User talk:Diannaa/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 93

Question about copyvio

Hi, Diannaa. I hope you are doing fine. I know you are an expert in copyvio, so I hope you can help me with something. A line-per-line translation of a copyrighted text is considered copyvio? I mean, if I take a copyrighted English text and translated it to another language is it copyvio, right? I know that the question must be sound silly, but I want to be sure. Thanks.

PS - If you answer this, pls ping me. Thanks again.

Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 00:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kacamata. Yes, a word-for-word translation of a copyright text is considered to be a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. It was very helpful. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Content from Our World in Data

Hi Diannaa, I have just copied some content from an article of the Our World in Data website in this edit and also this edit. As far as I can see the entire content of their website is compatibly licenced but I wanted to double check with you (in order to not make another mistake). It says on their website in the footer: "Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license." Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's compatibly licensed. If you've copied anything, you need to include attribution as part of your citation. You can use {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}} — Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually add this to the reference; is that equally OK?: |doi-access=free}} [[File:CC-BY icon.svg|50px]] Text was copied from this source, which is available under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License]</ref> EMsmile (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile: They are both okay. In fact I have both versions in my sandbox. — Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Mustafa Shameel

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of copyright content in the Mustafa Shameel article. I would have added the url address, but changes to the 'New Section' editor no longer seem to permit such information. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

John Rivers Article

Hi Diannaa,

You deleted my article and sited copyright infringement from a Harvard article. The information was a bio of the Founder of 4Rivers Restaurant Group and 4Roots, there was nothing in the article that would have come from Harvard. Can you please share what you were calling out?

Also, you permanently deleted it and Wikipedia offers the opportunity to fix/adjust issues and I am able to source the bio information and add articles, etc. Can you please reinstate the draft so that i can edit?

Thank you. MoniqueWaldrop (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:John Rivers, Founder of 4Rivers Restaurant Group & 4Roots. It's not unusual for text to be present in multiple locations online. For example the same biography can be found here as well as other places online. We can't host copyright material on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor such as Microsoft Word or Google Docs and work on it there until you are sure it's completely original. Note that the draft was declined because there were no citations whatsoever. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) for our notability requirements and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for ourt sourcing requirements before you attempt another draft. — Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I find the pages and processes a bit confusing. I will do that. Thanks. MoniqueWaldrop (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I am doing this for John Rivers, that bio that you linked as a pdf belongs to us and is likely posted in several places when he speaks and such. What can I do to get around it? The bio is his and we wrote it. MoniqueWaldrop (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all your copyvio revdels! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback! — Diannaa (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Herbert Lightfoot Eason

Hello Dianna. Thank you for tidying up Eason’s page, although I got stuck on his post-noms at the start, which should read, CB, CMG, MD, MS. Although the MD doesn’t show, could you sort this please. Thank you. 188.95.46.18 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, it appears the medical degreee MD is not supported by the template. It's for awards only (OBE, Order of Canada, Queen's Council, etc.) — Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle Cats Revisions

Hi Dianna, Just wanted to apologize for the copy-pasting I performed on the Battle Cats article when revising it. I attempted to rewrite much of the part that was copy-pasted in my own words and research. I'm fair young and new to Wikipedia and am trying to get better at revising and expanding articles, and I wanted to thank you for holding me, and all other people editing Wikipedia accountable. I know this was nothing personal, but still, whenever someone edit my work I always wanted to understand why they did it, I appreciate you being as explanatory as you are. Thanks again for everything you do!

SnowySilver (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § Non free fair use

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Non free fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Just letting you know about this as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there. — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

File:JackThompson.JPG

Hello. How did you determine that this photo was published between 1928 and 1963? — Ирука¹³ 15:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I don't remember handling this case back in 2015, but there's some information in the file description and on the file's talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not find there information about the date of publication of the photo. — Ирука¹³ 08:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iruka13. There's some text in white directly on the photo that implies it was taken around the time he won the championship in 1930. The subject of the photo died in 1946 at the age of 42. So the photo had to have been taken sometime between 1930 and 1946. — Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Without information about the date of publication, the photo cannot be licensed through the {{PD-US-not renewed}} template. — Ирука¹³ 19:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You could consider listing the image at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Illusion (page) - Removal of contributions to Visual (section)

Hello Diannaa, hope you are well. I made my first editions of Wikipedia very recently, during yesterday and today.

I saw you reverted practically all my recent edits. On the page's "view history" section the last two edits are from you.

Your first edit has the corresponding comment: "remove copyright content copied from...". I did copy a few short phrases from that source and believed that referencing the source at the end of the phrase would be sufficient. However, in retrospect, it would have been more appropriate to make it clear exactly which portions of the text were explicitly copied, by using quotations in a format similar to: " As stated in ABC: 'abc abc abc' ". I believe that when, and only when, it is a plausibly short excerpt and is clearly constituted to be a direct citation (in the appropriate referencing format I just exemplified), then copying content from another author is accepted in the scientific community and does not constitute plagiarism. Now, I am very new to Wikipedia and would be very thankful if you could help me better understand the community's policies on this matter.

Your second edit has the corresponding comment: "remove recent unsourced additions". If you look at the last two paragraphs of the first section of the current version of the same page, you will also see no sources. From what I have generally seen on Wikipedia, not every single phrase (or even paragraph) needs to have a reference at the end of it. What I did was reference a single book (which is very extensive and covers multiple subjects in detail) at various places along the text I wrote while choosing the placement of the references according to the sections which were more directly linked to the book. Essentially, all the original content I wrote was based on my objective interpretation of what I read in that book. What should I have done differently? Should I have placed the references differently? Should I have referenced specific sections of the book?

I appreciate you taking the time to read my questions, as I want to understand how I should proceed in my Wikipedia Journey. Thanks in advance! 89.114.12.132 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, summarizing your sources in your own words rather than paraphrasing. Short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content. I only removed the recently added unsourced content. If there's other unsourced material in the article is could certainly be removed as well. It's great that you found a source and added some content, but without inline citations, it looks like there's no sources whatsoever, and it's impossible for us (or our readers) to verify that what you added is legit. Sorry I don't have time to teach you in detail how to properly add content to Wikipedia and suggest that you go to Help:Contents where you will find links to help you get started editing. Another good place to get help is the Teahouse, where people experienced in helping new users are standing by and are ready to answer your questions. I suggest that you open an account so that you have access to a watchlist and other features that are available only if you log in. — Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Diannaa for addressing my questions and being my introduction to what seems to be a very dedicated community. I will rewrite the text according to the guidelines you provided through feedback and sources. I will also create an account in the meantime.

Keep it bold! See you around :) 89.114.12.132 (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Help needed at CopyPatrol

Hello copyright patrollers, we currently have 82 reports at CopyPatrol that need to be assessed. Assistance would be much appreciated! Pinging some recent contributors as shown on the Leaderboard: DanCherek,Ymblanter, 1AmNobody24, L3X1, SamX, and Sphilbrick. Any assistance you can offer would be perfect, even if you only have time to do a handful of cases. Thanks in advance, — Diannaa (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll make sure to review some cases there Diannaa. In the meantime, there's a draft at User:Moneytrees/Copyright RfC 2023 that could use some ideas and spitballing from a lot of the people pinged above : ) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Moneytrees for the help. I will study the RFC draft later, looks super interesting. — Diannaa (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have lower capacity than usual this week (interviewing for jobs ) but will do some when I can. Btw, hope your shoulder has been feeling better recently, Diannaa! DanCherek (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be pretty busy with IRL stuff until Tuesday at around 14:00 UTC, but I'll help out if I can. I've added a few ideas to the RfC draft as well. I'm always happy to help out whenever I can so please ping me anytime there's a backlog that needs to be dealt with. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am unfortunately out until Monday next week, will not be able to help till then. Ymblanter (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I currently don't have the time due to this, but I'll see if I find the time to do some. Nobody (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! My shoulder is better but my fingers and neck get sore after an hour or two and I have to take a lengthy break. 80 reports represents a minimum of 4 hours work and typically would take me eight hours or even more. That doesn't leave much time for the more fun aspects of Wikipedia or even for life as a whole. It looks like there are already 40 reports on the board in the first 10 hours of July 17 (UTC) so if a few people could even do 5 or 10 a day that would really help distribute the work out better and make keeping the website reasomably free of copyvio a little more sustainable. Thanks again, — Diannaa (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We are once again overlaoded with reports: 102 reports on the board. Pinging some recent participants: DanCherek, Sphilbrick, Moneytrees, SamX, L3X1, 1AmNobody24, Wizardman, and Sam Sailor. Any help greatly appreciated! — Diannaa (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have as much time for this as I'd like due to IRL stuff, but I was able to deal with some of the more clear-cut reports. Out of curiosity, how are you able to figure out how many reports are unresolved? I've explored the interface a bit and I haven't been able to find that information. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sam, and thanks for clearing some reports! It's okay to clear some simple ones; any and all help is greatly appreciated!

To get the count, I start with a fresh version of the page. I go to the bottom of the page and click on "Load more" until it says "No more records". Then I do a search string such as "07-22" to find out which reports we have left from yesterday, or "07-2" for a complete total. We have 66 reports left to assess as of this minute. — Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being gone. I’ll be able to get on tomorrow and work on some. DanCherek (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi DanCherek! When you are away we really notice. Fortunaltely multiple people chhipped in to help a little/a lot and things look normal again. Whatever normal is around here, lol — Diannaa (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:TeleGuard

Regarding the copyvio, [1] appears to be a copy of the draft content and not the other way round. Also pinging Taking Out The Trash. Jay 💬 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually if you look closely you will see that the draft and the webpage are both written by the same person. He will need a WP:VRT ticket if he wishes to copy the content to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, does it matter who wrote the webpage if it is a copy from Wikipedia? Jay 💬 20:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a copy from Wikipedia. The same person is working on the Wikipedia page and the website at the same time. — Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

History of Christianity

here: [2] you put that the text was copied from Role of Christianity in civilization and it was not. I wrote it in my sandbox, where I have been being extremely careful to keep track, and carefully attribute. After I saw this in edit history, I went back and did a search to see if I had made a mistake, and remembered incorrectly, but none of this is in that article or any other article.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Looks like the matching content is in Role of Christianity in civilization. — Diannaa (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on but that link says No text could be found in the given URL (note that only HTML and plain text pages are supported, and content generated by JavaScript or found inside iframes is ignored) I went to Role of Christianity in civilization myself and I swear it is not there. I did not copy and fail to attribute this time. I have been being super careful. I swear. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Does an Earwig report help? TSventon (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

YES! Thank you. I couldn't get earwig to work last night. As long as I credited all of those copied sections from other WP articles that I inserted (and wrote originally) I am still okay, right?

I did not write any of the stuff on Islam, so I am unsure exactly where it came from, who did write it, when, and what to do about it. Do I need to remove completely? Rewrite? Resource?

Please note, the paragraph in question on Barbarians that the diff is about is not highlighted in either article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The diff you left the comment on has 'Barbarians' which is not copied; Moore on persecution, which is also not a copy, and Galileo which is also not a copy, in addition to the Abbasid Caliphate.

The content on the Abbasid Caliphate was originally written by GenoV84 who says he wrote it for Persecution of Christians and took it from there so it was originally attributed: [[3]] Does it have to be reattributed every edit?

There is a bunch of stuff I copied from 4 other articles I originally wrote on, like the early monasteries, but I think I remembered to note each one. I was careful while working in my sandbox but may have failed to transfer each one correctly. They are showing up on TSventon's check. Could that be what this is about? 19:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Clicking on the iThenticate report shows what the detection service found. The content it found is a match for what Earwig's tool is showing.
• The detection service found the copied content at a mirror site, not at Wikipedia (which is whitelisted). That makes it difficult and sometimes even impossible to locate exactly which article the content was copied from, especially if the content is no longer present in that article (i.e., if the mirror site is of an old revision of the page), or if identical content appears in multiple articles.
• Therefore even when I am pretty sure the listed case is unattributed copying and not copyvio, it can often take me an inordinately long amount of time to figure out from which article the content was copied so that the required attribution can be added.
• For that reason it's really helpful if editors add the attribution, even if they are pretty sure that they are the sole author of the prose that was copied. You should do it for each and every edit that contains copied material, (1) because that's what the license calls for and (2) you never know which edit will get flagged at CopyPatrol and force one of our tiny crew to hunt for the correct article so that the original authors can receive the attribution required by the terms of our license.
• In instances where the same content is present in multiple articles, you don't have to know which was the first. Just mention in your edit summary where you got it and then we have an attribution chain that could in theory be traced back to the prose's first appearance on Wikipedia.

— Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The content it found is a match for what Earwig's tool is showing. except the paragraphs in the diff being discussed here [4] are not highlighted in either one.

What is highlighted in the earwig is content that I did reuse, that I think I have diffs for, showing I said so in the edit summary. If I missed one, it wasn't this one.

(Is it possible to go back and add attribution to the edit summary? I know exactly what I reused, and while so far checking backwards shows I have multiple diffs where I did attribute, I can go back and check each one and fix any I find that I should have and didn't - if that's doable - if I missed any.)

Content may very well have been copied to a mirror site. That has happened to me 3 times before now where I have gotten falsely dunned for it and had to run down and post reverse copyedit tags myself. (One idiot copied my entire article and published it in an African journal making it easy to find!!) This will make the fourth time, I guess, because it is a mistake and I can't see how else it could have happened. Check for yourself Dianna. These paragraphs are not anywhere else and never have been. Check Role of Christianity in civilization, Christianization, Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire, and History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance, since I used stuff from all of them. Hell, check everything I've ever written here, but all you will find is that those particular paragraphs are original to History of Christianity.

I understand you are overworked, and you have my full support in all you do, honestly, but that particular edit is wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke; not all of the content shown in Earwig's tool is present in the iThenticate report. But the highlighted content in the iThenticate report is present in Role of Christianity in civilization and it is present in this edit you performed.

The way to add attribution retroactively is to perform a small useful edit or a dummy edit and add the attribution via the edit summary. Please see WP:RIA for the recommended edit summary. The small useful edit I performed with this edit makes tiny corrections to dashe, in paragraphs unrelated to what you did in the edit for which I was retroactively adding attribution.

I am still not sure whether or not I have understood what your question is and I have no idea if I have yet to answer to your satisfaction. Please let me know what else I can do — Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make it clear what I mean by the iThenticate report? Go to this CopyPatrol report and click on the button labelled "iThenticate report". The overlapping text is highlighted in pink (Overlapping with some random Wikipedia mirror.) Parts that are not an exact match are not highlighted. It is only highlighting text added in just that one edit. — Diannaa (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the report. I did add that section on women, at 19:46 on 16 July. Here is the diff: [5] and I see that I did in fact forget to properly attribute. At 20:12 you very nicely attribute for me, which I appreciate, except where you say (Attribution: text was copied from Role of Christianity in civilization on July 16, 2023. it does not specify which text, and I didn't know 'women' is what it was referring to.

"Text" does not specifically refer to either the text at 19:46 or the section title of monastic reform or that it's the content on women or have any other identifying characteristic. So I assumed it referred to the content of the text in that diff: 20:12, 16 July 2023‎ which is Barbarians, the Abbasid caliphate, persecution and Galileo. Not women. Not the content of the iThenticate report. Also not copied. Hence my appearance here.

So, the text that was copied is not the text actually in the diff where the attribution is posted, but it has taken me a bit to figure that out. I was completely at sea until I started checking every edit summary for attributions and saw I had missed that one. Sorry for my confusion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I am going to start adding more info to my edit summaries as per the recommended format at WP:RIA. Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That will help. Thank you for such a reasonable response. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Vincent Plush

Thanks for editing the lede of this. Yes, starting immediately with that quote was the wrong tone: more "media release" than encyclopaedic. I do think the brief quote is important to establish the subject's notability, and it's from a well-respected publication which itself has its own WP article. I have reinstated the quote at the end of the lede, rather than the beginning as it was. Hope to have consensus with you on that.Walton22 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the lead is much better. If you open with it, it reads just like a bio you might find in a programme guide at the concert hall and casts an advertorial tone in my opinion. So yeah, at the end of the lead is perfect. — Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa, thank you for your response. A pleasure to reach consensus with you Walton22 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

CureSearch for Children's Cancer

Hello @Diannaa,

CureSearch for Children's Cancer seems to contain a decent amount of copyrighted material without any evident permission from the copyright holder. I was unsure how to approach this. Simply adding the {non-free} tag or removing the material didn't seem to be enough. How am I typically supposed to handle these cases? Is it always necessary to let an administrator know?

My apologies for my recent slip-up on Operation Good Neighbor by the way! I had so much material written that I must've mixed up some original content with my rephrased paragraphs.

Thank you for your time and your dedication to the encyclopedia. Mooonswimmer 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mooonswimmer. Thanks for the report, and for your interst in copyright cleanup. There's some detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101. I will clean this one. — Diannaa (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That name is called "recidivism."

Repeat offender. uncited diff -- compare source. Thanks much. Phil wink (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed; blocked too. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyvio Joshua Selman

Today I have removed a possible copyvio from [Apostle Joshua Selman: Biography, Age, Marriage, Children, Net Worth and Source of Wealth - NewsWireNGR]. The 2 July 2022 source seems to predate the addition to the article. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There's not enough overlap with this article to warrant revision deletion or even removal, if that's the source you are talking about. If I am on the wrong track please let me know. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry to have wasted your time.SovalValtos (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyvio R v Williamson

HI @Diannaa: Came across this, this morning when I was posting a note at the help desk. I wonder if it copyright. I've not checked it as I don't have time this morning. I'll be back about 4. I'll check it then, if you've not managed to take a look at it. Sorry to dump it on your lap. scope_creep^Talk 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed a paragraph copied from here; the source webpage is marked as copyright. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Advice on copyright?

Hi @Diannaa: I can understand your comment and the deletion of various text elements from the website https://www.waldwissen.net/en/forest-ecology/fungi-and-lichens/how-different-fungal-communities-influence-tree-growth in my post about Mycorrhiza. But maybe you have a good hint on the following circumstance? The initial point is that I wrote the text in question on the website myself in personal collaboration with the researchers who found the cited findings. It would, of course, be possible to reformulate the text, but this would cause some effort in view of the difficult subject matter. Would that have been enough for you not to delete the text elements? It would be easy (but also require effort) to put said single contribution under a CC BY 4.0 licence (it is difficult to put our Waldwissen content under a CC licence in general). My goal is to contribute more and substantially to Wikipedia without breaking any rules. Is there an (easy/different) way for me to "prove" to you (the Wikipedia community) that I am entitled to use text elements from Waldwissen? As a verified user? I would be happy if you could give me a practical answer to these questions. Martin Moritzi (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Martin Moritzi. That's a good question. If you were the sole author of the prose and could prove it, it would be possible for you to release the text under a compatible license. See WP:Donating copyright materials for how this would be done. But since you are not the sole author, you are not actually entitled to do that. If you can't get permission from all the copyright holders to release the content under license, there's no way for us to accept it here; our copyright policy does not allow us to do so. Sorry, the content will have to be re-written if you wish to include it. — Diannaa (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback (and confirmation of my assumption). Actually, I am also a fan of CC licences and think we will act in this direction. I will make the appropriate adjustments and publish the Wikipedia post again. As I wrote - I totally agree with how you are handling the ©-topic. Martin Moritzi (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming lack of activity

I understand that the timing of this note will be unfortunate but it can't be helped.

My Wikipedia activity has waned significantly over the last year. With a couple minor exceptions, I've been contributing almost nothing other than CopyPatrol, and frankly that activity is largely because you specifically asked for help.

I have two significant trips planned over the next couple of months, will have limited access, if that, to the Internet, although the more relevant restriction be lack of time. The weeks leading up to the trips will be preparation for the trips, and the weeks following the trips will be catching up on commitments put off during the trip. While I will try to stop in on occasion, it will be sporadic and frankly unfair to editors if there is a question and I'm unable to respond for days. It's unclear whether or not I will return to activity in October.

It has been a long time concern of mine that this mission-critical function is handled by so few volunteers. I hope the community addresses the issue but history suggests that won't happen. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the advance notice and for all your efforts at CopyPatrol and elsewhere on Wikipedia. I hope your trips are fabulous and successful and hope to see you again in October or some future date! — Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to take a break @Sphilbrick, you more than deserve it for your years of hard work in the area. But I do think that we are headed towards a much more managable future for dealing with copyvio-- your input and any thoughts you have would be really appreciated at User talk:Moneytrees/Copyright RfC 2023. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio at The Undateables

Hi Diannaa—I'm wondering if you could please take a look at The Undateables? It's got copyvio of the official episode summaries, attributed with a reference (now a deadlink, moved to [6]) but not in quotation marks and it's a large amount of text. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

All the plot summaries are available via The Wayback Machine and they all need to come out. I will do it. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for sorting it. — Bilorv (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The Adventures of Pete & Pete Episodes Edits

Hello Diannaa! Thank you for your comments on my recent revisions, it's always great to learn more about Wikipedia policy from people like you who have been doing this for a while. To start, I didn't know the descriptions were copyrighted at all, I assumed they were originally made by a previous Wikipedia user, but I will definitely just make my own, they could use some updating anyways. Similarly, I didn't know that linking to that YouTube playlist was wrong, so I definitely won't make that mistake again. That being said, I did have a question. Basically, the whole point of my original edit was to showcase how there are 26 known shorts, not 20 known shorts, yet the only proof of this that I know of is the playlist. What would you recommend as a citation for this instead? Thank you again, really appreciate it! — Moncayk1 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I looked but found nothing. There's no citation for the statement that there were 20 shorts or 16 shorts either. — Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Save a Child's Heart

I ran the article through Earwig and it appears to contain a substantial amount of non-free material. Mooonswimmer 00:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I cleaned some copyvio. But it looks like a lot of the urls are out of date, Dispenser's Checklinks is showing failure to connect — Diannaa (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Baltimore School for the Arts Edit Deletion

Hello Diannaa, recently I edited the page for the Baltimore School for the Arts. You hid many of my edits which I find perfectly understandable (they were cited from the school). Still many of those edits were not from the school's website and were just places where I added additional info or citations. Additionally the information on AP Classes, is perfectly fine to pull from a school's own report. An explanation would be appreciated. If I need to reformat the stuff I wrote please just let me know. Thank you. ManFromCloud (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Content I removed was copyright content copied from elsewhere online. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Blockable for NLT?

Hello Dianna. I was just reading this at ANI: WP:ANI#NLT, subject of news article. Given what the user Kimlynn69 wrote on Johnson524's talk page, wouldn't that be sufficient grounds for a WP:NLT block? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't view that edit, because it's been suppressed. You will have to ask someone with oversight permissions to have a look. — Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Teresa (2010 TV series)

Hey @Diannaa, I see that you have reverted my restore on Teresa (2010 TV series). The plot that they have written is directly copied for the the unreliable source cited i.e here. Does it come under WP:CV? I am not sure of the plot summary guidelines. Just bringing this to your attention. Cheers! Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you are correct. I will reverse my action. Note at 1275 words the current plot section is too long. It should be 700 words maximum. — Diannaa (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Help again needed at CopyPatrol

Hello copyright patrollers, we currently have 84 reports at CopyPatrol that need to be assessed. Assistance would be much appreciated! I am getting overwhelmed! Pinging some recent contributors as shown on the Leaderboard: DanCherek, Ymblanter, 1AmNobody24, L3X1, SamX, Isochrone, Moneytrees, L3X1 and Sphilbrick. Any assistance you can offer would be perfect, even if you only have time to do a handful of cases. Thanks in advance, — Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have done more today than I would normally do, and I will be around until the end of the next week, but then I am going to be on holidays for two weeks. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did 30 this morning, but it took 3 hours. There seems to have been a lot more of the complex cases the last few days. — Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Chopin Theatre

Hi Diannaa, I hope you're well, Back in 2020 you had removed/revdelled copyrighted stuff from Chopin Theatre and had warned Alexiad11, They've today returned adding what I believe to be copyrighted stuff again,

When you have a spare 5-10 mins could you kindly check Chopin Theatre please ? (I've reverted them but it's still in the history), Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic, You're a star!, Thanks so much I greatly appreciate your help, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

• [7]

I apologize for just picking you, but I've seen you around AN(/I) when these sort of things come up. if there's a preferred place, please point : )

I don't know what I don't know, but I'm hoping that this makes more sense to you : )

copying text from the fandom wikis, or anywhere else on the web, I presume is not allowed without some sort of attribution?

So I'm concerned that this person's edit history may need to be gone over.

If I'm missing something in this please don't be shy to edumacate me : ) - jc37 00:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of this is pretty basic, but there's a lot of talk page watchers here, so please excuse the detailed answer if you already know some of this or it seems a bit off-topic for your question.

• It's okay to add compatibly licensed material to Wikipedia as long as you provide the required attribution.
• Here is as list of compatible licenses.
• Attribution can be done inline or by adding a blurb at the bottom of the page in the references section. I prefer inline because it's then clear exactly which content in the article is copied.
• We have various templates that can be used for attribution; {{PD-notice}}, {{CC-notice}}, {{US government sources}} are a few common ones. It can also be done manually by creating some copypasta in a sandbox and using that. I am currently more a fan of the templates.
• We get a lot of cases at CopyPatrol that are where the editor has copied from Fandom. Fandom is compatibly licensed, but I mostly remove it rather than taking the trouble to add the required attribution, because Fandom is typically unsourced fanboy/fangirl material, and also, it's a wiki and not a particularly reliable source for that reason.
• If someone is chronically adding stuff from Fandom (or from copyright websites for that matter) they would likely be showing up frequently at CopyPatrol. I recall that person's name and see a couple posts re attribution on their talk page but there's been nothing recently.

— Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Great, and great.

Thank you very much : )

Then I won't worry about looking further into it.

I appreciate all the information.

Thanks again : ) - jc37 01:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think what you wrote above should be added here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright. What do you think? (and please - if that page needs updating/overhauling - please do, or if you prefer, point me to it and I'll try : ) - jc37 01:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Overhauling and updating that page is a good idea; sorry but I don't have time to help. Adding some material about Fandom is a good idea. A summary of points you could include: (Go ahead and copy/adapt this if you like. [attribution is required] )

• Fandom is compatibly licensed, and it's okay to copy from there as long as the required attribution is provided. Unattributed copying is often removed by patrollers rather than repaired. (Offer links as to how to add the required attribution)
• Occasionally content present on Fandom is also present in old revisions of Wikipedia articles. It takes a bit of digging to discover whether or not this is the case. Such content was typically removed for good reasons (unsourced fancruft, for example) so think carefully before re-adding it. Is it encyclopedic, or in-universe fancruft?
• Because Fandom is typically loaded with unsourced fanboy/fangirl material, and because it's a wiki, it's not a reliable source. So again, it's usually not suitable for Wikipedia, which strives to be a more serious encyclopedia.

— Diannaa (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

French documentaries on public broadcasting

Hi there, how are you? I am working on beefing up the references on a couple of translated articles. I have a couple of well-produced documentaries that don't say they are Creative Commons so I presume they are not. One was broadcast on Radio-France but according to Copyright law of France France does not make the same exception the US does for works produced by the government. So obviously I am not going to upload them, and the documentation at Template: cite AV media seems to say that I should not link to them on YouTube either, since French copyright probably has not expired. Is it ok however to cite them by timestamp without linking to them? I am thinking that this is akin to citing a page number in a copyrighted book, but.out of an abundance of caution I thought I should probably run this past you. If you can shed any light when you get a chance I would appreciate it; meanwhile I will refrain from linking the Radio-France episode and verify that the other documentary isn't linked either. Thank you for any brainpower that you apply to this problem. Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Films and videos are typically copyright but it's still okay to use them as a source of information just like you would a book or magazine that's not available online. But don't link to it on YouTube unless the copyright holder is the uploader.

Occasionally a video on YouTube is compatibly licensed, but usually not. The standard YouTube license is not a compatible license. If it's released under a CC-license it will say so in the video description. But there's license laundering taking place there, same as at Flickr, so make sure it's actually uploaded by the copyright holder and not faked. Commons:License laundering — Diannaa (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Bringing back a deleted page

Hi @Diannaa,

I wanted to ask if you can bring back a deleted page for me. I wanted to make a new ambassador article for Michael S. Owen, but that page got deleted because of copyright infringement. If it's possible, can that page be brought back? I'll fix the copyright issue and whatnot and just make a standard article. Please let me know. Thanks in advance for your response. Losipov (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but you will have to start over. We can't host copyright material on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. In both instances where it was deleted, all the content was copied from http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/ambassador-to-sierra-leone-who-is-michael-owen?news=842208, so you could potentially use that as your starting point. — Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just don't want it to be flagged for speedy deletion once it's published because that's what it was in the past. But nevertheless, thanks for the reply! Losipov (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverse copyvio?

Hi Diannaa! I'm hoping you can assist with a murky possible reverse copyvio situation. I came across a G12 request at Bayanni (singer), referring to two sources where content was evidently lifted from (copyvios report), specifically the naijabiography.com and cityceleb.com matches; these are both user-submitted content websites but don't appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. On investigation I found that there is a deleted version of this article at Bayanni (Zhenoboy), and that that was originally posted almost at the same time as both of those sources (as far as I can tell from archive.org), and they are all similar. The problem is I can't tell for sure which was actually posted first, and so I can't determine for sure if this is a copyvio, and I'm not quite sure what to do about it. Any advice you have would be appreciated! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There was also a version at Bayanni created on October 3, 2022 which cites Naijabiography as a source. Bayanni was deleted at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayanni).

Bayanni (Zhenoboy) was created August 25, 2022, and cited thecityceleb.com as a source, and was deleted as being copyvio from that source, as well as G7 and G11. You have to wonder what is going on when an article arrives in its first edit at 11,054 bytes and has at least two iterations that we've found so far. It may have been a copy of an even earlier version under yet another title. It doesn't smell like Teen Spirit, it smells more like persistent undisclosed paid editing.

Since we can't conclusively prove copyvio, I think maybe it should go to AFD. I have no experience at AFD so I would appreciate it if you could initiate that, assuming you agree that that is a good course of action. — Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, good find! Seems like it's just straight-up spam, then. I think you're right about AfD, I'll nominate it shortly. Thanks for your help! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RD2 Deletion Request (Libel)

Hi, I reverted some libelous edits on Talk:A. V. Rockwell. Another editor already warned the user, can you assist in deleting the original edits? Nyeboah (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

done. — Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Richard Sansoni as leader of AMT VIII

Here you can find evidence that he was in charge of this office. There are pages from his SS folder that is physically kept in US archive. I have complete scan from this folder as I have his military awards and photos after his son. First file, left side "Amtschef Amt VIII". It is clearly visible. Second page is first page of that document. Please, contact me if you have further questions.

<a href="https://ibb.co/bWVPT2m"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/6nSmz1w/20230806-112311.jpg" alt="20230806-112311" border="0"></a> <a href="https://ibb.co/tKy4Q3v"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/V9XtJ3z/20230806-112238.jpg" alt="20230806-112238" border="0"></a> 2A02:8308:282:CF00:683C:C465:1A60:F68 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Well those documents are all pretty illegible and I don't speak German so that's not much use. But this page mentions him. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "Trenfo" copyright content

Hi @Diannaa and thank you for the welcome. The text I added on the History of the Incas article came from the Spanish wikipedia: Guerra civil incaica, including the references. All I did was translate a few initial paragraphs and change some words for a better understanding in English.

I revised the website you provided: https://www.trenfo.com/en/history/inca-civil-wa, and it seems like that's just a direct translation of all of the Spanish article, excluding the references and notes. The article on "Trenfo" was made on March 6, 2022, while the edit for the Wikipedia text I took, comes from as early as August 23, 2011. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guerra_civil_incaica&oldid=49179812 If I had "copied" the text from that website, I would have at least referenced it.

Is there a possibility to undo the change you made, or am I still in the wrong here? Killari Wanka (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Whenever you copy or translate licensed text such as from another-language Wikipedia, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in at least one of your edit summaries where you got the content from. This helps prevent patrollers from making this kind of mistake, and also, it's required by the terms of our license. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects. Here is a sample edit summary. There's also a template that you should place on the article's talk page if the translating is extensive. I have done that too. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Telford School

Wrong darn tag. Sorry about that. Knitsey (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Move cedar mining into my sandbox?

Good morning. I screwed up, and could stand some admin help. I had started collecting notes for an article on Cedar mining in mainspace while thinking it was in my sandbox. It's definitely not ready for prime time. Happy to put it up for deletion, or if possible, could you move it into my sandbox?

Mortified,

12:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Found the CSD template. Hopefully that fixes things. Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Quotations are okay in your sandbox; excessive quotation in mainspace is not okay. I have moved it to User:Elizabeth Shiprock/Cedar mining — Diannaa (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for the help. Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

David D. Stern

Good morning,

Am mortified that the first part of the entry David D. Stern - or is it the whole entry? - is marked for copyright violation - just wanted to update the entry, and remove non active links. The texts of the website https://www.davidsternstudio.com (including CV) are free to use. The author sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

Can you prevent the deletion of the page, please? And approve the updated content? What can I do??? Thanks!!!

Diannaa (talk)Rastern (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Rastern The website has © 2023 David Stern / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York on the bottom, which means it's not free to use. Also, just because part of the text might get deleted, it doesn't mean the article will too. Nobody (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks! the CV page of the website gives permission to use the text: https://www.davidsternstudio.com/cv Rastern (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Once the permission email has been checked by the Volunteer Response Team, the content can be restored. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Jason Boyarski

Hello, I just came across Jason Boyarski on the recent changes page and I see there was a lot of content added with repeated irrelevant citations. I am not sure if it needs rollback or manual removal of only the repeated references! Can you please take a look? Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I used Refill 2 to quickly combine the duplicate citations. Now checking for copyvio — Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is in need of a good copy edit and cleanup but a couple problems are now fixed. — Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's great. Also is there a page/article where I can read about refill 2 and how to use it? Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I found a page at Wikipedia:reFill. Note we have two versions: https://refill.toolforge.org/ and https://refill.toolforge.org/ng/. Choose the one you prefer — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Turnitin down for scheduled maintenance

CopyPatrollers please note: our Turnitin service is down for scheduled maintenance. Scheduled to end at 22:00 UTC. We will be unable to view iThenticate reports during this time, and CopyPatrol will not add any new listings either until the maintenance is complete.

https://turnitin.statuspage.io/ — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin

Hi, it is regarding removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced but possible COPYVIO [8]. This user had previously added the same content you revdel-ed here and warmed (welcome)'. Please see. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not a match for the material I previously removed, and I can't find it anywhere online using a Google search. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Tobyjamesaus

I recently reverted an edit by Tobyjamesaus that introduced close paraphrasing from this Sydney Morning Herald article. I noticed that you'd recently given them a final warning for copyright violations, so I figured I should notify you instead of warning them myself. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably I have blocked the user and recommended the opening of an investigation at WP:CCI. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio at Mahesh Navami

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of copyright content added to the Mahesh Navami article in 2023‎. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

CA High-Speed Rail

You removed some text in this article saying it was plagiarized. In fact, I am the original author of that material. In the article I note a 105 page Authority document re train specifications. This is no longer on line, however, when it was I read the article and composed this list of specifications. Over a year ago (I'm not certain of the timeline) I had this in the main article, but deleted it and moved it to a sandbox for eventual inclusion into a new sub-article re Trains of CAHSR. I decided to re-introduce it into the main article until the Trains sub-article is online. Therefore I am undoing your deletion. Robert92107 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, on page 3 of the article you cite in a footnote it says the following information is from the Wikipedia CAHSR article. The copied text (including going into the next section and incorporating the trains specifications list) was copied from the Wiki article as it was at that time. It has since been revised so it is not easily recognizable. Robert92107 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I checked an old revision dated prior to the July 2021 date of the matching document, and the list was present on Wikipedi at that time. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible error in copyright removal

Hi there, I'm a bit new so I'm not sure if you receive notifications to the replies I made to you on my talk page, regarding the copyright removal at Economic diplomacy, a removal which I believe to be in error. I have detailed the reasons on my talk page in the relevant thread. I'd like to request that the text be reinstated, as the cited copyright owner seemingly took the text from the book's Wikipedia page rather than writing it themselves. The text appears to originate from Confessions of an Economic Hit Man originally. I apologise if you already received notifications and this post was superfluous. Still learning how the system works. Thanks for your time! ShabbyHoose (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. You did ping me, and I am also watching your talk page, so I was aware of your message as soon as I resumed editing. If someone doesn't reply immediately sometimes it means they were at the gym or cooking supper or the like. — Diannaa (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate Copyright concerns

My contributions to the article Raghoji I of Nagpur have been marked as copyright plagiarism, referring to this spam-bot compiled Blog:

http://ve65.blogspot.com/2015/02/14th-february-1755-raguji-bhosale-of.html, which is itself accumulating matter from Indian Government-issued Gazetteers that are for Public reference. There is no copyright over the content I have published, nor is any of it owned by this author : https://www.blogger.com/profile/16569700971043615645 with regards to any of the content.

This author has lifted material from Maharashtra State Gazeteers which was directly referred to for chronological and finetuned details. Here is the cached page of the same Bhandara region.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xMd55WVB2j0J:https://cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/BHANDARA/his_maratha%2520period.html&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in

One can refer to the published links here: https://gazetteers.maharashtra.gov.in/cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/History%20Part/History_III/chapter_7.pdf https://gazetteers.maharashtra.gov.in/cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/Nagpur/his1.html

This is not copyrighted content in any way, shape or form. Requesting @Diannaa to restore the material for me to revise if needed but please take quick action.DeccanFlood (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not unusual for content to be reproduced in several locations online. I was pretty sure it was from the gazeteer; that'w why I said "or elsewhere" in my edit summary.

Sorry but in India, government works are copyright for 60 years from publication date. So Wikipedia can't publish text copied from there. — Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

But with regards to the matter laid out, the content presented has to be precisely sourced, the list of cities for which the Sanads/Deeds are granted for example. The battle descriptions and other finer details are clearly tweaked and originally put forward. In order to avoid excessive emotional engagement in the narrative, the language of the source text was maintained. If needed I can compose the wording from scratch entirely. I do fail to see how factual historical narratives are subjected to copy-right when we have to extract content from reputed sources as per the guidelines. Most Historians' narratives of the events would provide the same perspective on the matter. We could have had other admins have the content formatted to new original matter instead of the copyright red-tape. Please guide on the new direction I ought to take with my contributions. Do I proceed with reversion of your tag and edit the content in question to form new presentation entirely? DeccanFlood (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In order to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy, all content you add must be written in your own words. This is an official Wikipedia policy with legal implications, not just red tape. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of the content which has been removed was written in original words. The words certainly bore familiarity to the source matter despite best efforts, however I will still attempt it again. On submitting another attempted narration, would there be any administrator available who would automatically receive note of the changes to restore the page or do I have to tag your id? DeccanFlood (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you could follow the instructions already in place on your talk page that would be perfect. — Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Goodwin

Hello. Could you help me to understand why you removed all the material on the reception of Goodwin's books? If it helps, I've asked at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Matthew Goodwin again 148.252.128.42 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the article was book reviews: Of the article's 2369 words, 1424 of them (60 percent) were book reviews. We don't normally include book reviews at all in the article about the author. We might include a few short excerpts from reviews in an article about the book, if we have one. We also have rules about excessive non-free content. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information on this topic. — Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was best to let the sources speak but I can reduce the use of quotes. But why wouldn't we include the critical reception of an author's work? Especially when the sources pass comment on the author's politics, not just the content of the work. And if this sort of content isn't allowed then what is J. K. Rowling#Reception? 148.252.132.217 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling#Reception contains almost no quotations; it it a summary and analysis of what reliable sources have said about her work. — Diannaa (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

So can those reliable sources include reviews? 148.252.132.217 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In J. K. Rowling#Works cited, you will see scholarly resources and literary analysis such as Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays, Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (2nd ed.), and "Blending genres and crossing audiences: and the future of literary fiction". Have you got anything like that? — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Very few academics would be subject of such books. But some of the reviews are published in scholarly journals. The others are in reputable national newspapers and magazines. 148.252.132.217 (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

IP 148, besides the issues Diannaa has already mentioned, the bigger problem I still see at Matthew Goodwin is one of WP:NOTWEBHOST. The article reads like a personal website rather than an encyclopedic entry. The structure and content at J. K. Rowling can be a guide to you for how to write more encyclopedic content, independently of whether the author is covered as thoroughly as Rowling is. More simply stated, Rowling is encyclopedic, and in its current state, Goodwin looks like WP:PROMOTION, even after Diannaa's cleanup.

Separately, you've written 20% of the page as an IP, so it's hard to know where to call your attention to WP:COI, so I'm adding that here in the hopes you are following this page and will be sure to declare any conflicts you may have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a politics student who's studied Goodwin's work. I don't have a conflict of interest (unless that is one). I agree the article was too promotional so that's why I added some critical coverage of his work. You've now removed all that which in my view makes it more promotional again! 84.66.89.167 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@ 148.252.132.217, I see you got an answer at the Teahouse that you liked; You have now added circa 800 words of quotations from reviews in a new section called "Reception", which is better than before, but not by much in my opinion. I don't appreciate the forum shopping. Please don't post here any more. — Diannaa (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies Diannaa. I was suggested at the Teahouse to post here and then I wasn't sure where to carry on the conversation. Where would it be best to discuss this

84.66.89.167 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Kix (UK and Ireland TV channel)

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Kix (UK and Ireland TV channel)? I'm not sure what was meant by WP:MCQ#Kix, but it appears that an IP reverted you're redirecting of the article to Pop Max. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. I am not going to edit war over it. I have added an attribution statement at Kix (UK and Ireland TV channel). — Diannaa (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. The MCQ appears to be related to some non-free images being removed by JJMC89 bot; the images are lacking non-free use rationales so I tagged them for speedy deletion per WP:F6. As for the split from "Pop Max", I've asked about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/British television task force. Perhaps the members of that task force can help sort things out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to investigate. — Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

George Grenville

Hi Diannaa, DantheWikipedian has readded the copyrighted content again and, considering this is the fifth warning, maybe time for a block. I'll leave it to you. – Isochrone (T) 18:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Task complete. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarification re copyright requested

Hi Diana, I'm reaching out about a talk page message you left earlier about my contributions to Evan S. Medeiros -- can you please elaborate on which ones violated copyrighted content (I wasn't able to retrieve the earlier edits as they have been removed but would like some clarifications for future reference)? Thank you for your attention to this. W9793 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I found the matching content in https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/medeirosdp_final-no.-3.pdf on page 38. Search for the words "top advisor" to find the sentence I removed. I also made some other more minor changes and removals. — Diannaa (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hai,isn’t this meet revision deletion?. Thanks in advance 2.48.79.7 (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone else has already looked after this. Thanks anyhow — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio at Tim Walz

Hi Diannaa, I couldn't figure out the correct template to report a copyvio on a talk page, so I came here. This diff is the offending item. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything fishy in that diff. Where is it supposed to have been copied from? Or perhaps you sent me the wrong diff? — Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong diff. This is the correct diff, and the source is here. Another editor has redacted but did not revdel the copyrighted text. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

DantheWikipedian

To be fair, he did state what he would do instead. Amid one of his demands to be unblocked. Just failed to use the unblock ticket. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I did see his numerous requests to unblock. But I have no confidence that he would actually stop copying prose from elsewhere, as his language skills don't seem to be adequate to write for this website. — Diannaa (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential mall sockpuppets

I usually reach out to you about copyvio issues, but I'm reaching out to you in regard to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Incredible93 and a pattern of editors who are dealing with mall articles.

Looking at Special:Contributions/Myzigzag, I see a pattern where new users edit a group of mall articles, often for a day or two before disappearing. Typical is this edit, in the format "The mall features the traditional retailers LIST OF ANCHORS. The mall features prominent specialty retailers such as BUNCH OF STORES WITH EITHER NO SOURCE OR A LINK TO A MALL DIRECTORY." with an occasional "By 2023, since the COVID-19 lockdown, the mall has announced several newest additions, among them BUNCH OF STOERES'. These edits are almost identical to those made by other hit-and-run editors such as Special:Contributions/Tiffanyteller in this edit, Special:Contributions/Captainobvious1993 at this edit or Special:Contributions/Bosselite with this edit. Then there is User:174.215.219.158, with such edits as this one, among other IP editors.

Have you seen any other such editors? Are they all sockpuppets or are these different people working from a script? What do you recommend as a next step? Alansohn (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alansohn. Sorry but I don't have time to participate in a sockpuppet investigation. Please consider visiting WP:SPI instead. — Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Will do. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa

Please help me understand what was the problem with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Londondare#c-Diannaa-20230824140200-Welcome%21 Is the problem that I can't use research from those papers at all? Or was the problem that I only slightly changed the sentences copied form from those papers? Will it be admissible if I rephrase everything in my own words? Thanks! Londondare (talk) Londondare (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It's okay to use your sources as a source of information, but not of prose. Everything you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand, thanks.

Is there a way to see those deleted contributions? I am unable to see them and I don't remember the URLs of the papers I used. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentencing_disparity&action=history Londondare (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I will send you the material by email. — Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I received it. Thanks! Londondare (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi Diannaa. I'm having a copyright issue where I think I might be overreaching and am looking for a second opinion to see if I'm in the right or if it's something I should drop. On the Garden State Plaza article, quotes in refs are being used. In and of itself this isn't necessarily an issue, but it's a significant amount of the ref each time, with the quote-in-refs encompassing about 25% of the article size. To me that's insane and the quotes involved can definitely be shrunk to the main point. However, I've been reverted twice, so I'm re-checking with you. As an aside, if quotes of this level are ok then we have a massive 10-year old CCI that we can basically just close since it's just this. Wizardman 23:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Quotes are not an actual violation of the copyright policy but of the non-free content guideline. The guideline does say that quotations are allowed, but "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." WP:Non-free content#Text. I have on many occasions removed quotations from citations. Quotations from sources that are readily available online seem to me pointless and unneccessary, and seem especially unneeded when the material is uncontroversial data about a mall as opposed to, say, the history of the Balkans. — Diannaa (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Since I'm being reverted it's not a hill I'm gonna die on, though I definitely agree on it being a more subject-dependent issue and this not exactly qualifying. Wizardman 01:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem at Chronica Hungarorum

Please review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2023_August_25 A significant amount of the text used in the Chronica Hungarorum article is either badly paraphrased copyrighted text from here [9], or a bad google translation of copyrighted text from here [10] [11] [12]. The last version of the article that doesn't contain copyrighted text is most likely this very old version. After that, User:OrionNimrod started to extensively edit the article. You may remember him as the one who previously claimed that "we can adapt the same content just change the language to avoid copyright issue" when justifying his previous insertion of copyrighted text. I'm starting to wonder if we will have to examine most of his previous edits, if this is indeed what he believes. Azure94 (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa, feedback for this report: I would like to show a very intense personal harassment campaign against me by Azure94 and he uses the "copyright tool" just for the harassment involving the admins giving them extra job. He has not much own edits, his campaign to remove all my edits from Wikipedia, he also remove my added images from articles, and all other sourced reliable academic contents just because I added those.

In July:

Because of long debate on other talk pages, edit war by Azure94 against academic sources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#Agressive edit war on Hungarian topics. Often naming me "troll, bizarre, schizophrenic" [13][14][15] same profane insults with a very respected editor after following my edits:1. Then Azure94 intentionally followed me to many articles as revenge, he exclusively edited almost only those articles what I edited recently, and started exclusively harass my edits on these pages.

A small settlement had a few lead sentence, I added a church and fresco history, then Azure94 deliberately removed the full chapter because of "copyright", instead of fix those minor things giving an extra job for the admins: Sopronbánfalva [16] In the reality Azure94 does not care with the copyright or with the article, he just follows me in articles what I edited as personal revenge to make continuous conflicts. Wizardman from the copyright team, slightly changed and restored the content, then Azure94 scolded the admin that he is not satisfied, he wants more removal of my content: [17] User talk:Wizardman#Sopronbánfalva In other way, Azure94 said, it is a "big copyright problem" that I translated a non English, Hungarian text "good chance" to "probably" [18], while some hours later he copy-pasted a very long English text words by words in an article where again he followed my edit: [19][20]. Which means he does not care with the copyright in his case. Here Talk:Gesta Hungarorum#Dennis Deletant, he said "Be more careful next time" because I did not copy-pasted exactly the same text to avoid copyright issue, then he copy-pasted the text word by word from the English source.

3 weeks later, in August:

Azure94 did not do any edit 3 weeks long, but he suddenly appeared and exclusively started again bigger intensity to follow only my older contributions which are presented on my user pages. Azure94 has not much own edits, he started exclusively delete only my contents in many different articles as personal harrasment, and he did all this only within 1 hour! period, which clearly show his personal harrasment intentions and not the deep knowledge in many different articles.

Within 1 hour period:

Copyright team slightly modified and restored my content, but he removed even more content: Sopronbánfalva [21]

He removed academic sourced content what I added recently: Bratislava [22]

He wanted to remove all my edits: Ladislaus I of Hungary [23]

He removed my personally captured photos: Anonymus (notary of Béla III) [24]

He wants delete my old edits:Turul [25]

He wants delete my old edits: Seven chieftains of the Magyars [26]

He wants delete my old edits: Attila [27]

He wants delete my old edits: Albert Wass [28]

I created this article earlier, the topic is about an old illustrated book, a series of king portraits, illustrations are the essence which are used in many medieval articles, all relevant and have descriptions, he removed all of them (c.15,000 characters): Nádasdy Mausoleum [29]

I wrote the full article (my version), the topic is about an old medieval famous illustrated book, illustrations are the essence which are used in many medieval articles, all relevant, they are listed separate and have a long descriptions (as many articles has a list), he removed all of them (c.48,000 characters), this is cleary a vandalism: Chronica Hungarorum [30] Some minutes later he removed completely the full article (even no word remains) based on allegedly copyright only because I wrote it many months ago: [31]

As we can see, he has a great obsession to critize my every single edits to perish them, even Azure94 checked my content with a tool 1 My academic source is a desrciption from an open Hungarian state library about a medieval book, however my article is quite complex and different not a copy pasted contents word by words as Azure did in his edits as I presented above. That tool show matches like: "At the end of the", "history of the Hungarians", "medieval Hungarian chronicles", "The Augsburg edition had two versions". I do not know how should I write different these things, should we add copyright protection to every single English words because everybody else using them? These basic essential matches is the nature of the topic. It is clear this is a deliberate teasing. He is not interest to make the article great and useful for the readers, he totally removed my well detailed modern multimedia content to zero: (my version) OrionNimrod (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The way you're throwing around walls of text full of baseless accusations and conspiracy theories, all written in very broken English, reminds me very heavily of KIENGIR's modus operandi. If you honestly believe that me putting a template asking for gallery cleanup is "very brutal personal harassment" then go file a WP:RFAA. Azure94 (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Azure94 To answer your original question. The place where we do a comprehensive review of the entirety of someone's edits is WP:CCI. If you have found five or more instances of copyright violations, that is the place where you could file a request that a case be opened. — Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Image credit?

Hi, you seem to be adding image credits[32] contrary to MOS:CREDITS. Is there something I am missing or does the MOS need to be edited? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The text of the caption is copied from the copyright source, and therefore requires attribution. Hence the citation. It looks like the manual of style says not to do this, so I will not do it any more. — Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Benfield Hill

Hello Dianaa, The text added about Benfield Hill was key information and belongs on the Wikipedia page without question. i am surprised overlap with other texts was found. If you had given me some indication of a paragraph you found to have done so we could have rectified. In any case, I will take a closer look when I have time but your actions are unhelpful, counter the Wikipedia spirit and should have been addressed in a better way. Disappointed, Riparia Riparia Paolo Oprandi (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There were three paragraphs copied from this document, which is not compatibly licensed. Some but not all of the overlapping content is visible at the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. The rest I found via manual checking. — Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa, I am confused as what has happened now. I am almost certain that the text in the iThenticate which is matching the referenced source is not how I left the page. I am willing to concede that I may have saved the page like that in one of my four revisions for a number of minutes. I now don't seem to be able to retrieve the text as I left it because it says, "deleted from the public archives" and I can't find it in the deletion logs. The polite Wikipedian way of doing thing as I understood it is that we leave notes in the Discussion of the page and I would have sorted it. Is there now a way in which I can retrieve the text, please? Paolo Oprandi (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa looking closer - the report seems to have been run after my first edit at 21:32 where I must have accidentally saved it. By my last edit at 21:48 I do not believe the page would have returned matching text. If you are able, please reinstate the text and I will check for similarities with the referenced source. Paolo Oprandi (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have undone the revision deletion so that you can reveiw the edits in question. Sorry but the way we handle violations of our copyright policy is removal, not discussion. We typically handle around a hundred reports a day so it's really not practical with our tiny crew of patrollers to discuss violations before removing them.

Okay thank you @Diannaa. Sorry for taking it personally as well and thanks for your important work.

@Diannaa, I still can't see the history though. Please let me know how I can access it.

I opened it but I guess you actually didn't look at it. Look now. — Diannaa (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute

Hi there! You recently revdelled some copyvio edits on Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute. A new editor has just appeared and made what seems to be the same edits again (now reverted). Could you take a look and revdel them again if I’m correct? Thanks in advance. — Trey Maturin™ 08:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It's copied, but from a differnet source. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

J1407b copyvio

Hi @Diannaa: Reviewed this article. Earwig [33] states it 60% on [34] for the first para in "Ring System & Potential Moons". I'm not sure if it is copyvio. May be public domain but not sure. scope_creep^Talk 14:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The content was actually copied from V1400 Centauri, where it has been present since 2015. — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy

Hello, I wonder if you can help. A new editor had copy-pasted some text into Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. I've removed it and put a message on the editor's talk page. Then I have added great big templates to the article page and its talk page. I don't know if I'm also supposed to report it to a noticeboard somewhere or if I've already done enough / too much? Thanks for any advice Mgp28 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mgp28 and thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. Use of the template {{copyvio-revdel}} places the article in the maintenance category Category:Requested RD1 redactions and thus brings it to the attention of administrators. Someone will be along shortly to assess what happened and do the revision deletion. The template on the talk page is optional. — Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you for your help. Mgp28 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)