chekhov-riga-russian-theatre-rrt/1089 has taken the text from our homepage www.trd.lv/en (and it is even indicated above the text section). I work at this theatre, and I am actually the author of this very text. :) Moreover, I am dealing with copyrights there, too, so I have no intention to use anything I have no right to use. May I return the removed text, or should I provide any proof of my authorship first? --Ailinaline O (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows that copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About the Brussels effect page

Thanks for your copyright flag regarding the Honeywell/GE merger. I am working on rephrasing it without losing the actual core of the argument.

More importantly, a whole section on Airplane emissions under Examples seems to have disappeared yet I don't see it reflected in the Edit History. Google refreshed its cache after it was deleted, the Wayback machine hadn't archived it yet so I can't restore it from there and once text is published on Wikipedia I tend not to keep local backups. I spent an evening researching it, collecting sources and working on the text and it is all gone. Any idea what happened and how to get it back? I will keep local backups from now on. --LeoVeo (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the text because it was copied from the source document. It was also removed from the page history in a process called revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, can you post the deleted section here please so I can adapt it? A lot of work went into sourcing and writing it and deleting things without a trace, reason or mention is not very constructive or respectful of someone else's work. Thanks. --LeoVeo (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I can't post it here, because it's copyvio. I am sending you the deleted material via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Attribution question

Hi. Hate to bug you, but during NPP, I came across a slew of new articles, such as List of first women lawyers and judges in New York. The info is being split off from List of first women lawyers and judges in the United States. I left a note on Montgomery28's talk page asking him to ensure he got the citation correct, and in addition asked him to leave a note in the edit summary showing where the info was copied from, which they began doing. That was correct, right? I'd hate to think I told a newbie to do something, and they followed that instruction, which was incorrect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

onel5969, you are correct about the attribution issues. I'll leave a bit more of an explanation on their talk page about the templates they can use. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks Primefac - just wanted to make sure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Access issue

I find myself in an access issue for an article that, while likely to be reverted to an old version, might also require a revdel or two. If you have access, could you please check http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/urbanstudies/n120.xml against Mark Gottdiener? Nothing obvious is flagging on Earwig but that's the source listed as the copyright violation. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

Sorry but I don't have access to that. I can't find the content via spot checks or Earwig's tool. Somebody has stubbified the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well, thanks for checking. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) (hi, Diannaa!) Primefac, I imagine you've already noticed that a good deal of that entry on Gottdiener is available on GBooks? I'm not immediately seeing any overlap of concern – the quotation from page 319 of that source in the Contributions paragraph was so marked and correctly attributed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. That was my main concern. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the name of Piranshahr city to Mahabad in its article on Englidh Wikipedia

Hello mrs Dianna, i changed the name of Piranshahr to Mahabad, West Azerbaijan, the two cities are not the same but since they were previously the same county, i would like to change the name of Piranshahr to Mahabad, West Azerbaijan in English wikipedia, it was reverted at the beginning but now it is saved and i hope it will not be reverted to Piranshahr, it is true it is not neutral in POV but many people consider the two cities as being one city. Thank you --Zana.daneshian (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thank you for patrolling new pages! Your work is appreciated. Keep up the good work. — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 03:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverse Copyright issues

Hi Diannaa. I have a rather odd question. The Wikipedia Copyright policy is quite clear when we are trying to attribute content to references. However, what is our policy on the exact reverse of this? I will give a better example here which is the article Ranbir Singh (general). I created and contributed most of the article about 6 months ago. Now, I came across a source published today which seems to have copied large parts of this article word to word ([3]). I am aware that Wikipedia is open-source and thus we cannot stop them from copying us and that is not my concern. My worry is that someone (say another editor) comes by tomorrow and claims that I am the one who has committed CV and tries to remove the content, than how do we deal with this. The answer is indeed simple, that this is provable given the timestamps on the page and the article, but as admins do you check that detail. Sorry, if this sounds like a stupid concern. And is this indeed documented to ensure other editors do not make this mistake? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80. That's a good question, and it's a situation that's come up before. What you can do is place a {{backwardscopy}} template on the talk page of the article involved. That way you have documentation in place that they copied from us rather than the other way around. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have inserted the template on that page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2018 (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.Vauxford (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Margalant

Thank you for your flag on Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, but the alleged copyright holder the you provided http://www.gordonbanks.com/gordon/family/2nd_Site/geb-p/p101.htm is wrong. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is the owner of the referenced material. I have already begun the process of rephrasing the flagged sections and plan to add more material referenced from elsewhere so the article can stand up to scrutiny.

Sincerely, Margalant (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do know who the copyright holder is: it's © Oxford University Press 2004–5, All rights reserved. The url contains the source prose, which makes it easy to compare the source document with the Wikipedia page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Quack quack

I'm sure this is already on your radar, but see Special:Contributions/JuniorChui. /wiae /tlk 02:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I was resting! The edits were promptly reverted by JJMC89 so that's great. I've now blocked the sock. Thanks for the notice. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Resting is good! I've been doing quite a bit of that these past months. Thanks for your help. /wiae /tlk 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my entries in Wikipedia

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for dropping a note on my wall! I would like to learn more about editing Wiki as I assist brands and personalities to "correct" information on their behalf, of course based on proper citations. I have gone through a number of links you provided, but here are some questions I'd like answers to: 1. For information based on the official website of the brand (in this case, Sunway College), you mentioned to cite only a short sentence and to quote it to show a direct copy and paste - however most of the information needed to be on wikipedia, based on other college's Wiki, are found on the website. You also mentioned i have to write it on my own words - however upon checking other college's descriptions, one can note that it is written not as an "opinion" but a matter of fact. My question is, how do i properly edit the college's wiki to show at least the important elements of the college, especially the right logo, description and courses?

2. For editing other personality pages, such as Datuk Wira Lee Chong Wei, what are the best practices to do to show that we have written the biography based on facts, and not hear says? Is there a template i can refer to? Thank you for your help. Your assistance is appreciated, and i do not want to be banned by Wiki for not doing anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christock (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Christock. What we do here at Wikipedia is write in our own words based on information we find in reliable sources. Don't copy from other websites; that's not allowed. It's against copyright law and against the copyright policy of this website. Please see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for a beginner's guide to how to write for Wikipedia. You may find it useful to ask specific questions at the Teahouse. For schools, there's a good essay at Wikipedia:College and university article advice and for living people, there's a policy page at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

You imply that you are editing on behalf of a person or organization. If so, you have a conflict of interest. Please read the information on this topic already on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Philippe Parreno

Hi Diannaa, when you have a chance, could you give this a look? At least one entire section, that of key works, appears to have been copied form a museum website. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Same issues in the art section of Paul Simonon, which was also added by the subject's promotional agency. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I will do these later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed some more copyvio from Philippe Parreno. I suspect the more flowery remaining prose was probably supplied by a person with a COI. This page appears to have been put up recently and has a lot copied from Wikipedia. Still one left to do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Signature

How do you get that Maple leaf in your signature? Thegooduser Let's Chat 02:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In Preferences→User profile→Signature:

— [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]])

Senate Flag Canada

File:Senate Flag Canada.png ......should it be removed from articles now - or after deletion?--Moxy (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Best to wait until an admin has a chance to assess. A bot will promptly remove it after it is deleted @ the Commons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Myers Park (Charlotte) Page Changes

Hi, Diannaa, thanks for your note regarding my changes to the Myers Park (Charlotte) Wikipedia Page. The text I added was not copyrighted material, and I'm knowledgeable on the restrictions on same. I am a Board Member of the Myers Park Homeowners Association (MPHA) for our Myers Park Neighborhood here in Charlotte NC. I am responsible for communications and content for the MPHA. The text I added was directly from our documents and website and is material we own, although it is not copyrighted. I would appreciate your replacing what you removed or freeing me up to do it. I appreciate your efforts to assure copyrighted material is protected. Fwardell

Fwardell (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(tps) @Fwardell: Virtually all text created the last few decades is automatically copyrighted. Many many, years ago, you had to affirmatively register the text and make sure that it had the copyright symbol, and many years ago you didn't need to register but you still needed to add the copyright symbol. Many people are still under the impression that if it doesn't have a copyright symbol it's not subject to copyright. It almost always is (with some rare exceptions such as material created by the federal government.) Such material must be accompanied by an explicit free license to be used in a Wikipedia article.

However, in addition to copyright issues if you are associated with the organization then you have a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article. You are encouraged to post suggested corrections and improvements on the article talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Still new at this

I understand copyright violations are taken seriously, but i would greatly appreciate some more assistance than copyright strikes. Some advise on how to handle info before the copyright strikes and threats of being blocked would be very helpful. I did plan on editing the information further, but i don't understand why the information has to be removed entirely. If you have experience on copy-editing, then maybe instead you could modify or paraphrase the information until its suitable and then give me some pointers on what to avoid. It would be a better alternative than removing the info, and striking me IMHO.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blue Pumpkin Pie. Sorry but there are anywhere from 70 to 100 potential copyright violations to be assessed each day, and I do the bulk of that work. What that means is that I don't have time to re-write the content for you or to teach you how to do it. Similarly, if I were to allow each person time to re-work the material, keeping track of each item would be difficult to impossible, as within a few days I would have many many such open items to go back and resolve. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. Do your amendments in an external text editor, or do the work before you save the page. If you need pointers on how to avoid copyright problems, 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) 11:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont know, i'm still on the fence on whether i did copyright violations. I dont want to sound like i have bad faith, but seeing as it happened recently and from the same editor, it feels like i have a target on my back. If that's not the case, then sorry for my bad faith. I just don't respond to threats when there are alternatives to help out. For example, the copyright strike violation doesn't give me any tips on how to avoid it. I had to ask for help. And copyright strike looks like something that can happen really easily.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2018 (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. You're not being followed; I am the person who assesses most of the bot reports, so if you commit a copyright violation, I will likely be the person who responds. There is indeed help and advice within the Template:uw-copyright; just click on some of the links, such as the one to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, which gives some advice in plain language on copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I don't want this to sound like piling on, but I also don't want you to have the impression that one particular editor has it out for you. I tried to do some copyright issue review every day, but I do far less than Diannaa, and I find the volume I work on exhausting — frankly I don't know how Diannaa does it. As she mentioned, there are far too many incidents each day to expects reviewing editors to fix each of the problems.

I'd also like to make a comment based on my observation of how many new editors work. I don't know whether this applies to you, but based on reviewing thousands of incidents, there is no doubt it applies in some cases. Many new editors may be aware that they can't leave a copyright violation in an article, but edit in a way that suggest they think it's okay to start with copyrighted material and then rewrite it until it is no longer problematic. However, it is not the case that the current version of the article must be copyright violation free. The software is deliberately design so that you can look at the status of an article at any point in its history. If any of those versions contains a copyright violation, it is a problem and must be addressed, even in old versions.

It isn't even good practice to start with copyrighted material and rewrite it — but if you must do so, it should be done off-line, ensuring that it is free of copyright violations before the first addition of the material into Wikipedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll continue to work on it. but would definitely need some more hands-on assistance on this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie:There's a tiny handful of editors working on copyright issues, a far larger number of editors checking in at the Teahouse, the place especially designed to help new editors. Wikipedia:Teahouse --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User OxfordLaw

The User, Special:Contributions/OxfordLaw continues with disruptive behaviour at Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen articles. Please care to check its log.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Added a link to his/her edits.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to assist you with this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Diannaa, thank you for pointing out the copyrighted material. I thought when I uploaded I gave credit to the author. However, it was done incorrectly. I am not sure if there another way to notify me out side of having the entire deleted when only the image was uploaded incorrectly. Especially, when the it was not approved to be published yet and was still in my sandbox. Just an FYI. Maybe you can assist new contributors and little more softly. Thanks agian, I will be more careful with images I upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddstellito (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ddstellito. I nominated the draft for deletion because the prose was copied from https://www.macmillanihe.com/resources/sample-chapters/9780230296541_sample.pdf, a copyright web page. Sorry but copyright material is not allowed on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. The image still exists on the Commons; it's here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Near Death Experiences Page : impossible to engage discussion on talk page

Dear Diannaa, I made the following edits on the Near Death Experiences page lead section

1st attempt [4] which was reverted to [5] by user [6]

At the same time, this same user refused to pursue discussions with me saying “…Happy editing though, I will not waste anymore of my time on this.“ [7]

2nd attempt I made again the following edit [8] which was promptly reverted [9]

I tried to engage discussion on the talk page [10] but user [11] never bothered to reply

3d attempt I tried again [12] and again the edit was reverted [13] by an IP [14]

I tried again to engage discussion on the talk page [15] but never got an answer

4th attempt I made yet another attempt [16] which was again reverted [17] by user [18] who had already reverted my 1st attempt and had also previously said on the talk page “…Happy editing though, I will not waste anymore of my time on this.“

So what do you advise me to do?

Wikipedia states that “Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution.” but in my specific situation any discussion seems impossible and I say this not because of lack of trying

Thank-you in advance for your kind response

Best Josezetabal (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If three different people revert your change, it looks to me like consensus is against you for this edit. Once the content has been removed, per the WP:BRD cycle the onus is on you to mak

Infringement?

Can you please take a look at the restoration of material I removed on May 31? This is the website that has the material. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comparing this revision dated 23:18, August 25, 2012 with the forum page shows a 90% overlap. So they copied from us, not the other way around, as the forum webpage is dated two days later. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's another problem. The first two full paragraphs are sourced only to that blog. That means that either the person who added the material also posted it to the blog or someone else posted the Wikipedia material to the blog. Either way, those paragraphs are unsourced. Although not a BLP, this is a significant amount of WP:OR about an important event in Johnson's life. That's what the editor implied in their edit summary when they restored the material ("imperfectly sourced"). What would you do? Just tag it? Seems insufficient, but I'm very big on sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Those citations are no good, since the source website is a Wikipedia mirror of the page as it appeared on the date of the blog post (August 27, 2012). Adding a citation in 2014 to this Wikipedia mirror is useless. The material is at this point unsourced. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but what would you do about it? Remove the material or tag it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I would remove it and replace it with a shorter version based on the sources in The Johnson-Jeffries Fight. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 15:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, although I'm not sure when I'll get around to it. Thanks very much for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Omaha Beach

I notice back in 2016 you reverted a lot of added external links to WWII Normandy articles by Denton19 on the basis that what he had added were spammy links and the use of google maps might be copyvio. Hes just re-added 50 or so similar external links which now appear to use bing maps. If you deem these copyvio and spammy links I will start to revert him but I wonder if you have the supernukem thing which can do it in one click? Lyndaship (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There exists a mass rollback script but I don't personally have it installed, and I don't think rollback is the way to go with these particular edits, because rollback is intended only for things like obvious vandalism. Best to remove them manually. I will post on the user talk page and let him know why. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted them with the script; it allows giving an edit summary which fixes the issue with rollback only being for vandalism etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Okey dokey, I am double checking now to make sure they are all gone. Thanks for your help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've finished double-checking; I got to the rest :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounding the all clear :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello all, Denton19 here. I write in response to Diannaa's note concerning copyright violation and non-pertinent content. First, Bing maps is sourced on the page (via the Details tag next to the Cesium Ion) and I have a Bing key on the website as well. Moreover, each map source data is similarly sourced, so if the user changes to another overlay, the sourcing changes as well. What else should I do to satisfy your concerns about copyright? Second, I feel the links are pertinent to Wikipedia as in each case the user is directed to the topic of the Wikipedia article. For example, the external link I added to the the Regiment de la Chaudiere topic places the user on the beach where the Regiment de la Chaudiere landed on June 6 in 1944 (www.virtualhistoryproject.com/dataInput.php?pid=3&uid=464&dt=1944-06-06T08:00:00Z). The information displayed one the website is only primary and secondary sourced information, with sources and whenever possible links to the original historical documents. If I understand better your concerns about the website's poor quality, I will address them. Thank you. Denton19 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Denton19

Hello Denton19. There's two reasons why we can't host these links. (1) There's no evidence that you have permission from Bing or Earthstar Geographics or Google Earth to use their copyright material on your website. Therefore we have to assume that you are using their material without their permission, which is a copyright violation. Wikipedia's external links guideline does not permit us to link to websites that are copyright violations, because to do so can be considered under the law to be contributory copyright infringement. (2) Linking to your own material, such as your own journal article, research, or website, is not done, as to do so is considered original research. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Paid Editing Help

Hi Diannaa,

I am being paid by an organization to update their Wikipedia page. This will be a weeks-long project, and I would like to draft my content before it goes public. How should I go about doing this such that it won't be scrutinized by editors until it's finished?

Additionally, my content has been flagged for copyright. But, it is the intent of my organization to have its language on Wikipedia. How do I avoid copyright issues considering this?

Thanks!

Jackplosh (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There were a couple of problems with your submission (Draft:Children's Hospital Association). 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. Regardless of the copyright issue, the company does not get to dictate the contents of their Wikipedia article, should one be accepted for publication. That's because (unlike LinkedIn or Facebook) we are an online encyclopedia, not a place to advertise. Nor is there any way to hide your activities on this website from other editors or preventing them from editing it in any fashion that meets our policies and guidelines. Copyright violations in particular are for the most part quickly detected and removed from the site.

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) 00:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Fiona Graham

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a peak at WP:BLPN#Fiona Graham? I may have mistakenly re-added some copyrighted content to the article Fiona Graham which had been blanked for a kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of reason. Multiple revdels might be needed because it appears the content was originally added quite some time ago.

There is one thing though in that an {{OTRS talk}} tenmplate was added to the article's talk page, and it makes reference to the court case being discussed in the removed section. I'm not sure what that template means, but I'm wondering if it means that permission was received to allow the content in the source to be used verbatim within the article. Anyway, I wouldn't have re-added the content if I recognized it as a copyvio. The content might possibly be rephrased and re-added if there's a consensus to do so, but I'll put off working on that until the article history has beeen cleaned. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for taking a look at this and helping to clean things up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help :) I will do revision deletion on the copyvio I removed in a few days or so, - that way the sources will still be available to do a wee paragraph on the court case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

EU Copyright Stuff

RationalWiki is kind of trying to figure out a problem with some of our sources becoming inaccessible due to the new EU GDPR laws, and we figured that you guys might be having a problem with it and that we'd take our cues from Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have any information or knowledge about this subject. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) RoninMacbeth, one possible workaround is to archive the link at archive.org, and link to that instead of directly to the source. It seems to work at least some of the time. HTH, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to submission of article: Education Marketing

Dear Diannaa

This is in reference to the article "Education marketing" submitted for review. I have duly noted the suggestions given by you. I will make sure that the content does not violate any copyright considerations, would re-structure the content like an encyclopedia flow and then re-submit for approval. Please do not delete the article.

Best, Engineer2018 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lot of copyvio

Hi, this ip 112.206.197.5 may have added a great deal of copyvio. Hes recently readded some that was revdeleted and a lot of his large insertions look possible copyvio, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorted 5 IPv4 addresses:

112.206.162.202

112.206.173.170

112.206.197.5

112.206.203.213

112.206.205.67

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
32K	32768	5	112.206.128.0/17	contribs
8192	4096	2	112.206.160.0/20	contribs
	4096	3	112.206.192.0/20	contribs
2051	1	1	112.206.162.202	contribs
	1	1	112.206.173.170	contribs
	1	1	112.206.197.5	contribs
	2048	2	112.206.200.0/21	contribs
5	1	1	112.206.162.202	contribs
	1	1	112.206.173.170	contribs
	1	1	112.206.197.5	contribs
	1	1	112.206.203.213	contribs
	1	1	112.206.205.67	contribs

@Atlantic306: Thank you for the report. I've checked back to the middle-ish of May and think I've got the bulk of it removed. I've added the above range to my virtual tickler file and will monitor for further copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Great work, that was a lot of copyvio, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Review of deleted (due copyright) content

Recently you deleted content added to Brush (electric) page due to copyright violation and so I can't find a way to review it.

Is it possible to view (maybe in private) my specific committed changes?

This is to better understand my contribution errors and be able to paraphrase the original text or alternative to ask for permission. SkarmoutsosV (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2018 (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) 11:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

New Spain

We have some revision that need deleting at New Spain from here by User:46.22.220.30 -- Moxy (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

OGL v3.0

It was my recollection that material covered under a Crown Copyright was not free enough for use in Wikipedia. By that, I mean if the material is identified as covered by Crown copyright with no further licensing information.

This edit is flagged by CopyPatrol as coming from this source. While the source has a crown copyright, it also has a licensing statement "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". This is my first experience (to my recollection) dealing with that specific license. At first blush, it seems fairly broad — specifically allowing noncommercial use for example, and the main restriction seems to be attribution which is typically acceptable. The one passable caveat is that it indicates a desire to link to the specific license. On the one hand, one could argue that it's simply an additional, reasonable element of the attribution requirement. One could also note that it's short of mandated, both of which support accepting it. I'm inclined to accept it, but suspect you have specific experience so I'm looking for your input.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I consider this type of webpage to be compatibly licensed and add the required attribution if the editor has not already done so. Here's the boilerplate I add to the citation for OGL:

This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown copyright.

(There's more than one version of the license, so watch out for that.) Then I place the following blurb on the editor's talk page:

==Copying licensed material requires attribution==

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Randomness you included material from a webpage that is available under an Open Government Licence. 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. ~~~~

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)thanks

Bibliographies - unoriginal list, or is that not the way to look at it?

Many years ago, when Moonriddengirl was active in copyright issues, I often asked her advice on sticky situations. One of those situations involved with which he declared to be her least favorite copyright subject. That said, the main take away I recall was the key concept was originality. So, for example, a list of the top 10 states by population couldn't be subject to copyright. In addition, while the top 10 movies by gross revenue was not an original list, the top 10 movies as determined by our staff is an original list and was subject to copyright.

That lesson has served me well but I'm noticing a common type of edit that gives me pause. It is not uncommon, as in this edit, to add a bibliography. Arguably, if it is a complete bibliography, is completely unoriginal and acceptable, but it often is a selected bibliography, and more often than not, whether it is complete or selected is not identified. I tend to think this type of edit should be treated as acceptable, but I'd like your feedback before I start handling edits of this type.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think they are acceptable and free of copyright issues. I think "selected" bibliographies don't contain enough creative expression to enjoy copyright protection the way for example Rolling Stone's list of 500 greatest albums or lists of films considered the best do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I will stop skipping them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk page copyvio

Hi, I have just redacted a huge chunk of copy/paste on a talk page with this edit. Does it need to be revdeleted? - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's a violation of our non-free content policy but not a copyvio per se, since they make it clear that it's a quotation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah. So should I not have redacted it? It sounds like I am on dodgy ground here and an apology might be in order. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, my fault. Removing it is appropriate, as such a large copy-paste is a violation of our non-free content policy. However, since it's a quotation, revision deletion is not appropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. It confuses the hell out of me! - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Danielle Sofer deleted

Hello, I recently created an article for "Danielle Sofer," which was previously automatically redirecting to a television persona. The information I added has nothing to do with the TV series but you deleted my page for copyright infringement. Since it was deleted, I cannot see what elements were flagged, but since all of this material was written by me, I am unsure what copyright violations were there. I also referenced all sources. Is there anyway to reinstate the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermusicolo (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't restore the page, as all the content was copied from https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/music/our-people/danielle-sofer. Your article was almost identical. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I see, I will work on this. Thank you for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermusicolo (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sarwanam Theatre Group

The usual. When you have a chance. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi you,

Based on what fact did you remove the name of the actual co-founder of the Sarwanam Theater in nepal? Do you need just words of mouth or the actual facts? Please read the book (not written by this desperate man, Ashes Malla) who just wants his name up there as a founder and not give credits to anyone else! AlexArrun (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The content I restored has a citation, and the other name does not. Please feel free to make changes if you have a citation that backs up your proposed change. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

RE: Peter Rowan page

hi dianna,

i received a message from you and admit i am new to using wikipedia. i work for the company that manages peter rowan and his website, so therefore, things quoted from his website should not be considered plagiarism, correct? is there a way to somehow denote this in the future so things don't get flagged?

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateatrain (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (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) 23:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Georgina Spelvin

Is this okay ? :

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgina_Spelvin&oldid=838885590

Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The logotype of Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade named after Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky

I hereby affirm that I represent Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade named after Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of attached images, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 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.

Яковенко Юрій (Yakovenko Uyri) Appointed representative of Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade named after Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky 11.06.2018

The second type of Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade named after Mykhailo Tugan-Baranovsky (DonNUET) official logotype — Preceding unsigned comment added by Юрій Яковенко (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an administrator on the Commons nor am I an OTRS volunteer so I cannot help you with this matter. If you are the copyright holder, please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. There's full instructions at Commons:OTRS. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Bank of East Asia

Thanks for flagging me the potential copyright issue.Ｉcould not retrieve the texts that were removed. Is there anyway I could review it to avoid same from happening ? Though I recall that I should have made changes from original quotes. Thanks. Xiaomao8788 15:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaomao8788 (talk • contribs)

I am sending you a copy of the deleted material via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Draft:Evolution from solar system to first cell and from first cell to solar system

I got the permission form the youth website for using the content "https://theyouth.in/2017/08/25/indian-proves-western-philosophy-on-life-wrong-gives-a-new-chapter-to-the-theory." and " http://theyouth.in/2017/05/20/indian-prof/ " to wikipedia. And the same content is on the Zee news website " http://zeenews.india.com/science/indian-professor-from-kerala-claims-he-can-prove-charles-darwins-theory-of-evolution-wrong-watch-video-2007857.html ". So there is no need to take permission to use that content to wikipedia. So Diannaa Please approve the Draft:Evolution from solar system to first cell and from first cell to solar system .Vinoj Varghese (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to be honest with you: Even if and when the copyright issue is sorted out this draft will not be accepted for publication, because it reads more like someone's homework than a scholarly encyclopedia article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Korg Polyphonic Ensemble P

Hi there, which text in particular do you believe is a copyright violation?Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2018 (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) 14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright - Karen Myers

Thanks very much for pointing that out Dianna. I will use my own words and add back any needed material. Thanks again. Circlecubed (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Circlecubed

Brazier

Hi again Diannaa, did you purposefully hide as many as 60 diffs of the Eugénie Brazier article? Whose edits did you remove/which parts? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ɱ. A recent 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 sources of the copyvio were here, here, and here. The reason why so many diffs were hidden is because in order to completely remove the material from the page history, all intervening diffs have to be hidden from the time the copyvio is inserted to the point it's removed. This sometimes means that harmless edits such as yours have to be hidden. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

History of West Africa

The edits that were reverted were close paraphrases of sources that were cited. How were these copyright violations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Power of God (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. 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) 00:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Image of Colonel Sherwood Dixon

Hello Diannaa, You left me a message ref copywrite of the image of Colonel Sherwood Dixon which I uploaded. Believe I errored in my initial sourcing. I had not previously uploaded. The photo is a work of a U.S. Army employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain in the United States. I added context of this to the Author and Permission section. Thank you for catching the error, I am very new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDixon1967 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

RE: June 2018

Hi. My only "addition to Tutankhamun" is the "In popular culture" section. What addition you are talking about?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 13:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've removed the warning from your talk page, as I sent it to the wrong person. Thanks for letting me know about this mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

C. J. Box

Hi Diannaa, I've removed a mess of awful content here, all of which I suspect was copied. Pending verification, would you do the rev/deletion honors? Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Antibiotic

Hi please check the recent changes I made to the article antibiotic are now OK.

ThanksSacconea (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence is okay but the second one is almost identical to the source document so I have taken it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK I attempted a 2nd write hope its OK now Sacconea (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your version was still too close to the source material so I have re-worked it myself. Here's some advice: 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) 19:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Books Nash

Hi, I believe recent changes being made to James Kasler by this IP may be the work of BooksNash again. There are several new edits, all without summaries or sourcing. Books Nash and one of his socks both previously added a lot of material to this same page, all of which you had to remove. At any rate, I see this is also showing on Copypatrol, so I know you will eventually see it. Just thought I would give you a heads up. Thanks! Roam41 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! This is also one of the articles I had watch-listed to watch for socks! This IP does not geolocate to his presumed locale, but I have added it to the list for future reference anyways. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV on Dunkirk reference

Maybe you should ask ScrapIronIV on why they have reverted the same reference on the Battle of Dunkirk article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.111.19 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Discovery Publishing House

Hello Diannaa. Since you are helping with copyright related matters I thought about first asking here before more public copyright-related pages or RSN. It's possible that this would also be of interest to OTRS which I have no experience with. This is not about copyrighted text as part of articles.
I recently noticed that a book appeared to contain significant material from another one. Although Google books points to the Michigan Christian DPH organization for its publisher, I have the impression that this may be an error, since the book itself points at an Indian address. Possibilities:

1. both authors used licensed or public material (not a concern)
2. the author or publisher obtained a redistribution license (not a concern)
3. the author plagiarizes (likely not a concern for us unless we reference that author's publications)
4. or the more problematic outcome could be that the publisher is plagiarizing (in which case we appear to have a number of sources that may need investigation or removal, maybe even a spam report and a filter)...

References

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this question is outside the scope of my knowledge or what I am prepared to get involved in. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand and respect that. Reading my above message still allows me to understand the issue more clearly, what I'll do is try to match text from a few other publications of that publisher when time permits. If a systemic problem is then discovered, I'll try WP:RSN and make a spam report so editors who manage blacklists can evaluate if it's needed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: I could not match text with other works in various other DPH publications. —PaleoNeonate – 23:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Error at Golden Gate High School

I rolled back your edit at Golden Gate High School by mistake. I had to take the article back to an earlier version to remove all of the problem edits. Sorry about any implication that your edit was disruptive. - Donald Albury 14:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Heh heh. I iz bad — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

David A. Lucht

Hello Dianaa, Would you please send me a link to the relevant bot report or reports, so I can find out what copyrighted material was inappropriately used? I need to use this as a learning experience. Thank you ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backwardlook (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. The part I removed was a description of one of his awards, which was copied from https://www.sfpe.org/page/Awards or elsewhere online. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the bot link and thank you for the specific clarification. Your help is edifying.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backwardlook (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

HMS Shark (54S)

Grateful for your help and guidance on this. When this article was created in 2007 the service history text was I think taken from https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3423.html, certainly wayback shows this text in existence there at 2003 https://web.archive.org/web/20030210122818/https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3423.html. The mispelling of Skudenes and the lack of a hyphen in one of the trawler numbers M1806 are give aways. I think the source given at the end of the para only relates to the claim of a Do 17 being shot down. It is possible but I think unlikely that it all was copied from the Rnsubmuseum page which is now offline. How to proceed? Lyndaship (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If by "Rnsubmuseum" you mean citation #2, it was archived by the Wayback Machine - here. The uboat.net source actually has slightly more overlap and is the older of the two as far as I can tell. I have removed / paraphrased everything that is provably copyvio. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. I understand how it should be done now - amend the text and then ask for redaction of the copyvio history Lyndaship (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Reinhard Heydrich - format citation

Thank you for improving the citation format in the article Reinhard Heydrich. However, in this case it may become counterproductive because I was citing the German edition of the book (I don't have the English one) and somebody revert-happy may find out that the pagination is not correct, i.e. that the cited page in English version probably does not contain the cited information. --Honzula (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have checked the English version and the loss of rank is not there, so I have added the German edition as a new source book. Thank you for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found some on-line (probably pirate) copy of the English edition. The respective chapter here is Dismissal and Crisis, pp. 43-49. But the current citation of German edition is OK for me. The loss of rank is mentioned in Fronta.cz (German text) and the dishonorable discharge is also here, what for my pov implicates also the loss of rank. --Honzula (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Eddie St.James photo copyright

Hello, thank you for your notice on the photo copyright "Eddie St.James" I have put the cc 4.0 copyright notice plus the source info., on the photo page. I don't know what else there is to do. Please tell me exactly what and where the info. is missing? Or if the source Info. box should contain any certain type of information that may be missing. thank you. Schüchtern (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You state that the copyright holder is Eddie St.James, so what we need is proof that he has released the photo under the stated license. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hillegersberg

Hello Diannaa, I removed some obvious travel guide prose that was copied--in addition to rev/deletion, perhaps you can run a quick check to see if there's any remaining problem content. Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any further copyvio. Rev-del is done too. I've removed some of the pics and put a nicer one in the infobox. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Terrific. Cheers! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations on East African Revival

We have some old copyright problems on East African Revival dating back to this this edit in September 2013. I've removed all the content, but I'm not sure which revisions can be revdelled. Can you take a look at it? Thanks. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. Can you tell me what's the source? I'm not seeing the removed text online anywhere. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it was https://archive.is/20140423153533/http://www.churchhistory.org/blogs/blog/%E2%80%9Cdoes-the-east-african-revival-turn-90-this-year%E2%80%9D/, the source that whole chunk of text had been attributed to. I was corrected on my talk page for making the same mistake in my edit summaries. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the spacing is weird before the link, it's not doing this in preview. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The archive url is dated 2014 and the webpage is marked as © 2014 History of Christianity. However the content was added to Wikipedia in 2013. So copyvio remains unproven. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Is date proofing a must for revdel? Because I would argue the circumstancial evidence that the IP copied from the blog rather than vice versa is rather strong (I can spell it all out for you if you want). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issues on this news featured article

Hello Diannaa, we have some issues on this article which is featured on the news page currently. It is in desperate need for a third party administrator edit review which I think you would be tremendously helpful with. There are multiple issues and edit wars going on which are discussed on the talk page but with no general consensus. If you have time, please check it out. Its honestly sad to see such badly copyrighted articles on news feature with edit warring going on too. Will greatly appreciate your help! Wikiemirati (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed several copyvio passages and warned the user who added them. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! Truly appreciated. Wikiemirati (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio blocks?

Good morning, hope you're well. Would you consider blocking the following accounts for their activity at Kronecker graph: Sksla3467 and Changyeol-Lim? They've been warned multiple times but continue to edit war to insert copyrighted content into the article. There's also Brentoh1030, but they haven't been edit-warring so perhaps a block is not necessary for that account. I'd request semi-protection, but one of the accounts is autoconfirmed so I'm not sure it would do much to prevent the disruption. Thank you! /wiae /tlk 11:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. With so many people editing the article I suspect it's a school project. Changyeol-Lim and Sksla3467 have not added any further copyvio since the most recent warnings. I am not going to issue any blocks at this time. I've done some revision deletion. I will watch-list the article for a while and see how things develop. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on things! /wiae /tlk 12:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of BitShares for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BitShares is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitShares until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Stockline (ICL Inquiry)

Thanks for your input. Really grateful for it and have taken points on board. I have added a few lines to deal with the Inquiry Report which I hope covers the points I felt worth highlighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GD1 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Shyam Mandir Page content not copied

Hi, I have visited the place myself and it is a renowned temple in Guwahati. I have read a few articles in the internet and based on my personal experience have written the description. A sentence or 2 may look like same in some blog but these were not copied. As you can notice the significant part of the content is original. If a cat is black, everyone will write that the cat is black. I hope that will not mean copying the content. To avoid copyright issues, I cannot say that the cat is white! Its an appeal to restore the content as it will be valuable for the Wikipedia community. If necessary, I can change the wordings in some sentences which you think look almost similar to some other blog. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumya.purkayastha (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I did see that some of the material was not copied, and carefully removed only the overlapping material. If you wish to re-add it, it will have to be re-worded. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I will change the wordings of the content which was removed and add it back later. Anyways the article is currently in Drafts and will need some more sources to be approved. So, this may take some time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumya.purkayastha (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Phoebe Hospital/Wikipedia and copyright

Hey, I apologize for placing copyrighted content onto wikipedia. I'm still new here and I want to thank you for bringing the rules to my attention. I've gone through and rewritten/paraphrased the removed content on Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital. Please check through it and let me know if there are any remaining issues. Thanks! Cxristopher (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made some amendments and the page is now okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

My email about the Sexual consent article

I take it that there is no WP:Copyvio issue regarding the Sexual consent article? Stating this here on your talk page in case you prefer that I ask you about these things out in the open. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't check it for copyvio. Your email indicated that the main problem was excessive quotations, about which you've already started a discussion on the talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I also pointed you to User talk:OnBeyondZebrax/Archive 3#Passive radiator (speaker) copyright concern. I don't have access to all of the sources in the Sexual consent article. Not sure if you do either, but I know that you are good at detecting copyvio issues. In the aforementioned discussion, it seemed that you were stating if an editor posts just about all of a source's content and the main or only difference is that the content on Wikipedia is in quotation marks, it's a copyvio concern. Or maybe it's not much of one if the source is short? I know that keeping plot summaries restricted to a certain length (per MOS:FAIR USE) and that not quoting too much of a song (per WP:INDISCRIMINATE) have been argued as copyvio issues. I asked about possible copyvio issues with regard to this case because not only did you warn the editor about the quotation aspect before, the editor has been involved in other copyvio issues. All I'm seeing is a bunch of quoting at the article with no real effort to write an article. But I'll look further into it eventually. If Moonriddengirl didn't edit so little these days, I would have asked her about this. Well, I can email her about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Excessive quotations are a violation of the fair use policy, not the copyright policy. There's around 60 quotations in the article. This means the usual means of detecting copyright violations are useless. Each non-quotation snippet of prose would have to be checked manually. This might take all day to do. I am not going to do it, as it's not a good use of my time. You are free of course to do so yourself if you think there's a point to it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In the aforementioned discussion, you stated, "Placing material in quotation marks does not let us off the hook from a copyright point of view." With this related edit, you stated, "remove excessive quotations from copyright material and too-close paraphrasing." The only difference I see when comparing the editor's edits then and now is that the editor has gotten better about using WP:In-text attribution and has stopped using bare URLs. I'll stop bothering you about this now. And I won't bother you with any copyright query in the future either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)e a case for its inclusion. What you need to do is go to the talk page and explain to them why your version is better. If you can't gain consensus for your change on the talk page, ie, if nobody agrees with you, you need to stop re-adding it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for cleaning up the copyright violations on Battle of Al Hudaydah. ❤️

Matt Heard (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Kallistos Ware

Thank you for reviewing my changes to the entry for Kallistos Ware. But as far as I can recall, all of the material that you removed (the entire section on Ecumenical activities) is information in the public domain, even if it was taken from the source that you identified: the fact that the Subject was a member of this or that organisation or commission, or chaired or chairs this or that body is hardly copyright material. Is it possible to name Elizabeth II as "Queen of England" because this infringes a royal copyright? How to correct? Thank you. Metamor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamor (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The source web page is watermarked as "For personal use only - not for sale" and "Copyrighted Material", so you are incorrect in your statement that the document is in the public domain. There was list material from that source as well, but that's not what I removed. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However, I said that the information (membership on various commissions etc.) is in the public domain (=general knowledge in academic terms), not that the source itself is in the public domain (I assisted in editing parts of this book, including this particular entry, so I know it well). I will re-phrase and provide a reference to the book. Thanks. Metamor Metamor (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Ma se ghe penso

I understand your objection, but I believe you have not searched thoroughly and just confined yourself to finding out the death year of the author. As far as I could search, there is no trace of any copyright on this popular song that anyone sings in Genoa and surrounding areas without fear of being fined by our copyright control agency. I will inquire with them and get back to you as soon as I get an answer. You just suppose that it is under copyright but have no proof whatsoever. In the 1920's you were not used to put songs under copyright in Italy, especially folks songs. Luenséin (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how copyright works. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. In many countries, copyright exists until 70 years after the death of the author. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

COPYVIO at inactive user's page

Hello. I noticed a user, User:Astro relic, who has been inactive for four years, after prolific WP:COPYVIO contributions. His userpage consists chiefly of a copy-paste from [19] (which is cited at the end of his page) so it is not free for Wikipedia use. IP users such as myself are unable to edit other users' pages, so I cannot blank it. I just wanted to make you aware. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. This has been fixed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright on Anime/Manga Articles

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for your clarifications on those articles. I was in a hurry since we had to make 20 wikipedia entries (each about 25% of the article) for an assignment in my university. If I may ask how much would be a small amount to quote a text? A partner of mine saw many articles where people would nearly just copy and paste the plot/synopsis into the article with a citation, so we assumed it would be alright if we did the same. So if I understand correctly, I could rewrite the articles which I made but I would have to make the whole plot nearly into my own words so that it would be accepted? If that is the case I will definitely try and do that because now I've already submitted those entries to my professor, which will be reviewed (hopefully) next week. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tohu0004 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording at all from the source material. No copying whatsoever please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Heron Quays

Can you do the revdel on this article please. Suspect there might be other articles by this editor too Lyndaship (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I've done the revision deletion and warned the user. This is their third warning. I will monitor their contribs as they are now on final warning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Lady Eleanor Holles School

Dianaa, the material you deleted as violating copyright was, I think, in quotation marks. I thought there was an exemption for short extracts of copyright material? Perhaps I just need to make the attribution more explicit? Also, you (or somebody) appear to have used revision deletion so I can't actually look back and check what I had put in previously, and that revision deletion also covers three unrelated edits. I'm not sure why... Rhanbury (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Some but not all of the material was in quotation marks. That's why I removed it as a copyvio. The quotation was just a promotionally worded blurb though; not a useful addition. I replaced the material with "In 2017, LEH announced plans to open a school in Foshan, China." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have rewritten to incorporate the additional information in my own words. I hope that fixes it. Rhanbury (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Outhere

Hi Dianna,

I contact you following to your last message. I tried to update the wikipedia page of the company I work for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outhere - https://www.outhere-music.com/en). All the texts that I added have been produced internally by/for us. Do I need to add a link to our website to source all these texts? We would really like to update our wikipedia page as the infos included for the moment are completely outdate.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

---

Tzairi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzairi (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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) 18:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Landing craft tank

This was one I cleaned some time back before I knew of the need for revdel. The copyvio was introduced by Dawkeye on 17 Jan 2011 and came from here. I suspect that other landing ship articles will have the same text introduced so maybe keeping a record of how you handled this might be an idea. Thanks again Lyndaship (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I found some more copyvio from the same source, so I removed it and then did the revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on 2018–19 EHF Champions League

Content i added to the above article was not copied from http://ebook.eurohandball.com/2015-regulations-MCL/6_2015_16_MCLRegulations_FINAL.pdf. The same content exists on every previous EHF Champions league - Group stage article, like here 2017–18 EHF Champions League for example. Those were rules for classification. You cant describe rules with your own words, you just quote them as they are released by EHF. — Dellux mkd (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I did look there but I didn't see it because it's collapsed. In the future, when copying within Wikipedia, please add 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 have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I got the point. I'll keep in mind for my future edits. Thanks. Dellux mkd (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Lyrics, yet again

Hi, Diannaa! I hate to bother you with this, but it happened to be you who did the revdel at Tiến Quân Ca earlier today, so here I am. The lyrics are back again, added again by the same editor, Учхљёная, who, judging from his talk-page, has been doing the same all over the place (looks as if ScrapIronIV may know something about all that). This seems to be another of those pestilential things that just won't go away – see Talk:Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic for yet more lawyering – but perhaps you can deal as you think best with that one combative editor. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have done the revision deletion on Tiến Quân Ca as it happens to be on my watch-list. I don't have time to get involved in the edit wars and multiple discussions right now, but I am willing to do revision deletion on any like this where the copyvio situation is pretty clear-cut (the author died in 1995). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw – perfect synchronicity, you were doing it in the same minute that I was asking you to. Best, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Paul McCartney does Carpool Karaoke

You gotta see this. https://www.facebook.com/latelateshowcbs/videos/2262522967097719/

Copyright issue on Force Sensitive Capacitor

I have permission from the copyright holder, can I use the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordondobie (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your assistance/guidance with adding of photo onto wiki. Email sent. Boldgo (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Anthems

Hi Diannaa. I see you have written on user talk:Учхљёная‎‎. Could I ask you review this: Talk:Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic#Discuss inclusion of lyrics?--Nø (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The copyright status of each anthem needs to be determined and those that are copyright should be removed. The first on the list {Byelorussia) is in the public domain, according to the information at File:Byelorussian SSR Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple.svg. If you could check them that would be great. You do not have to be an admin to do that, because I don't have time to get involved in the edit wars and multiple discussions on this topic right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Arguments are not limited to copyright issues, though. There are in most cases no sources given - neither for the original nor for translations (which may also have separate copyright issues), and no suggestion as to why a Russian translation might be relevant (though it might). I ask because there has been activity bordering on edit warring, misleading edit summaries, and edits by sock puppets. I'm not sure what steps would be appropriate now.--Nø (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reports go to WP:SPI; edit warring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Or you could consider posting at at WP:ANI if you don't think either of these fits the case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Good catch

Looks like I missed an attribution in an edit summary. No idea how that happened, lots of possibilities, but interested in how you found it. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr Southwood. Many such edits end up being reported on https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Field sobriety testing (history section)

Responsive to copyright issues, I think this applies to the history section (attributed to "ct_olr_report" reference, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/2000-R-0873.htm Connecticut OLR research report, 2000-R-0873 (9-Nov-2000), I think)... Thank you for removing questionable material.

Some of the "history" sub-section was old material transferred from the introductory paragraph of the article. I went in to re-insert that old material (but in a "history" sub-section), but my display of the article again shows the full history section. The idea is that I could then review the entire deleted portion to clean up that text to remove copyrighted material (and to avoid the appearance of copyright violation). (It may not be possible to re-insert the reference to "California tests", unless we can locate an independent source to demonstrate that term was not limited to the CT OLR Research Report. It is very possible that the term "California tests" was used colloquially, but only reduced to formal reports in the CT OLR Research Report. If that is the case, the term should not be used.) There is also the possibility that the overall history is a product of the CT OLR Research Report; however, we also have the actual NHTSB reports, which reduces the recent history to documented facts.

I removed the part of the material describing "California tests".

(Also note that some of the non-NHTSB publications incorporate substantial portions of non-copyrighted NHTSB material.)

In any case, I'm not trying to circumvent the deletion of the copyrighted material in the "History" section, and not trying to re-insert material that another user (User:Diannaa) questioned as a copyright violation. My "day job" is intellectual property law, and (while I object to some aspects of intellectual property restrictions) I respect the present status and specifically respect Wikipedia's copyright policies.

Oh... Thanks for checking on this. Unitacx (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Goods and Services Tax (India)

w

Hello Diannaa, could you revdel the recent copypaste additions from this article please (all 2405.* additions from today)? Apparently the content was copypasted from https://www.caclubindia.com/articles/goods-st-gst-concept-impact-24617.asp or some other mirror for this content. I left the IP 2 messages and hope they'll stop now. GermanJoe (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work with copyright issues, Diannaa. It seems you have missed 1 edit at [20] though (sorry to be a pain). GermanJoe (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you for double checking my work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio problem

Hello D. Three years ago there were problems at The Great Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Moonriddengirl took care of them. An IP restored the list today. When I alerted M about this I discovered that she hasn't edited since May so I wanted to pass on what I found to you. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Cape St. Athanasius ancient settlement

Hi. Do you use Earwig's tool? Was wondering why it didn't show up on my report when I ran it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The item was reported on CopyPatrol. here is a link to the report. These reports use Turnitin to detect and then I double check them using Earwig's tool. I undid the revision deletion temporarily and Earwig showed the violation. i.e. I was unable to duplicate your result. I don't know why it failed to show up when you checked it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks for checking... and of course, for catching it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Sorry that I added my message on my talk page first. I didn't read what you said to the end before I sent it. Here's what I wrote: I understand my Virgo Cluster and Evidence of common descent edits, I made those before I new that there were copyright rules. But I don't understand what I did in my Red Nuggets draft. Was it my use of "ancient relics" without using an inline citation? Is there any way I can get my work back on my draft and fix it? Thanks for helping me figure out how to edit Wikipedia. --Wyrm127 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry again. I thought you had deleted my draft like you deleted my added information in the part I added to "Endogenous retroviruses". I will try to fix how I said things. Thanks again! --Wyrm127 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I redid my section. Is it ok now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrm127 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No it's not okay. Please re-write the material using your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Lyrics

Is this not a copyvio Wabash_Cannonball#Lyrics, I've never come across lyrics before, at least none I remember. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We have to assume that lyrics from 1929 are still under copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, you rock :) - FlightTime (open channel) 02:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright query

As a new page patroller I check for copyright issues in (almost) all the articles I check. Could you please clarify whether copy/pasting text from a website without attribution is a copyright violation even if the source has a licence compatible with Wikipedia. What prompted this query is Dance Deewane, where the whole of the second paragraph is copied from YouTube and I don't know what the copyright stratus is of material posted to YouTube. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying without attribution is plagiarism. Plagiarism and copyvio are not the same thing. When copying compatibly licensed material, attribution is required. If the editor has added such material without attribution, you should add it for them, as they will likely not know how. For public domain material, the template {{PD-notice}} can be used. For CC-by licenses, you can use {{CC-notice}} or you can make your own, like I did here. For Open Government license, you can use {{OGL-attribution}}, or you can make your own, like I did here. Please afterwards take the time to educate the user as to how to do it themselves in the future, like I did here.

To determine the copyright status of a YouTube page, click on "Show more" to see the license. This one has a standard YouTube license, which is not a compatible license, as seen in section 5B of their Terms of Service. Copying material that is licensed under the standard YouTube license is a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Copyright matters do seem quite complex, and I see that in this instance, the YouTube poster had already copied the material from another source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright query 2

I have another question. I'm wanting to get more involved with copying files to Commons, the first image that caught my is File:9M-AGE at BTJ, September 2017.jpg according to the copy to Commons tag, attribution and copyright (obviously) needs to be in order. According to the source's terms of use, section 6 this file at best is insufficiently attributed and at worse no proof of permissions. Do you agree ? (I guess I just need a second opinion as to my research processes) No rush on a reply, I'll wait before I proceed. Thanx and as I said "You rock" :) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And I just noticed this file has been reviewed by another editor, but my concerns remain. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, the uploader has their real name posted on their user page, which matches the name of the author on the source site. Why don't these users upload to Commons in the first place. Sorry for the bother. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime: This image is not okay, because the original image is watermarked as being copyright by Ashabul Yamin. We have no way of knowing whether user: Fire Law Stone is that person. An OTRS ticket is required. The image qualifies for WP:CSD F11 speedy deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll get right on it. :) - FlightTime (open channel) 13:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I should have worded it "In spite of what they say on their userpage, we have no way of knowing whether or not user:Fire Law Stone is actually that person" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Boy I bet there are many "airplane" images that don't have proof of permissions. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ogunquit Playhouse

Hi Diannaa, this needs a lot of rev/deletion, and general de-spamming. Anything you can do will be appreciated. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:CDA0:623:849E:B032 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have done the copyvio work but the de-spamming will have to be left for others. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: crediting public domain content

Thanks Diannaa! I see you updated Henderson v. United States (2013), is there anything missing still in terms of acknowledging public domain content was copied? I will read over the policies carefully :) Shushugah (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be best if each section that was copied from the PD source was cited to that source. If you don't know how to do that, please let me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, have a look if you can. Shushugah (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Singapore Sling

Greetings. I see you recently rev-del'ed copyvio additions by User:Classyinfusion to this article. This account isn't (yet) blocked, but a new account, User:Aclassicinfusion, has just popped up to re-add the same content. I'll file an SPI about the sockery, but at the very least another revdel appears to be in order. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, could you share with me how i can update information on this page, as there are more details that are not on it, as per the Raffles Hotel page. Do i have to paraphrase it? But i already cited the source. Thanks! User:Finngall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aclassicinfusion (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I've performed the revdel requested and blocked both accounts. Will be leaving a more detailed user talk page message shortly. Mz7 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Parklands College copyright violations

Hello Diannaa, I've been looking at edits to Parklands College made today by User:Casandradevos. I see you dealt with a similar situation last November. There are a number of MOS issues I can cleanup. What has my head spinning are the copyright problems. Chunks of [21], [22], [23], and [24] from the college website were added. I suspect there is more I haven't found. I'm tempted to restore the version prior to her/his edits and request revdel. I doubt I can surgically remove the copyright material and leave a readable article. Suggestions? Gab4gab (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed today's edits and given the user a final warning. I will add the page to my watch-list. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lebanese Jamaicans

Diannaa, the Lebanese Jamaicans article is an almost verbatim copy of thus source, a copyrighted newspaper article. The article is fairly short, so a rewrite is possible, but rewriting in my own words is not one of my editing strengths. Should the article simply be deleted as a copyvio? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the copyvio. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking action. I'll try to work on the article as I can. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Need removal

three page as see here.....user warned.--Moxy (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Kurt Mueller-Vollmer

Hi Diannaa, regarding the awards on Kurt Mueller-Vollmer page, I now added the source. The CV is public and linked to on his stanford page, so it should be a valid source. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L1b3rtas 4E (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing these awards to his own CV is not adequate sourcing. We need sourcing independent of the subject of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright notification

Hey Diannaa, sorry I keep forgetting to post the copyvio problems to the appropriate log. Sorry about that. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright speedy deletion

Hey Diannaa - I edited the page Draft:Sam Roweis I created so that it is in my own words. Can the speedy deletion tag be removed and the article reconsidered? (ArtificialOctopus (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC))

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Someone with experience assessing drafts will have a look at the page and assess whether or not it is suitable for publication. They've got a big backlog right now, so please be patient. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Non free usage

Hi Diannaa. I’m far from an expert on non free images so I’m looking for your input. In this edit a user is adding an image with a non free license. Am I right in thinking in this case the image can’t be used on this article as that isn’t what it’s licensed for? I’m fine to deal with the edits either way, I just wanted to check if my understanding was correct or not. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

1. There's no non-free rationale listed for this usage on the file page; therefore it has no be removed per WP:NFCCP #10c.
2. Non-free images are not permitted in galleries, per WP:NFG. It needs to be removed. I will do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. Canterbury Tail talk 20:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)