User talk:Diannaa/Archive 80

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

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

→

Copyright problem on Henry Hugh Gordon Stoker

I did attempt to paraphrase the source material but if you think it still to closely followed the wording of the source that’s ok, your edit seems good to me. Thanks --Knightmare 3112 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It was enough alike to get flagged by our CopyPatrol bot. Thanks for having a look. — Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Marine sediment

Hi Diannaa. An editor is failing a GA review for this article on the grounds of plagiarism. Would you mind assessing whether there is plagiarism? — Epipelagic (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Working— Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I commented, but they've already quick-failed the GA bid. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Savage. I'm concerned about what it means for a CC 4.0 license if you modify the text. At present, following an earlier suggestion of yours, I add Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License to a citation when I have copied the text. In practice, the text often needs editing. Will it satisfy the requirements of the license if I change this to read (in the specific case of text) something like: Modified text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Regards. — Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

As an additional issue, the reviewing editor has tagged the article in this manner. Is this a correct use of that tag? — Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Re:the license. It does specify that if the text has been modified, we need to say so. So that's a good amendment. I am not sure I agree with tagging for over-quotation, as it's not in quotation marks. Which makes the tag kinda meaningless.— Diannaa (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: The fact that it was a quote rather than original text is the issue here. Regardless of whether or not there are actually quotation marks present, they are still quotes of text from those sources. The MOS frowns upon articles consisting of large portions of non-original text. It recommends that editors write their articles with their own, original words. I realize these are tertiary sources so this practice isn't explicitly forbidden as it is for primary sources, but I would advise trimming down the usage of non-original text. We are allowed to incorporate pieces of free work into our articles, but it needs to be a reasonable amount rather than entire sections. The article would be in much better shape if it were to be written in mostly original text and have multiple citations in the large number of areas that are currently sourced with just a single source. Noah^Talk 03:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: As I pointed out to you elsewhere, MOS is concerned with text that is under a copyright which does not permit copying. Where does MOS say you may not copy text verbatim when it has been released under a license that specifically allows the text to be copied verbatim? How come you are so hasty with your judgments and so sure MOS is all about how you think? There has been a sea change in academic scientific publications over the last few years, and far far more of them are being published under CC licences. That includes a lot of review articles. It would be crazy for Wikipedia not to leverage that situation. It means if editors work this area skillfully they should be able to at least double their output. I resent being treated in this arrogant, high-handed manner by you, Hurricane Noah. Diannaa, should this issue be opened to wider community discussion? — Epipelagic (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Just renominate the article and get a different reviewer if you disagree. Noah^Talk 04:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Television Characters

Hi Diannaa, Is it ok to use "https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/tv-characters.html" as a reference and input the shows into the list with my own "notes" in the notes section? I can make sure I don't use any wording from the reference site. I wanted to confirm. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary1227 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Who is David Wyatt and what makes his website a reliable source?— Diannaa (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Another goat for you!

Thankyou for your feedback!

Ldq131121 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! See you around.— Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Spider-Man: No Way Home

Hi Diannaa, happy new year. A report was filed at WP:ANEW involving a user repeatedly adding very large plot additions to the article. The plot, as added by the user, is a copy of the Plot section at the fan website. Unfortunately, I cannot tell whether the user copied it from the fansite or the fansite is a mirror. Can you take a look? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, hope you had a nice holiday season. Like Wikipedia, Fandom pages are wikis, and it's possible to check the page history. To do so, click on the three dots and then select History. I have checked the current version of the page and while there's some overlap with the Fandom version, the plot sections are different. Checking our version Wikiblame using the phrase "As dawn breaks, Parker confronts the Goblin alone" shows that phrase is unique to the Fandom version and did not appear in our version until it was added today. So the Fandom plot section developed independently. Removing it and replacing with the version written by Wikipedians is a Good thing, as the Fandom version is at 1581 words is more than double the recommended length for our wiki. I would not do revision deletion on these edits because Fandom is compatibly licensed, it's not a copyright violation per se but a violation of the license terms.— Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As always, thanks very much for looking and explaining.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile on Twitch (by way of YouTube)

The surprising return of. Oh Charlie... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Happy belated New Year! El_C 17:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, or what passes for happiness in Alberta. "High of -27°C" — Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Heh, -40°C windchill: respect. I remember visiting Edmonton a few years back at the dead of winter. We went to the Mall! El_C 23:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of quote from Energetically Modified Cement page

I see you have removed the quotes from Lord Turner and Lord Stern that I put on there. Interesting. This is your justification: "remove quotations; there's no reason why original prose could not be prepared"? If you visited the EMC Website, which is where I saw it, you will its states that the EMC Organization was not consulted

https://lowcarboncement.com/proven-tech

Therefore, your justification for removing my addition seems spurious and based on supposition rather than checking for yourself first. I am assuming that you are making some sort of conclusion that somehow the EMC Organization influenced or somehow promoted the outcome of the said report, which is a thinktank comprised of some of the leading economic thinkers and industrialists?

I assume you at least looked at the report you removed reference to? If you can see any reference in that report that it was paid for, any evidence at all to back up your assertion warranting your removal (i.e. assuming I understood your reasoning correctly), could you state it please? If not your behavior seems capricious. But, then, maybe there is a rule on Wikipedia about third party articles which says it has to be proven that it was not self promoted for inclusion? If so can you point it to me, if indeed that was your objection.

I'll put it simply, I don't understand your justification which strengthens the impression you have acted capriciously. I don't want to sound harsh which is why I think you need to be forthcoming.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.79.80 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think I've understood the objection, which if it had been more accurately expressed, I think was a copyright issue (???). I've addressed this now by reinserting the references but without the quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.79.80 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is for the most part written by Wikipedians in their own words. We only use quotations when there's no alternative. Content from your sources should be summarized in your own words, not copy-pasted into articles. — Diannaa (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it and thanks for the insight Diannaa :)

Sandbox revdel

Hey Diana, back when I was new to Wikipedia and didn't understand the copyright policy, I copy-pasted some non-free text into my sandbox while drafting an article. Could you revdel from here to here, since keeping these up would probably be copyvio? AryKun (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting this.— Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Body of light

Greetings. Could you take a look at this article. I'm getting a pretty significant copyvio hit, from this source. However I can't determine when the source was created. This is a new article, but part of it was merged from Astral body. But I can't determine if this is a case of WP:MIRROR or not. Other than the copyvio issue, the article's in pretty rough shape with Fork and Citation issues, but they can be dealt with after the copyvio. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the overlapping content actually came from Astral body in a recent merge. Even now, the two articles have a huge overlap.— Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for taking a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcoming Note

I certainly look forward to a long stay here. However, some of the reviewers and moderators here are a bit rude. Some dew to their privilege goes about harassing and/or bullying newbies. I wouldn't mind getting a mentor here, if that's okay. Kind regards. Offi gems (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Offi gems. Sorry but I don't have any experience mentoring new Wikipedians. A good place to go where there's experienced people ready to help is the Teahouse. — Diannaa (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

Thank you for being around! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page, DYK, and even made it to the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Printmakers Council

Thank you for inviting me to discuss this issue on your talk page. I was very surprised to see part of my addition to this page taken down. I could only find one surce for the organisations history. I rewote the information in my own words editing turning 4 pages of text into a single paragraph summary. With detailed subject matter such as this and a single source it is inevitable there will be repetition of words but there was no direct quoting and no sentances were directly lifted. The source was published, in the public domain, referenced and directly relevant to the article it was being used. I work with copyright as part of my job on a regular basis especially in relation to database rights and including third party copyrighted material in databases and would never intentionally breach someones copyright. I will not be re-editng this page and please be reasure I always have copyright issues in mind when contributing to wikipedia. Shaun Sheep (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The source webpage is not in the public domain. 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. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Content you added to the history section and regarding the 2008 exhibition was nearly identical to that found on the source webpage.— Diannaa (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Suzana Joumaa

hello @Diannaa: can you help me to review the article and let me know if it is ready to main space and if you can move it, I will be grateful to you thank you so much --Wikipeida From Saudi Arabia (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The draft has been deleted as G5— Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Aulonochares

Hi Diannaa, Came across Aulonochares while reviewing and it range alot of bells with Earwig for copyvio. The sections are all presented in quotes and I'm not sure if the source is copyright protected or not. Could you take a look please? Happy New Year and Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the quotation has now been removed by the page creator. — Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Chadha

Can you please hide this, like you do for copyright violations. [1] Venkat TL (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Sennecaster submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I am more than happy to nominate Editor Diannaa. Her article work features multiple million and half million awards, plus enough copyediting to land her in the GOCE Hall of Fame. But more prominently, and possibly what other editors see the most, is her copyright work spanning over a decade. She does this with endless patience, civility, and knowledge. It is basically policy in copyright to ask Diannaa if we struggle with anything. She rules the CopyPatrol leaderboard, with over 85,000 closed cases, and had done significant work on multiple cases at CCI. She is an editor and admin that many people, including myself, respect and even aspire to be like. This award was seconded by User:Firefly, User:Berrely and User:Davey2010.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Diannaa

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 9, 2022

Has received multiple million and half-million awards, plus entry in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Most notable is her copyright work spanning over a decade with endless patience, civility, and knowledge. Struggling with copyright policy? Ask Diannaa. She rules the CopyPatrol leaderboard, with over 85,000 closed cases and significant work on multiple cases at CCI. She is an editor and admin that many people respect and aspire to be like.

Recognized for

Leadership

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 16:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is hard earned and richly deserved! Congrats, Diannaa, and thank you for all the great work you do! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

+1 Thanks for all you do. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the award and all the nice feedback and bling. Much appreciated!!! cool beans.— Diannaa (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you do! You keep the copyright section running, we couldn't do all this without you. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 22:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks |||| — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)!

Well deserved. Congratulations. Kierzek (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Bud Labitan

Thank you!— Diannaa While I am new to editing on Wikipedia, I feel like editing here is too difficult for me. So, I would like you to refer me to an editor who can make a better page for me. As far as the copyright issue, Mr. Buffett allowed me to use quoted sections in my books as long as I mentioned that he was not endorsing any of them. Therefore, it might be best if we find an independent editor to create this author page. Then, I can probably figure out how to add/edit in minor factuals once the author page is in place. Thanks, Bud Labitan ( drlabitan@gmail.com ) Budlabdad (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is not the quotations; the problem is the section I removed is copied from https://www.valuewalk.com/2019/05/illustrated-valuations-warren-buffett-and-charlie-munger or elsewhere. You can't do that, because the page is marked as © 2011-2022 VALUEWALK LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.— Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violations in longevity

This user just revealed to me that they write articles by copying text from Gerontology Fandom to Wikipedia. 🐔dat (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Architecture of Tunisia

Not sure if this is false positive....it's a new article.Moxy- 03:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1065146612&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.blog.naver.com%2Fartifacture%2F222178257937

It's a wiki mirror. It's a match for Moorish architecture— Diannaa (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific density

I understand the situation, I have been editing for a couple of years, and grown basically aware of some typical protocols and procedures. Not enough to become some higher level nor admin, there's quite some depth to Wikipedia, not to mention the breathe. I am not a professional copywriter by any means. I copy/pasted text while up late editing, and after so many edits to rework the text away from copyvio, such dry science material, there is no science thesaurus— the hour grew late, the brain foggy. I left the material, assuming I could finish the next morning. Apparently not.

My question, would it have been better if I had used my sandbox instead to work on the material? Is that permissible? WurmWoode^T 15:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi WurmWoode. Actually it's not okay for us to host copyright material anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. As an alternaitve, I suggest you use an external editor such as Microsoft Word or Google Docs and work on it there until you are sure it's completely original. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

So, no draft, no sandbox, and... not even edit history.

Thanks for your time and attention. I had sort of come to assume that although I know there is an edit history, that the public mostly only sees, ever visits the mainspace article. Had I finished my edits to rework/massage the text away from copyvio... no harm, no foul.

I have found, at least with earlier versions of Windows, and Word, and browsers— that copy/paste may bring embedded fonts or codes or unusual binary bytes or pseudo-spaces that need meticulous nitpicking to remove/cleanup. Even simple straight-quotes versus smart-quotes (slanted). A nuisance.

But also, what about mobile edits, killing time while on the train commute— a Chrome mobile version, but neither Notepad nor (reasonable) Word is available on (android) mobile? Ahhhhhg WurmWoode^T 21:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed content

Hey! I have seen that you removed content from the article about Aniol Rafel. Please, note that CCCB website is published under a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA licence: https://www.cccb.org/en/index/pag/legal-notice/216336 Can the content be restored? Thanks! @Kippelboy: --Davidpar (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but they don't specify which license. Not all CC-by licences are compatible. For example, the CC BY-SA 4.0 license is not a compatible license.— Diannaa (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Royal Indian Air Force

Can you please review the article on Royal Indian Air Force for any errors. Cookersweet (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What kind of errors?— Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

They left me the same message, and they did to 10 other editors. I'm ignoring it. MB 20:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert F. Titus

Hi Diannaa, The article Robert F. Titus rang alot of copyvio bells with earwig. Prt of the problem is a block quote but it looks like a large chunk has also been cut and paste in the body of the article too. I've tagged it for copyvio but could you please take a look? Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Can you take a look at El Franco Lee again? Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No copyright issues, if that's what you mean— Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issues from a user you previously warned

Hi Diannaa, I recently caught a copyright violation [2] added by an editor, and when I went to their talk page, I saw that you have already warned them previously about copyright [3]. I'm not sure if this is enough to justify a block, but I though you'd want to take a look (and also potentially revdel the copyvio). Thanks! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I have rev-del'd the content and warned the user. Thank you for reporting,— Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Khanewal District

Please see this edit [4] and later by User:Muhammad Alii Chishti adding possible copyvio from [5] which at the bottom says '© District Khanewal, Government of the Punjab'. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned. Also cleaned Khanewal. Thank you for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your last edit

Hi Diannaa,

I'm not sure what your meaning is in your recent edit Attribution: text was copied from 2021 Africa Cup of Nations squads on January 17, 2022. Please see the history of that page for full attribution.. The text in the lede is standard text used for such squad pages. Specifically I actually took it from 2022 AFC Women's Asian Cup squads, but that is meaningless since it is a standard text used in such squad pages. --SuperJew (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I checked and 2021 Africa Cup of Nations squads was the only place where I found the text. Sorry for the mistake. Regardless of whether or not you consider it to be standard text, attribution is required. If you could please provide attribution when copying from one Wikipedia article to another by stating in your edit summary where you copied it from, that would be perfect. Please see WP:CWW for further details.— Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio or Circular Reporting

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the William Henry Draper III article. The 'history' of that article suggests that most of the questionable content was posted in December 2009 by Yasemin Denari without the inclusion of reliable sources. Yet recently (1/06/2022), a reliable source dated 11/12/2020 was added at the end of the Early venture capital section. However, that source was published 12 years after the content first appeared in Wikipedia. Baffling to me, but perhaps you can sort it out. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Woodlot. I don't seem to be getting the same result as you with Earwig's tool because right now it's not showing anything problematic at all. So it would have saved me a lot of time if you would have specified the source webpage where you found the overlapping content. It appears to be https://drapercygnus.vc/draper/. But there's no old copy of that page in the Wayback Machine - the oldest archived copy is dated 2020. user:Yasemin Denari states in an edit summary "I work with Bill Draper, and he is aware that I am making edits to his page. Thank you" so I suspect the editor was provided with the text by the subject of the article or an associate. If you wish this to be investigated further, please consider posting at WP:CP.— Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies Diannaa, the overlapping content occurs on pages 10 & 11 of the Clarke Foundation publication (reference no. 4) in the Wikipedia article. As you point out, Earwig is not picking up the overlap today when I use their 'search engine', but Earwig does show a 73% overlap when I make a URL comparison shown here in the sections on 'Early venture capital', 'Public service', 'Return to venture capital', and 'Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation'. In any event, if you are satisfied, so am I. Thanks for checking it. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Woodlot: Just want to add, proving an edit from 2009 was a copyvio is well nigh impossible.— Diannaa (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Immunogenicity edits

Could you please check this edit? It references a source called Microbe Notes which has only partial accessibility and does not appear to be a secondary source. Many thanks. Zefr (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A quick look shows me I would not consider this to be a reliable source, especially for medical content, as it is "Made with ♡ by Sagar Aryal." — Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree and have already reverted this and previous edits for that reason. I was also concerned about the Worldcat-WH Freeman book and potential copying from this source. Thank you for checking. Zefr (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any overlap with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318960/ using Earwig's tool. I can't see inside the book at all.— Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I haven't looked at this closely but the edit was indeed flagged at CopyPatrol here and based on the iThenticate report, there seems to be substantial copying from elsewhere. DanCherek (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The MafiaDoc link is a copy of part of a book. It's a copyvio itself but it reveals copying from a book. I will do some revision deletion.— Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Meat Loaf

The artist died today and I was looking at his song pages and found some lyrics on I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That), I'm not sure enough to remove it or argue its inclusion, so naturally I thought of you. Can you take a peek. Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 16:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the lyrics themselves are necessary for us to understand the topic, so I have removed them.— Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy vio at Historicity of the Mahabharata

Contains serious level of copy vio, mostly closed paraphrasing from:https://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/07-06/features360.htm. See:https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Historicity+of+the+Mahabharata&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0. Tame (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The content appears to have been copied from Mahabharata, and its addition there predates the article https://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/07-06/features360.htm, which is copyright 2005 (we had it in 2004).— Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

.

Happy to be discord moderator 145.97.237.169 (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue for Draft:San Luis de Alba

Hi Diannaa, I was hoping you could give me more information about your message on the article I created, which is still in a draft form, called San Luis de Alba. Well - I also think that it was all deleted? Is this because there is already an article in Spanish - for Spanish Wikipedia?

I wasn't sure what the copyright message was about. I did see that I paraphrased too closely (without using quotation marks) from my own dissertation work, so I went back and rewrote the sections that were caught on turn-it-in. However, I was wondering if the copy right issue had anything to do with a lot of the research being from my doctoral dissertation. Is that it? How can I put back the content I was working on?

Thank you, Skennedy2 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2022 (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. Note copyright material is not allowed on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing, not even in sandboxes or drafts.

A second problem is copying from your own dissertation. Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, so you shouldn't be copying it here. — Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue for draft of San Luis de Alba

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for the reply. I was hoping to get a more detailed response, so I will know how to add content in the best possible way in the future. So, could you please clarify "what" is under copyright violation in my post? The historical content itself has been written about in many other peer-reviewed journals and books (I cited them too). I didn't include any images in my post. My dissertation, and the scholarly material I cited, is not under copyright. I know for a fact that my dissertation is NOT copyrighted and is not under any embargo for its use. I have cited it in other peer-review platforms already. Was the reason my post was marked for a "copyright" violation instead because some of the wording should have had quotes because it was too close to my original word choices included in a published doctoral dissertation? In that case, shouldn't the issue have been "plagiarism" or "needs better citations?" I am just trying to figure this out, because I am teaching WikiEdu and I want to make sure my students know what to do on Wikipedia.

In regard to your comment that Wikipedia doesn't use primary source material (like dissertations), the actual citation for the dissertation in my post was actually not citing original content in my dissertation. In one of the dissertation chapters, I conduct a thorough review of primary, secondary, and tertiary studies on the site of San Luis de Alba. The dissertation cited many different sources that discussed San Luis de Alba, and was the first place to have connected all of these documents together in one specific scholarly manuscript. Do you mean to say that Wikipedia doesn't allow ANY doctoral dissertations? I don't think that is true, because I have seen many different citations used on Wikiepdia, some of them being dissertations. However, if this is an incorrect assumption, please let me know. If the issue is dissertations, I will use different academic sources to rewrite the content.

One final question - I did also include many other secondary sources in my citation list (not just dissertations). So, I thought that including multiple types of citations (primary, secondary, tertiary), as well as research done in Spanish and English, would provide many different specific academic lines of evidence to support what I wrote. If there is something about the citations I used that is incorrect, could you please let me know? Again, I am unclear.

If there is a specific Wikipedia editor who can answer these questions, please let me know. I will also check with the Wikipedia experts who are listed to help my undergraduate class. Thank you for your help as I get used to this writing platform. Skennedy2 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are automatically subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required.

On Wikipedia, we can't take your word for it that you are the author of the dissertation. Instead, we have in place a system where the copyright holder(s) provide documentation showing that they have released the content under a compatible license. 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.

There's some information and advice that may be of interest to you at Wikipedia:Expert editors. — Diannaa (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue for 2018 in Kerala

Hello Diannaa, Thank you for your response to my Talk Page. Can you please elaborate as to why there is a copyright violation in my post? As that will help me to add content in a better way in the future. The link https://www.wbcsmadeeasy.in/the-hindu-diary-of-events-2018-for-wbcs-exe-etc-exam-2019-by-wbcsmadeeasy itself is a copy made from a Newspaper named The Hindu. The actual link is https://www.thehindu.com/news/diary-of-events-2018-the-year-that-was/article25924249.ece

Now the page that I edited 2018 in Kerala is a page that captures chronological history in a place. That is pretty much a diary of events. and not a scholarly article. When the chronological history of events is mentioned the corresponding newspaper headlines will carry the exact phrases and words to describe that event. Isn't it natural? Can that be called a copyright violation?

For Instance, If I add a Chronological history of the USA corresponding to 2008. I will have to add "Obama is elected as president of the United States of America". This same line will be repeated in numerous periodicals of 2008. Does that amount to Copyright?

Also please note I have not taken any pictures or anything from that. So I would like to hear from you as to what is that you exactly found as a copyright violation so as to help me have a better understanding on the same.

Thanks and Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malluchronicle (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that your wording was identical to the source webpage. The text you copied contains enough creativity to qualify for copyright protection. For example, your addition "In a function held at Thiruvananthapuram, Ishaan K. Shaan and Surya create history by becoming the first transsexual couple in Kerala to tie the Nuptial knot" could easily be re-worded and therefore comply with our copyright policy: you could say "Ishaan K. Shaan and Surya of Thiruvananthapuram become the first Keralite transsexual couple to marry." The other events you copied also contain unique creative wording and therefore must not be copied verbatim. They need to be re-written in your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Charles Dutoit

Can you take a look at recent activity at Charles Dutoit and also note concerns posted at User_talk:Petrov2017? Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do to help.— Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

In this particular instance, I hope you could (1) clarify on the Talk page of that article whether "CD'S available in music stores, youtube, amazon," are Reliable sources and (2) whether Petrov2017 has strayed into territory about which he or she has been warned through a series of postings on his or her Talk Page. I have not brought up WP:Original research anywhere, but I feel that is another item to look at. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Expecting us to source this stuff is not gonna happen. A vague wave at the Internet is not a reliable source. I will add another "unsourced" warning to their talk page as the most recent post there is from 2018 and watch-list the article for a while.— Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright & your removal of content for Peter M. Fillerup

Hi Diannaa, You incorrectly removed all my additions. Please restore.

I understand why you were confused, however, (1) these words nor the content are not copyrighted nor ever have been. (2) The content came directly from Peter Fillerup to me to be used for his bio and distribution. It did not come from these websites. (3) The website you identified likely also received the same content from Peter. They do not own it nor had permission to claim copyright. Likely, their website editor just placed that on every page without identifying the actual copyright material. They did not publish it on Wikipedia and know it was given to them from Peter, so you have nothing to be concerned about. (4) Some of what I posted does not appear on these websites. (5) Peter published all this content and provided my gallery for our public use and distribution of which it was given out to thousands of people. This was not original nor my work.

The content conforms to all Wikipedia requirements and is not a violation to post.

Thank you, Wikieditor2000man (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 27 January 2022 (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 or have their permission, 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 a client or someone you know 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) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa (talk)

I appreciate your effort to police, but you are way over your skis. Please read this again carefully. (1) These are NOT copyrighted materials. No permissions are required. Whatever is on any internet webpage similar to what I posted was taken from somebody else. (2) Wrong again. I have zero conflicts. Prove otherwise. Not a client, paid editor or connected the this DEAD artist. I researched him and received them from the creator which is a person who has documented this person and placed the content in PUBLIC DOMAIN. (3) Furthermore, the content you removed on the sculptures and projects sections does NOT appear on your alleged copyright websites.

Please restore or I will. — Wikieditor2000man (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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 the prose you added is copyright, since it has previously been published elsewhere online. However, I have restored the list of works; I removed that part by mistake. Sorry. When you say "The content came directly from Peter Fillerup" that shows you have a conflict of interest, the way Wikipedia defines it. It doesn't matter that he's dead; you still have a connection, since he provided the content.— Diannaa (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ashley John-Baptiste copyright

Hi Diannaa, please can you give me some guidance about copyright? As I understand it, if I put the same information in my own words, that would resolve the problem. If that is the case, where can I find the paragraph you deleted, so that I can craft a revision? Gnangbade (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The content you added was copied from https://www.performingartistes.co.uk/artistes/ashley-john-baptiste. The third and fourth paragraphs — Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Cambria County Jail - Issue of Copyright

Diannaa, you've made the assertion I used copyrighted material from a specific web archive ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160322212840/http://www.cambriacountyhistorical.com/newsletters/jailseries/jail_series2.htm ) which I had at no point used in my research. On said archive it does say all rights are reserved, but that was not the source of ANY of my content added. I physically went to the historical society's archives and transcribed the details from the pamphlets (alluded to on the web archive) with their expressed permission. I have no way of seeing (previewing the previous edit) as to add it back. Regardless, I would appreciate the removal of your remarks on my Talk page as the assertions therein, much like the reason for my information's very removal, are unfounded and untrue. Thanks, Oroeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroeh (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. Sorry I won't be able to restore it. The archive link is a copy of the pamphlet. "Editor's Note: At our new exhibit of the Old Stone Jail there are eight pamphlets. For those unable to get to the exhibit we intend to publish each pamphlet. This is #2 of 8" says the webpage.— Diannaa (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bahamas

If you have time can you take a look at The Bahamas and Sport in the Bahamas..... have some convoluted copyright problems.Moxy- 02:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick look and I see that the second page is already deleted. For revision deletion, I don't see where the oldest edits were copied from. I don't do revision deletion in cases where I can't find the source.— Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There are six reports at CopyPatrol, so I've done revision deletion from 02:52, January 28, 2022‎. The edit immediately prior to that was copied from within Wikipedia.— Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Conchboy242....not sure they get the message .....back to mass copy pasting internally [6] and externally.~~[7]~~ fixed---Moxy-

13:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WOW looking at their history they been doing this for ten years......a look back and wow copy pasting all over may need copyright investigation of all edits.--Moxy-

13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mirela Trăistaru Wiki Page

Hi Dianna,

I’m contacting you regarding your input on Mirela Traistaru’s page. I have all the materials of the page from her, as I’m helping her with this. I have seen in your message that there is the option of donating all the materials. How can I further proceed? Please advice, as I would really like to finalize this for her 50’th birthday.

Many thanks! Manuela (Evergreen) EvergreenM (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2022 (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) 14:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy review of Mike Tinney, currently at AfD

Hi Diannaa! I flagged an article currently at AfD for copyvio, Mike Tinney, for word-for-word plagiarism. Boz has produced a deplagiarized version that I endorse as nominator (see Talk:Mike Tinney). Given the AfD time constraint, would it be possibly to have the article exceptionally be the subject of a speedy review? Many thanks in advance. Pilaz (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book, so I'm in no position to review it— Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have a link to an online version, but I am unsure about whether it has permission to be hosted there. Should I link it here anyway? Pilaz (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You could send me the link via email— Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you - Pilaz (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Check complete - I was even able to check it using Earwig's tool which is unusual for a 400-page book lol.— Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Creative commons "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)" - can we use?

Dear CopyVio Maven

A photo of the artist has just been added to Eric Gill. The photo of Gill is by Howard Coster and so is still in copyright; Coster died in 1959, copyright persists for 70 years so not out of copyright until 2029. However, the pic is from the National Portrait Gallery, London collection, which has licensed non-commercial use (to a max 800 px, way more than we need or use) under Creative Commons.^[1] So my question is this: does that license meet the Wikipedia Ts&Cs? (which I thought requires 'all rights unreserved'). Advice? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, John Maynard Friedman: That's not a compatible license, because it doesn't allow derivative words or commercial use, and our license does allow both those things.— Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

<groan> Yes, that was what I was afraid (and expected) you would say. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. It's not okay to keep it as fair use either, since we have a compatibly licensed alternative File:Eric Gill - self portrait.jpg.— Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

References

^ Use this Image | Licensing and Copyright

Ernest Manning edits

Hello, Diannaa I am just wondering why you removed the Quotations from the Ernest Manning page. I read the edit summary but maybe it was the grammar or something but I still don't know why they were removed. If it is because it feels like quotes are just shoved in there that is because they were originally not there and it flowed better. But an editor who didn't like the material kept removing it under the excuse that it was unquoted even when it was totally reworded and sourced. After like the 4th time this happened I had to add the quotes to solve the problem. If that is the problem then that's the reason why. If that isn't the problem I would love to hear the reason and help improve the page to make it more streamlined. Have a great day. Sincearly Rommel's editor (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We have rules about quotations, and what we're supposed to do is use only short quotations, and only if there's no alternative. Wikipedia articles should for the most part be written in our own words, and quotations used only when absolutely necessary. If your additions are being challenged, you should address the concerns through discussion on the talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's the thing it was all in my own words. I followed the wiki rules but that editor I guess didn't like what it said or something. Because even though it was sourced and put in my own words he kept getting rid of it. I addressed it on the talk page, and his own talk page but he refuses to talk about it too. He'll remove stuff that's sourced and say it's not sourced, or find one sentence that's from the source out of the pargae and delete the entire paragraph inseade of just rewording that one sentance. after awhile i just got tired of it so i added in the quotes by themselfs so he couldn't say they were copyed. just look at the oilsands part. the opening sentence sounds like it should be in the middle. That's because he got rid of the entire first half. And I've checked, he doesn't add anything to the page. all of his edits are just removing sections. I wouldn't be as annoyed but he won't use any of the talk pages. if you want I'll try to get rid of the quotations and go back to the old version. have a great day, and thank you.Rommel's editor (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

My edit

Ok, some of my edit are copyrights, but others is valid edit (I only quoted figures froms google books), right? - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kursk&type=revision&diff=1069008317&oldid=1068951292 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacharo66 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you are involved in an edit war at Battle of Kursk. Please don't repeatedly edit a page over the objections of other editors. You can be blocked for that. If you think your source is better/more reliable than those already in use in the article, you need to visit the talk page and say why, to try to build consensus for the change.— Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment

News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election

Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"

Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?

Deletion report: Ringing in the new year: Subject notability guideline under discussion

WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured

Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021

Gallery: No Spanish municipality without a photograph

Obituary: Twofingered Typist

Op-Ed: Identifying and rooting out climate change denial

Essay: The prime directive

Opinion: Should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to accept cryptocurrency donations?

In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing

Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"

Serendipity: Pooh entered the Public Domain – but Tigger has to wait two more years

Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Anshu Gupta

Hi Dianna I edited Anshu Guptas wikipedia page a few days back. Some of the changes made were rejected due to copyright issues. I understand the policy and will adhere to the same while editing in the future. I appreciate you bringing it to my notice. Further to that, I had a query regarding the removal of the opinion section from the page, my reference for creating the same was from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palagummi_Sainath page. He is also a renowned personality in our country and I was hoping to create a similar segment. Please let me know what is the way to go about it. Thank You Arundhatigoonjfellow (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of what you see on other pages, we don't normally offer a lot of quotations or opinions of the subject of the article. In this case, the quotations were 37% of the article. That's way too much. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright Removal - Hawk Mountain Ranger School

Hey,

I noticed your removal of my addition to the Hawk Mountain Ranger School page. As I'm new to Wikipedia, I just wanted to clarify.

The HMRS website includes the course descriptions for Hawk Mountain Winter programs. As all other programs are listed, including the Ranger, Field Medic, and IC/GBD courses, I decided to fill in the course description for the Winter Programs.

The other courses on the Wikipedia pages were copies, or slightly paraphrased copies of the official HMRS course descriptions. Thus, I followed the same formatting to add in the winter courses. I'm wondering how that constituted copyright infringement..?

--Aphelions (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I have checked the rest of the article and it comes up clean. If you could provide me with specific web pages from whence you think it was copied, I will check again. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right formatting for a reply, but..

I found my research from the HMRS page on Winter School: https://www.capranger.org/winter-ranger-school I'm just not sure why I'm no allowed to include the official course descriptions, as that what was published on the HMRS website. --Aphelions (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Aphelions: We can't host content copied from that page because it's marked as "© 2018 Pennsylvania Wing Civil Air Patrol." That means it's copyright, and it's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy to copy it here.— Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Diannaa. I recently approved a draft as a part of AfC and it had some copyrighted content. Although, I managed to cleanup but the content remains there in history. Please have a look at Faisal Ali Dar. Thanks! ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. In the future if you could let me know the url where you found the matching content, that would be helpful. You could also include it in your edit summary at the time you remove the content. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, This is something helpful and I'd surely follow this in future. This Special:Diff/1070212247 is also a copyright violation. I'm not able to trace it to any link through Earwig now. Rather, all upto this diff has the copyrighted content there. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I got it. This link. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tecno Spark 8

Hi. Could you please take a look at this. This site is almost verbatim, but it screams "mirror" to me. I've marked it reviewed, but wanted someone to backcheck me. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! You are correct - it is a Wiki mirror.— Diannaa (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Theo Alcántara

Dear Diannaa --

Turns out I'm a copyright lawyer, and happen to know this stuff.

No, the Theo Alcántara article was not copyright infringement. What was copied? Facts. Facts aren't copyrightable. There are only so many ways to explain the facts, and I intentionally made enough changes to the expression of the facts to avoid copyright infringement. If you Google Theo Alcantara, you will find basically the same facts in three places, none of whom hold enforceable copyright.

If you would send me the deleted text, I'll make some more changes. If you don't, I won't put the effort into recreating what I did.

Thanks

DCLawwyer (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The page has a lot of overlap with https://www.naxos.com/person/Theo_Alcantara/31025.htm which is marked with "Copyright © 2022 Naxos Digital Services Ltd. All rights reserved." Some of it is list-like content, but a lot of it is not. Sorry we can't host that on Wikipedia; it's against our copyright policy to do so.— Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa -- "a lot of overlap" isn't "unambiguous copyright infringement." But let's leave that aside. If you would send me the deleted text (paste it on my talk page or sandbox), I'll make some more changes to the copyrightable expression, and you'll be happy. Thank you. DCLawwyer (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but copyright content is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxews or user talk pages. I could send you the deleted material by email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first.— Diannaa (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa -- Done. Thank you. DCLawwyer (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Email sent. The part that needs extensive rewording is towards the bottom. List-like material is okay, especially if it's alphabetical or chronological. — Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa -- Would you like to review [8] Thank you DCLawwyer (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You can review it yourself using Earwig's tool. As you can see, there's still issues in the final paragraph. Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa -- The facts are the facts -- the schools have the names they have, the competitions have their names (and you pushed me to double check them and correct them), and things occurred in the chronological order they occurred. None of which is copyrightable. I thought it was fine at the outset, but reasonable people can have differing opinions. Take a look and let me know if you have any remaining concerns. DCLawwyer (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course there's no need to change the names of schools or competitions. I have made some minor changes in the final paragraph and the draft is now okay from a copyright point of view. A couple suggestions: Prose is preferred over bulleted lists; the biography paragraph at the bottom should be moved up to below the lead; each paragraph should have at least one source. To establish notability, locate and include several sources that are independent of the subject and provide in-depth coverage (see WP:BASIC for details). Good luck.— Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

user:Marvelous-Eg

Hi, nearly all of this new editor's edits are copyviolations and they are also using dodgy websites, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup is underway. Thanks for the report. In the future if you could include the url where you found the matching content in your edit summary at the time you remove the content, that would be helpful.— Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

will do, thanks for sorting it out, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Message from LuisaMIrvine

Thanks for your counsel on my first entry. How can I prove permission to use the copyrighted content from the website I am referencing? LuisaMIrvine (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

LuisaMIrvine: 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) 00:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, this is very helpful.LuisaMIrvine (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nishijin

Hi, thanks for your information but can you remind me what was wrong. I do not remember. --Accomer (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Content was copied from https://traditionalkyoto.com/traditional-areas/nishijin— Diannaa (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022: GE Capital Edit

Dear Diannaa:

I did not post any copyrighted information. The only thing I did was update information using information from another Wikipedia page, the GE Aviation Services page. If I did copy information, it was from the other Wikipedia page and, as we both know, Wikipedia owns the copyright to its own pages. No copyrighted information from another source was directly copied. I would like you to point out just what information you believe is copyrighted in such as way as to run afoul of Wikipedia's rules.

P.S. Just as a friendly suggestion, in the future, if you see "copyrighted" information, just reword it to make it non-infringing. There is no reason to remove factual information, and that would be more helpful instead of just reverting edits and risking an edit war.Rogue Commander (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but the content I removed is not present in the GE Aviation article or in any other Wikipedia article either. It is however present in the press release I mentioned in my edit summary. I must note that it's not possible for me to re-write all the copyright-violating content that is added each day. For example today we have around 124 reports to check, and only two people working on this task. 124 reports already represents around 12 to 24 hours of work, so there's not enough time in the day for us to re-write as well. Removing copyright violations is exempt from the edit warring policy. As far as verifying the extent of the overlap with the press release, please have a look at [this report and click on the iThenticate link.— Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I clicked on that link to try to verify what you are talking about, but its not showing me anything, saying "Revision ID not found". I didn't look at any press release to type what I typed; any info copied came directly from the GE Capital Aviation Services page. If any info was copied, it was from there, but since I can' t actually see what was and wasn't copied, your information doesn't help me one at all.Rogue Commander (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Let me re-word: Go to [this report and click on the blue box that says "iThenticate report"— Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked the link and what was actually removed. Since the substantial factual information, that GE Capital Aviation Services was sold, is still intact on the page and the entire edit was reverted, I won't take further action at this time.Rogue Commander (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Excessive quoting?

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal, Issues relating to the use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales, New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (list of reported incidents), and New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations)? There's quite a bit quoted content being used in these articles and some of it may be perhaps a bit excessive. The box quotes in "New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations)" and "New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal" seem a bit excessive, but there's also quite a lot of in-body quoting. Most of the quotes seem to be sourced, but again not sure they're all necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly! Sorry but I don't have time to do this right now - maybe tomorrow?— Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Whenever you have the time is fine. Just would like another opinion on this. Could you also take a look at New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Freedom of Information releases)? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick look at a few of the articles and the quoting is excessive to the point where it's unencyclopedic but I don't think it rises to the level of violating the non-free content guideline. Sorry I just don't have the time or energy to do a more extensive analysis right now.— Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That's fine Diannaa. Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Red Pheasant Cree Nation

I must say as someone who actually comes from Red Pheasant Cree nation the reversal of the edits concerning the Chief and Band council are wrong. The removal of the racism suffered by the RPCN are wrong concerning the stolen Treaty Medal. The elimination and erasure of other notable people from our community is wrong. These individuals are significant to the history of RPCN and to Canada. William Wuttunee was the 1st national President of the National Indian Council which was a forerunner of the Assembly of First nations. This is notable. Winston Wuttunee is as well known and a widely revered Indigenous Elder and singer.

The posts about the treaty medal are extremely important to our collective history.

I wanted to create a section where others could add more information about previous Chief and Council to preserve this history of our nation.

Red Pheasant Cree Nation

I hope these reversals of these edits are changed and the user who blocked the changes is banned. Clearly they are either racist or ignorant!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SongShuMa (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in working on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the content you added was a violation of our copyright policy, as it was copied from elsewhere online. So I won't be able to restore it.— Diannaa (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That material is not copyrights as they were generally quotes from three sources. The additional issue is also that notable Indigenous people were removed. Those people were notable for their impact in the community but also in the larger North American society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SongShuMa (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of it was quotations, but some was not. The content copied from Global News was not a quotation, nor was the material copied from the Manitoba Museum. You will have to take up the issue of notability with the person who removed the content with that rationale. Or even better, post on the article talk page — Diannaa (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that is cop out. Earlier you indicated that you could not or would not restore the material. I am willing to put the work in to make the article better, but essentially the other editor made any modifications unavailable to change and make better. You also do not address my issues surrounding the material on the treaty medal and my communities collective history. Is it possible to get my edits back so I can look to make them better??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SongShuMa (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know anything about the topic so I am not going to comment on whether or not the article should contain that content. I dealt only with the copyright issue. I'm not going to restore any part of your edit, because I am not the person who removed it. You need to discuss that with the editor who removed it, preferably on the article talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

SongShuMa, I have sent you the deleted material via email.— Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Europarl

I was looking through my contribution history and noticed one of my edits got revdel'd that added a PD notice, on European Parliament Subcommittee on Tax Matters, with this being the source. Now, I'm not an expert on copyright or anything, and this was the very start of me trying to figure out all the little nuances (I think I've gotten better in the past 2 weeks, at that point I didn't know there was a CC notice like a PD notice but I believe those 2 instances have been fixed), but the legal notice here made me believe it was public domain or something along those lines; however, I could be very wrong here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I remember reading this legal notice, and the problem is the phrase "provided that the entire item is reproduced", which means derivative works are not allowed. Our license does allow derivative works. So it's not compatibly licensed with Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep an eye on that for future legal speak in legal notices. Thanks! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Kogan Creek Power Station edits

I am writing about your following deletions:

deletion 1 the cited document is a public release from CS Energy to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), a pubblic and there is no copyright notice or whatsoever in any place of the document. What are the rules for government sources ?

About Creative Commons ?

deletion 2 which I have written using my words, so I guess they were not enough different. How do you decide if a text is to similar to the source ? Or is the ordering of the points that I should shuffle ? Is there an application I could use to check that ? And what about the parts The Sydney Morning Herald copied of the ARENA document ?

In detail about the second point:

1) My: "CS Energy pointed also problems with the Queensland climate "rapidly moving clouds". The project had no thermal conservation/storage capacity."
Above, which source phrase should I have copied ?

2) Original: "A site project manager with 30 years' experience detailed a list of planning, management and communication failures, compounded by Areva Solar US-based executives "aggressive" management style."

Is the following cite ok ? "A site project experienced manager detailed a list of planning, management and communication failures. Areva Solar US-based executives "aggressive" management style added to the problems."

3) Original: "Mr Canham said pipes had rusted when they were left uncollected at the Port of Brisbane during the 2011 floods because of a dispute between Areva and shipping company DHL. As a result only 20 per cent of them were useable."

Is the following cite ok ? "A dispute between Areva and shipping company DHL left uncollected pipes rust at the Port of Brisbane during the 2011 floods, of which 80 per cent where unusable."

4) Original: "Meanwhile, a shipment of steel Areva imported from China was of such poor quality it had to be buried as scrap; then a company in Newcastle making another key component went into administration."

Is the following cite ok ? "That a Areva China imported shipment of steel was of such a poor quality that it had to be buried as scrap. That a company in Newcastle making another key component went into administration."

5) Source: "He said at one stage Areva flew 40 workers to the site from the US but they arrived without appropriate safety gear or training." ""They had no safety boots, they thought it was alright to go on site with normal shoes. I said: 'Pack them back on the plane'.""

Is the following cite ok ? "That Areva flew 40 workers to the site from the US without appropriate safety gear or training."

6) My: "Culminating that, on August 2014, AREVA announced its solar business exit."
Above, which source phrase should I have copied ?

Last question: have you used automated tools ? There is no bot to check mention. --Robertiki (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: after some searching I found that we had alread talked (January 2016). You suggested the link to a tool: [9] which I have now checked, getting "Violation Unlikely 39.0%". Now I see where the potential violation are exactly. I would appeal to WP:PARAPHRASE "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." and WP:LIMITED "Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact.". --Robertiki (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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 we have to assume assume material is copyright unless proven otherwise. The agency's terms of use page does not specify that their webpages are released under a Creative Commons license and has at the bottom "Australian Renewable Energy Agency © 2022" which indicates that they have not released their content under license.

Regarding Earwig's tool, please don't go by the percentages or the bot's preception of the likelyhood of an issue. In this particular case, all the overlap is in two paragraphs. The bulk of the problem is in one paragraph. Your proposed edits are still too much like the source, and not usable. Here is how I would re-word it.

Site Manager Ian Canham of Areva Solar noted he had observed multiple problems with communication and planning. Also, workers brought in from the US lacked safety training and safety gear. On the supply side, after sitting in floodwaters at the Port of Brisbane during a dispute between Areva and shipping company DHL, pipes for the project were 80 per cent damaged by rust. Other steel ordered for the project was completely unusable and had to be scrapped. Some necessary parts became unavailable when the supplier went out of business.

— Diannaa (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time toward a solution. --Robertiki (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Pre formed text should assume good faith

I don't like the pre-formed text threat about blocking from editing: "Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing." Receiving it the first time for a newbie may be intimidating and rude. I would suggest that that phrase should be give only at the second warning for the same "offense". Also "automatic" text should assume good faith. --Robertiki (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If the user has not so far received a "welcome" template, I use {{Welcome-copyright}}.

If they have a small number of edits and/or a short tenure, and have already been welcomed, I use {{Uw-copyright-new}}.

If it's a well established editor who appears to have slipped up for some reason and has no previous warnings, I use a boilerplate from my sandbox: "Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from (some website), which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions."

For estabished editors who have been around since 2009 or earlier and have a relatively low edit count (under 10,000), I will often use {{uw-copyright}} as they very likely have not so far taken the time to familiarize themselves with our policies and need to do so urgently. It looks like you fall into this category.

For subsequent warnings for all people I use {{uw-copyright}}.

That said, if you have suggestions for improvements to the wording of any specific template, please consider offering suggestions on the template talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that:

if the text was not copied "as is" (an experienced editor should know that)
if it is the first warning in that offense

there should be a template like uw-copyright without the rude phrase, so the template would look as:

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Searching and creating content is sometimes a frustrating job, when there are not many sources (I know a lot of what happens about what I am writing, but can't write that per WP:OR without public sources), and making mistakes happens. I understand that for Wikipedia copyright is a serious issue and don't want anything happen, but having to rewrite the edits should be enough punishment without waving the "blocking" stick :-) --Robertiki (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

CLOP review

1)The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India CNN is the source here.

2)This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India.

Captain Jack Sparrow is claiming "Since both are standalone sentences, someone who wrrites 1, cannot claim copyright of 2. "

@Diannaa Please [A] review the version marked (1) and (2) above, CapJackSp is claiming that this is not a CLOP Violation. CNN is the source here.

[B] And he is calling my Copyright violation warning (given for above) as inappropriate. Is it inappropriate? Appreciate if you can give your opinion on both. Venkat TL (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems weird that you pinged the user on my page and here, and misrepresented on both. You made the statement, "Why cant you write in your own words. Please dont edit if you cant. This is second WP:CLOP violation. This is the final warning. Another violation will be reported to admins". I do not believe that such a warning was appropriate, and completely support that stand, and thus called it a concocted warning. The fact that I disputed the second warning is important, but unrelated. I would advise the user to go through the messages on my talk page for further context if they want. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, I will look at this later - I have to do some real life things today. I will reply at User talk:CapnJackSp, where you originally asked the question.— Diannaa (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure. This is a very low priority ask. Please feel free to do it later. Venkat TL (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Freedom of information laws by country

My edit to this page was flagged as copying copyrighted work and subsequently removed. I cited an official Swedish government website regarding freedom of information in Sweden which has been has appeared at least once on the same Wikipedia page without any issues. Detractorinsw (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have double checked the info at commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden and it looks like I made a mistake. It's public domain. In the future please include a {{PD-notice}} template as part of your citation when copying from public domain material. Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Robert J. Bentley

Hi, I just wanted to check that what has been recently updated fell within the parameters of no copyright issues. I tried my best to take the suggestions you made into account on my talk page. Please see Robert J. Bentley. Joffejs (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Joffejs: I see you have put all the copied material from The NY Times in quotation marks. Now it is not technically a copyright violation any more, but it's not a very good practice. For the most part Wikipedians write the articles ourselves in our own words rather than stringing a bunch of quotes together.— Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue for draft of Draft:Template Numerical Library

Hi Dianna, recently I have created a new wiki page draft about Template Numerical Library which is being developed by our group. The page was deleted because it appeared like a direct copy of a post on NA Digest - http://performance.netlib.org/na-digest-html/22/v22n02.html#3. This post was submit on NA Digest by me and it just contains the same list of the main features of the library similar to the project main web page - www.tnl-project.org. The same list was written even in the wiki page draft. So there really should not be any copyright issues. Thanks for your help, Tomas. Oberhuber.tomas (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

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) 12:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

K-rex = DSpace @ Kansas State University

The text you obliviously deleted was a paraphrased description of open source software. You should not have admin tools. This is another example of your sloppy work. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.— Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits of WikiMaster2K15 in List of Gunsmoke television episodes

I have been making edits in List of Gunsmoke television episodes beginning Jan. 9th. I watch each Gunsmoke episode and write a brief synopsis, careful to not give away the plot. I also add the cast as they appear at the end of the episode, similar to what I did for List of The Rifleman episodes. On Feb. 1st, WikiMaster2K15 started his own edits in the same page. Currently this user is rewriting my edits. The user's source is the IMDb website and is copying storyline verbatim (examine season 2). Episode notes are copied word for word from IMDb trivia section. Research shows you have had a problem with this user in the past. I reach out to you for guidance. I don't want to get into an edit war, but WikiMaster2K15 does not use original thought and some information is not pertinent or is simply untrue. Please advise. Demoon57 (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I have restored the 12:58, February 10, 2022 revision as that's the last clean version. At least some of the plot descriptions in that version are copied from Fandom, which is compatibly licensed and okay to copy as long as attribution is provided. So I have added an attribution template at the bottom of the article to cover that. I will watch-list the page for a while.— Diannaa (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A bit confused

An administrator declined my RD1's on Machimia dystheata, and four other pages from that genus. They claimed that it was in the public domain. However, it was published in 1945. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This page says it is still copyrighted. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

After realizing I was looking at the copyright info for the wrong volume, it looks like the volume in question is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, which fails COMPLIC so redaction may indeed be warranted, unless copyright on the volume was never renewed, in which case it would be PD. I can't locate any information regarding whether the copyright renewal happened, so I will defer to your judgement on this matter. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just so we have the RD1 requests all in one place, for convenience: Special:Diff/1071500630 Special:Diff/1071500990 Special:Diff/1071501901 Special:Diff/1071502854 Special:Diff/1071503551 --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Check out the Commons:Hirtle chart: look at the section "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad, 1927 through 1977". I am not seeing a copyright notice on the title page of the book, which means the book was published without compliance with US formalities, since such notice is one of the requirements. Australian copyright law for anonymous works is 70 years from publication date or from author's death if the authorship is known. Which puts the copyright expiration date in the country of publication at 2015 for a work published in 1945. This date is after the URAA date (1996), so the chart says that the copyright expires 95 years after the publication date. Thus the work is copyright until 2040, if I am understanding things correctly. — Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you to decide if to redact. It seems that it would be PD if it were Canadian. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Garrha cylicotypa, Garrha interjecta, Garrha micromita, Garrha oncospila, Garrha platyporphyra, Garrha pyrrhopasta, and Garrha rufescens have all had copyvios removed. The source was the same book as the one we were talking about. I have not tagged them for RD1's. Again, I am letting you decide. Sorry if I am putting you through too much work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They are copyvio in my opinion, so the content should be removed and the material revision deleted. It would be really helpful if you could please proceed with removing the copyright content and tagging them for RD1. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll tag them right now. I didn't tag them because I wasn't sure that you'd approve. But I see that now you do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Done! Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been feeling a little overworked lately, so I really appreciate it.— Diannaa (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove the copyright tag in Hare Krishna Konar

i have remove the content now please remove the copyright tag from this page 1234comrade (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what you want me to do. There is no copyright tag on the page, and I already removed the copyright issue by rewriting the content in question.— Diannaa (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I need help File:LSU-Ozamiz Seal.png

Hello Dianaa. I don't know where to get help so I came to you. I just uploaded a brand new version of the image MisamisUniversityPhilippines.png and it was stated that it was someone's own work. Since it was a non-free logo for a school, I copied the licensing from the LSU-Ozamiz Seal.png and now there's something wrong with the page.

I apologize for the issue I have caused.RobloxianMoth (RobloxianMoth) 18:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC +8:00)

Sometimes there's a caching issue when a new version is first uploaded, and the image looks distorted or weird. On my computer, the image looks okay now and is displaying okay in the article too. if it still looks funny to you, wait a day or two and check again. I am going to tag the image for removal of the old version, as we are only allowed to keep the current one. The old image will be removed/hidden in a week.— Diannaa (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

NextEra Energy Page

Hello

Why did you remove the following quote?

"It's going to be a crusher for the solar industry," said Rutherford, who predicted he would have to lay off much of his workforce. "For 90% of the people that work for me, this will be a significant blow for their pocketbooks."

It is a quote after all.

Were you concerned with the Nevada section? The section was reworded.

Why did you delete parts of the history? It is now difficult to see what exactly you had issue with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs)

I had to remove the surrounding prose for copyright reasons, and it didn't make sense to leave the quote in without the surrounding explanatory prose. The reason for removal was because most of the paragraph (which included two quotes) was copied from CNN. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. I will send you the removed paragraph via email so you can rewrite it. — Diannaa (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Is there a way for me to do an iThenticate test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No, but there's other tools you can use to compare text before adding it to Wikipedia. Try one of these:

After you add it to Wikipedia, comparison can be made using Earwig's tool.— Diannaa (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Talkback

Re dupdet, you have a new message, "Restarted the webservice. Should work now." --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 18:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

New message, on the same page, says "Please try now". --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

New message, on the same page, about v2. --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio issues

Hi Diannaa, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you've been giving Chaya5260 a lot of copyvio notices over at their talk page. I've dealt with similar issues with them copying content in science articles over the last few years, but it seems like they just continue on. It just seems to be a really odd case where they don't respond or heed warnings even though they're contributing content. I'm honestly not sure at what point WP:COMPETENCE blocks would come into play here on this one, but I thought I'd give you a heads up, and I'd be curious what you think on this one. Thanks. KoA (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They've had five warnings for copyvio over the years as well as several for failing to provide the required attribution. I will add a final warning to my most recent message. Thanks for the heads up.— Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hey

Mkjory (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Copying Within Wikipedia

Ya sorry, I thought it was obvious.

Catherine Best

Could you please take a look at this. It has a CC notice, which would make it eligible for a cut and paste edit like this, but it is from this source. However, the copyvio report shows it also came from the university's page. Not sure which came first, if it's the university, then how could Orcid have the right to give up the university's copyright? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:onel5969: Sorry for the delay in replying. It's impossible to day for sure who had it first, since the Orcid page was only archived once. The university has had the prose since 2015 at least. My feeling is that the subject supplied the same text to both places. You could consider listing the page at WP:CP — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

copyright question

Earwig is flagging a problem with Hi Jolly Monument having too much similarity with an entry at waymarking.com. The text is similar and was put in the WP article on 6/22/18 by Bluesnote. The text at the website was "posted" by "bluesnote" on 6/18/18. That site has a copyright notice on the page, and the terms of use say if you post there, you give them complete rights to the IP. There would have been no issue if the author had published it here first, but does them having posted it on waymarking.com four days earlier really mean I have to re-write it? It's clearly the same person posting the same text at two crowd-sourced sites nearly simultaneously. Your thoughts? (The article is properly sourced to other RS, waymarking.com is not used as a source) MB 05:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MB, I think you might be misunderstanding section 3.D. of Groundspeak's Terms of Service. What it actually says is that, by uploading any content you own the copyright of to their services, you are granting them a royalty-free licence to do most things with it. It does not say that you grant them the copyright in any way. It's reasonable to assume that it was first published on waymarking.com, and due to the short duration between it being published there and on Wikipedia, that both users are the same Bluesnote. However, I see that the enwiki user is still relatively active, so it might be worth sending a message and asking. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Our rules require that if text was previously published somewhere else prior to being added to Wikipedia, an OTRS ticket is required. This is to protect the rights of the copyright holder as well as Wikipedia. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Requesting copyright permission for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Otherwise it should be removed or re-written.— Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean that Bluesnote is the copyright holder and can release the material to WP via OTRS ticket? Then the copyright notice on the page at waymarking can be ignored since the author (Bluesnote) licensed the material for their use by did not release the copyright. The ticket is still required even though Bluesnote released the material for WP use when they put it here in 2018? MB 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If they posted it at the other website four days before they posted it at Wikipedia, an OTRS ticket is required. This is to protect the rights of copyright holders, as we have no way otherwise to confirm that the two are the same person. — Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mirror

Can you double check this tag addition? Handwiki is a mirror of our content, and seems to acknowledge this on the bottom of their page. Kuru (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I already looked at that page yesterday, as it was at Copypatrol. Some of the content the user added does not appear to ever have been in our article, so it looks to me like the Handwiki version has been edited in the meantime to include content that we have never had. You can see at the bottom that the pages are editable, as there's a notice at the bottom "This page was last edited on 12 November 2021, at 22:37." Unfortunately they don't offer us the opportunity to look at the page history. So that's all I know for sure. Therefore I added a CC-by template to the article. Diff of Custodian bank. — Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that would be a pain. They seem to be using mediawiki, though, so you can just append "&action=history" to the article view URL to see the history (like so). It appears there was just one edit - the article's creation by "BotanyGa" on 11/12/21. The article on handwiki does appear to be an exact copy of our article as of 11/12/21 (actually 10/31); the only difference seems to be some dropped internal links where they don't appear to be hosting a copy of the target page. Apologies for being a pest; I know your work is detailed and gruesome and your capacity for sidebar puzzles is probably limited. Kuru (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok cool, thanks for the info, I will remove the template.— Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian Federation Security Guard Service Federal Academy

OK, let's find the original Russian-language source of the text. This text, which I have never seen, according to the information on this garbage site, was posted in 2021. I took information about the formation of the School of Military Engineering in Bagrationovsk (1 June 1966) on the myfreedom.ru website — this text in Russian has been online since at least 2016. This also applies to other parts of the text, which I confirm by the “myfreedom” note. Let's take a look at other links. Kremlin-9 Project (No. 69) article has been online since at least 22 June 2019. Article about the museum has been online since at least 29 May 2020. So, we conclude that someone somewhere on the Internet translated an article about this academy and posted it on a garbage site. Naturally, the different names of this academy, translated into English, completely coincided. Please note that in the comparison tool, most of the matches are just the names of the academy in different historical periods. And also in some places, we have some “stamp phrases” (e.g. “In accordance with the order of the”). It's rather embarrassing for me to be accused of “copyvio,” while I translated this text (and edited it a little to remove unnecessary details) from the Russian Wikipedia based on sources I found (by the way, if you look at the Russian version of the article, there are not many of these sources, but I found them specifically for an article in the English Wikipedia). — Soul Train (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And, also, let's look at a comparison between the Russian Wikipedia version of the article and the article on this garbage site (which has been operating as a spam aggregator since 2021). The comparison tool shows 94.5 % of similarity. The problem is that, in general, an article in the Russian Wikipedia has existed in this form since at least 8 March 2019. Perhaps even longer. So, this site copies information from other sources, including Wikipedia, and then translates articles automatically (for example, using Google Translate). And of course, many parts of the article (stamp words and previous titles of the academy) are translated in the only possible way. — Soul Train (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Antithetical couplet for Nguyễn Trung Trực

I see you deleted 2 poems in Nguyễn Trung Trực article.

There is no problem with the so-called poem of King Tự Đức.

But the second poem is very famous, especially the 3rd and the 4th sentences, that integrated with Sir Nguyễn's fame - appears as an Antithetical couplet in most of his temples.

Is it reasonable to add the Antithetical couplet back ? Leemyongpak (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable. Make sure you include a source for the English translation (unless you've translated it yourself)— Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, which rule of wikipedia prohibits adding a few famous poems in an article? I see a lot of poems and pictures in these two articles Yue Fei, Li Bai - one poet and one general of China, are they Exceptions ? Wikipedia even has Template:Poem quote for quoting a poem into an article. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, I never said it was prohibited. I said the article was starting to look like a memorial page. With ten percent of the word count being devoted to poetic tributes, it seemed to me to be too much. An editorial decision, not a rule.— Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

OK. I will add parts of the poems back - just most important and famous sentences - to keep the article balance. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

/* Wikipedia and copyright */ Need more clarity regarding content added from each reference link

Shalom World

Hi Diannaa, You rejected the content added from the following reference because I didn't include the content in quotes since it was mentioned by a person in the article, correct? https://nce.catholic.org.au/the-bridge/the-bridge/catholic-streaming-alternatives#_edn1 Can you explain why the content added from the following reference article was rejected? https://rcdop.org.uk/events/wyd-2019-enjoy-with-shalom-world-tv Both were added in a single edit. Could that be why both edits were removed? If the content from the second reference link is valid, can you add it back? Angeljoe19 (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you copied three paragraphs of copyright text from two different sources. There's no indication that it was your intention that any of it should be quotations. That's a violation of our copyright policy. I can't add any of it back for that reason. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I see it now. I had copied the content that would be useful for the page from those references, but accidentally pasted the same content before modifying it for Wikipedia. I really didn't mean to put the content this way, will make sure this doesn't happen again. Angeljoe19 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Horror film

Hey Dianna, I responded on my talk page, but I did not copy (nor have I ever seen this essay). We both quote the same book, and otherwise, I have not added anything. I feel a direct quote is important here, but I would like to revert and clean it up. Is there some way to restore this on your end? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Cosmic Dust Analyzer copyvio

Hey, thanks for catching and removing that. I don't understand how I missed it when I was doing my AfC review, and I appreciate your cleaning up after my carelessness. Rusalkii (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Normandy landings / Film and television

Hello. You reverted my edit on the article with the comment "the film is not primarily about this topic" and yet the same list contains two other titles where the Normandy landings are similarly only one of several depicted events of WWII and not the primary focus, Band of Brothers and The Big Red One. If those projects deserve to be mentioned then so does My Way and if not then they should be removed as well.--Repli cant (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

My preference would be to not include any pop culture links at all, per WP:MILPOP, but people keep adding them back. — Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Barry Sanders

Hello there! I saw that you recently removed one of my edits on said article due to them being copyright violations. I was not aware of any violations from the source that I used. I will take your word for it though as I'm definetly not an expert on copyright. I'm wondering if there would be any way for me to know what content was in violation, so that I could find a different source thats doesn't have copyrighted content and use that to add information. There's no way for me to access my original edit as it was blanked, so I have no idea what was removed and what was kept. Thank you for your time!! NSNW (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to change which source you used; what you have to do is use your sources as a source of information, not of prose. Pretty much all content online and in books or magazines is copyright, so your idea of finding something you could copy-paste here is not a workable one regardless. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be in your own words please. I can send you the deleted content via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first.— Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I just activated my email for you. Please email me the deleted content. NSNW (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

ygm— Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Gigg Lane

Can you please explain your action in regard to copyright violations at this page. You have apparently deleted nine edits because of information taken from the Bury FC website. However, one of those edits was the addition of two books to the bibliography section. Another was the addition of information about the first two FA Cup ties played at the ground and that all came from my books, not from any website. Other edits were simple fixes of typos, etc. and, overall, I cannot see any difference between the article before your intervention and after. What is going on? No Great Shaker (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove any content - there was some content that matched that atthe website https://www.buryfc.co.uk/history2/gigg-lane. You had later removed the content so I assumed you had accidentally copied it. You can view the overlapping text by looking at this report and clicking on the iThenticate link.— Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. It looks as if I temporarily copied the bit about crowds so I could work it in. It must have been saved unintentionally although, as you say, it was all amended soon afterwards. No harm done but sorry for any inconvenience. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Restoring deleted redirects

Hello there! Would it be possible to restore breast aplasia and mammoplasia as redirects to the Micromastia article? I'm aware of the Neelix situation, but these terms still appear in the lead of that article (afaik this is long after the dust has settled on the issue), and from a quick look on Google Scholar these do appear to be terms used in scientific literature. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Mammoplasia is already an article; it's existed since before the Neelix affair, and appears to have a different meaning. Maybe you meant Hypomastia? I can do breast aplasia though.— Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies! Yes, I did mean hypomastia. Not sure how I got those mixed up, sorry. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay done. — Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The Sadies

Hi Diannaa. I am confused about why you removed the mention of cause of death. It came directly from an article in USA Today. Would this source be more acceptable https://www.yeproc.com/remembering-the-sadies-dallas-good/ and should I have put quotations around the mention. Many thanks in advance for your help.{{subst:unsigned}}

@FriskySoloV1: There's no problem with the source. The problem is that the text was identical to that in the source, and is thus a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I re-wrote it to make it copyright compliant and left the USA Today source in place. The cause of death now reads "The cause was a recently-detected heart condition.[8]" — Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for taking the time to respond and clarify. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriskySoloV1 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

List of esoteric healing articles

Hi Diannaa,

I made definitional changes to the Esoteric Healing page. As a practitioner, I have a better definititional sense of what to include in the definition than what wiki had previously noted. I have obtained all permissions for the text cited. My goal was to help the public become more informed with clear definitions, broader understanding of what it is, how it works, how it is performed in addition to allopathic medicine. I'd like to work with you to refine the text here to encompass greater definitional understanding.

Thank you for collaborating. Editorinchief111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorinchief111 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of the content you added was copied from another website, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. If you think you can get the copyright holder's permission to post their content here and release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Requesting copyright permission for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.

That said, Wikipedia has strict rules about what sources are acceptable for medical information. What we're looking for is reliable medical studies from scientists. This is true for alternative medicine as well as mainstream medicine. We don't want content that's been copied from sites such as https://www.theesotericbloom.com/about-esoteric-healing and we definitely don't want unsourced medical information. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for full details.— Diannaa (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello again Diannaa, all of the material I cited on this page that you removed are written by medical doctors, peer reviewed materials, credentialed scienctists, or source material, e.g. Esoteric Healing by Djwahl Kuhl. What you are drawing from anothers webpage was indeed pulled from the material I cited and should be cited on her page too. My edits are valid and should be reinstated. Please work with me to update the context here, I am an expert on the topic and your information is not correct because it is not informed. Shall I start a completely separate page on Esoteric Healing and start with the citation of Lori Setterson's article too? I know the authors of the cited work. How to proceed so that Wiki reflects an accurate definition and reference material for the general public? Please advise... Editorinchief111 ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorinchief111 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you start an article in draft space. Please provide much more specific citations - don't just list a book - you will need to at a minimum provide the page number where you got the information, and ideally a full citation (author first and last name, title of book, publisher, publication date, ISBN). Remember Wikipedia is striving for a professional level of articles, especially with our medical content. Presenting pseudoscience as though it were actual medical content is just not going to happen, so sorry. Again I urge you to take a closer look at WP:MEDRS for the level of professionalism we are striving for. Please see Wikipedia:Drafts for information on how to prepare a draft and submit it for publication.— Diannaa (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Cell sorting page

Dear Diannaa, thank you for your message. Could you please explain a bit better which the problem is? The information added to the page comes from open access peer reviewed articles that have been properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.234.132 (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The content I removed was copied from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eji.201970107, which is marked as "©2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA". That means it's copyright; sorry but you can't add text copied from a copyright article to Wikipedia. It's a violation of our copyright policy to do so.— Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Marisa Siketa

The Marisa Siketa article has been the target of a death hoax vandal. Can you deal with it please? 1.136.108.245 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

[1] Use this Image | Licensing and Copyright

[1]