User talk:Diannaa/Archive 47

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

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Hi, thanks for leaving the message on my talk page. I shall keep the tips in mind. This is a slightly different issue, had posted it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Farman_editing but have not got any response so thought will ask you. The editor continues to strip every uncited piece removed be it a supporting Cast or plot. Could you please go through and see if you can help? I am not sure why the person didn't ask for citations instead of removing the plot completely for this show, or making the necessary changes? As I've said before in Talk Page with editor, these old shows do not have enough articles online on them, but the YouTube show clips are there, if any one wants to challenge/verify information. I understand not adding unnecessary information, but surely a premise and supporting cast is not too much to add. Thanks

) 17:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT. My interpretation is that a plot section should not need sourcing as long as it does not contain any analysis of themes or other subjective interpretations. But a cast list does need a source. — Diannaa (talk

) 18:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the links. Unfortunately the other editor disagreed and said ' So if you only address the issue of citations you'll doubtless write another overly long and subjective plot and it'll get deleted again ' So I have posted it in DRN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Farmaan . Thanks again for your views,

) 10:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa need your help again. The DRN was closed as further discussion was needed on talk page. The other editor and I are differing on viewpoints, if you could help us out by seeing how this plot can be edited and added back - this entire plot was deleted - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farmaan&diff=727190024&oldid=727189721 I don't find it subjective but the other editor says it will be deleted if I add it back. The editor took a very different position on DRN, changing their stance. They said as quoted in previous edit that the plot will be deleted again on Talk Page. However on DRN, they said they do not want an edit war. I am not sure what to do, did not get a response here either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Farman_editing. Thanks,

) 20:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am pretty busy with my copyvio work, and don't have time to help. What I usually do when talk page discussion turns unproductive is open a Request for Comment to attract additional users to the talk page. If you decide to do this, there's instructions at

WP:RFC. — Diannaa (talk

) 20:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information

talk

) 20:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Make sure you follow the directions exactly, so that the Request for Comment transcludes properly and therefore reaches a wide audience. I've done lots of these so if you want any help setting it up please let me know. — Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think of the IMDB copyright issue when entering the episode descriptions/synopses for "Mrs. Wiggins" - sorry about that! Can you reset the edit so that I can undo it, and save all the source links, and I will reenter the synopses but in my own wording? Thank you! Leopea (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather not post it on-wiki. If you could activate your Wikipedia email I could send you a copy by email? Let me know if this works for you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise to check for plagiarism. I checked the text with the plagiarism checkers and removed the sections which were highlighted (plagscan.com, grammarly.com, plagiarismsoftware.net). Would you be so kind and have a second look at it now? Thanks in advance ScienceGuard (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The one we use is our own tool on Labs; here is a link to to copyvio report. This version looks okay from a copyright point of view. Note that's not why the draft was declined the first time though. — Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa , I am a learning scholar. Thank you for the guidance. Yes I am aware that the initial decline had different reasons. I spent quite some time reworking these issues as well. Hope it will pass now. Have a good weekend ScienceGuard (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, this article may need further attention from you; the copyright and COI issues are persistent. May require a user block or page protection, as well as expunging the violations. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:ADED:89B3:C033:DBA2 (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The username violates the username policy as well. I have rev-del'd the edits and semi'd the page and will watch-list for a while. Thank you very much for reporting this. — Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thank you! 2601:188:1:AEA0:ADED:89B3:C033:DBA2 (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day! I've been looking through the contributions of User:MMC's, who recently appears to have copy-pasted text from a variety of websites into Migrant workers in the United Arab Emirates, Economy of the United Arab Emirates, Education in the United Arab Emirates, Legal system of the United Arab Emirates, and Gender Balance Council. However, they haven't had the chance to respond to my posts on their talk page. Is this the kind of situation where a block is in order, or is it preferable to wait and see whether the issue can be resolved going forward through dialogue? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Surprisingly, many people are not aware of copyright law, or if they are, that (unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, etc) we actually try to enforce it. I would consider today's post as a final warning, and any further copy vio should result in a block. I will monitor his contribs. — Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Could you check the MORT (long non-coding RNA) that you tagged for CSD G12? I have rewritten the parts of the article and TomStar81 would like "a second set of eyes on this before I pronounce the page as cleared for return to normal circulation." Thanks,ElmonstruodeGila (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@ElmonstruodeGila: Sorry for the delay. Spot checks of the opening segment reveal there is still a huge overlap and a lot of too-close paraphrasing. I am unable to find any record of TomStar81 commenting that the article might be ready. Where is that conversation? — Diannaa (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The conversation is here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 June 30 I can try to modify the opening segment, but as the article is now it is not supposed to be edited by anybody else than "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent" - do I have permission to edit? - ElmonstruodeGila (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 24#File:Voyage of the Little Mermaid - Disney's Hollywood Studios.jpg? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, — Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. FWIW, I certainly didn't intend for my above post to sound bossy, but it probably would have been better for me to add "when you have a spare moment" to it. Anyway, I apologize if it came off as more like an order than a request. That really wasn't my intent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary was meant as a joke, so sorry if you thought I felt put out. Glad to help. — Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I thought it might be, but just wanted to make sure. Thanks again for the clarification you provided at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. I hope everything is well. Sorry for the trouble but we have a case of close-paraphrasing and copyvios being added to Johnny Depp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by a new user. To exacerbate this, we have edit-warring and the use of non-reliable sources, not to mention BLP violations. Thank you as always. Dr. K. 16:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I have revision-deleted the material. User has not edited since ten-eleven hours ago so now we wait and see if the activity resumes. Thanks for reporting and for issuing the appropriate warnings. — Diannaa (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very Dianna. Sounds like a plan. :) Take care. Dr. K. 17:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Do you know of an editor who can help with User_talk:NeilN#right_of_using_File:Hovind.281.29.jpg? The image is here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Neil. I have posted there on your talk. — Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, Unless I'm mistaken, the content that you reverted for using copyrighted material was text I copied and adapted from other existing Wikipedia pages (the text was has been on a half-dozen Wikipedia pages for Big Ten Universities for at least 3 years; e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Michigan&oldid=538576517#Research). The source you cite as being the likely copyright holder (http://collegestudentforlife.blogspot.com/2015/03/university-of-minnesota.html) is a blog entry posted on March 13, 2015 that is itself a full copy of the University of Minnesota Wikipedia page from that time (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Minnesota&oldid=656500924). If it is determined that the text I adapted on Wikipedia was itself illegally copied from another source when originally posted by user DMB112 in February of 2013, I'd be happy to compose new text to put on all of the relevant pages. -- Literaldeluxe (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see we have had the prose for quite some time, pre-dating that blog post. My apologies for the mistake. In the future if you copy material from one wiki page to another, could you please say so in your edit summary on the destination page as to where you got the content? In fact attribution is required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license. Here is a sample edit summary. — Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You recently added an attribution statement to the article. Please use references and citation templates to mark specific locations where our article is quoting from that article. Since the majority of the content in the article was added by me, and I have never heard of that other site, it would be very helpful to have more specific attribution. Thanks! ···

! 05:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the attribution is not actually required, since the content was removed already. Sorry for the mistake, the content had actually already been removed when I added the tag. — Diannaa (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. In the future, it's best to put something like that in as either a reference for the specific part(s) which were copied, as a link in an edit summary, or as a notice on the talk page. It should generally not be part of the main text of the article. ···

Join WP Japan

! 05:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. It seems you suppressed most of the content in the page on Akhmed Chatayev, claiming it contains copyrighted material from Amnesty and another website. However, the Amnesty website can freely be reproduced, as said at https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/permissions/: "Except where otherwise noted, content in Amnesty International Materials is licensed under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence." Also, I do not understand why most of the content was removed, and not just the infringing content, nor why this removed content cannot be viewed in the revision history. Kindly reply at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Akhmed_Chatayev#Refugee_status. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but the non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0 licence is not a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You tagged

05:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned you in passing over at a newly opened ANI regarding the new user Vasesmuddyne. The ANI is here]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your template "attribution" warning concerning copying within Wikipedia. Apparently you missed the article talk page. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did, thanks for pointing that out. It would be helpful (and it is recommended at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia) that you mention in your edit summary at the destination page that the material was copied from another article. "At minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., 'copied content from [page name]; see that page's history for attribution'." If you could do this in the future, that would be great, and would help speed up checking bot reports at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/, which is the place where I found out about your edit. — Diannaa (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant to at the time. Wrote the summary. Forgot to do it. Facepalm. Added note on talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Under what circumstances should an editor, who is not an administrator, copyright clerk, or OTRS agent, edit text blanked by {{

) 00:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Reading the instructions, it looks to me like all editing is supposed to take place on a temporary subpage while the copyvio core template is in place. On the other hand, reverting edits that remove infringing content is not something I would do. It just seems wrong — Diannaa (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Diannaa on that. If an

our instructions are pretty clear: "Replace the text with one of the following …" (original bolding). Not many editors actually do that, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk

) 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa and Justlettersandnumbers. I've been doing it wrong then; I wish I would have known that sooner. So if the infringing content should be removed, is the point of {{subst:copyvio}} just to get admin/clerk review or allow for possible release under license? I should just fix the problem and mark with {{copyvio-revdel}} in most cases then. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The way I understand it is that we only need to use the copyvio core when we are unsure, or if the matter is being contested, or if it's so complex that you don't wish to attempt to clean the article yourself. In most cases, cleaning and tagging for revision deletion works better. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the public domain template for me instead of just deleting the content. I'll try not to forget to do so in the future.

123 03:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa,

I recently changed my employer's Wikipedia page to better reflect the current standing of the company (CANARIE). I received a notification this morning stating that I have a conflict of interest, as well as using copyrighted material in some of my edits, so all of my changes have been deleted.

Could you please expand upon what copyright material I was using? I remember only adding a single image, which belongs to CANARIE, but how would I go about proving that they own this image?

Also, how do I go about editing the Wikipedia page while avoiding a conflict of interest? I do work for CANARIE, but I do need to change some of the information on the page as some of it is out of date with what is currently going on at the company. Can you please advise as to what my next steps should be so that I can edit some of the information without infringing upon Wikipedia's policies?

Thank you for your patience. This is my first time posting to Wikipedia, and I do no entirely understand all of the nuances and posting policies as of yet.

Your help is most appreciated.

Thanks,

Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik canarie (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that 209.207.50.169, a contributor you reverted because of violating copyright, has restored the copyrighted content from the same source: http://www2.abs-cbn.com/Weekdays/cast/article/6378/habangmaybuhay/Habang-May-Buhay.aspx. I've reverted the edit adding the material. May I request some more revdeleting, and possibly a block, because it's already been warned? Thanks. Minima© (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted and removed a bit more that got missed in the first round. Since it's just the one IP so far, I have issued a block for a week. — Diannaa (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, thank you for letting me know. I'm a little confused though, since I've read that Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. I tried to summarize them as best as I could and I had no intention of plagiarizing them. It would be helpful for my future contributions if you could kindly tell me how and where I violated copyright. Thank you in advance for your answer. --Allen Nozick (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of the material you added was copied directly from here. All content you add to this wiki needs to be in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk)

so I should just rephrase everything from any news source? alright that isn't a problem. Or is there something else i should take in mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycoperdon (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. Don't copy anything you find online. — Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

After reading their permissions and licence page they seem to be completely okay with word by word copying until it is for non profit and has adequate reference. Either way, It is unquestionably more future proof removing stuff outright. Just came here to clear my IP before I become a "persistent violator". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.25.158 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but the Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence is not a compatible license with this wiki, for several reasons. Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? lists compatible licenses. Non-commercial, no derivatives licenses are not compatible because Wikipedia aims to be re-useable by anyone for any purpose, even commercial uses. "No derivatives" means we are not allowed to paraphrase or change the text in any way; again this is not compatible with Wikipedia editing, where prose is changed and amended all the time to suit our needs. And finally, the Wikimedia legal department has stated that in their opinion the Creative Commons 4.0 license is not backwards-compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for any problems I've caused. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over a decade but only in 2016 I started paying more attention to the back-end "talk" pages etc. I find it all very overwhelming, confusing, daunting and often arbitrary. I definitely am guilty of copying and pasting within Wikipedia assuming I was doing it well enough. You might want to re-check these 4 pages I was trying to synch up:

. I have other questions. About these talk pages, do I have to write this on your talk page or mine, and when can I delete old conversations? I even tried to write my first page, but failed. Would you please give me feedback on it? Thanks in advance, sorry for my ignorance. JasonCarswell (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you reply on your own talk page, it's best to ping the person using the {{reply to}} template. You can manage your user talk page any way you like. Some people just remove messages after they've read them, but it's a good practice to set up an archiving system. What I've found is when I have a question I put the prefix WP: before the topic I want to learn about and search for that, and I usually find the help page I am looking for. For example, help on archiving a page can be found at WP:Archiving. For detailed help on any topic, I suggest you go to the WP:Teahouse, where experienced editors who specialize in helping new users are on standby. I looked at your draft Draft:James Corbett (journalist) and it was declined for notability reasons. That means the subject of the article needs to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks sooo much for your wisdom. Sorry to bother you again but how would I be able to move this conversation back to my talk page where I'll keep it for reference? JasonCarswell (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You could copy it over in its entirety if you like, or you could store it as a wikilink. Previous revision of User talk:Diannaa — Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh hey, it's not necessarily about being wise; it's knowing where to look for the answers. Also, been here a while. Wiki is hard; it is known — Diannaa (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like he is back, once again, as User:DoNotKillMePlease555. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:42 on July 7, 2016 (UTC)

All edits have been reverted. A CU might be useful to check for sleepers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:46 on July 7, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Dianna and Ohnoitsjamie. Much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:06 on July 8, 2016 (UTC)

Since CaptainHog has created another sock (User:AAAAA001), which Sro23 caught in seconds, I'm wondering if an SPI/Checkuser would be out of the question? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:36 on July 8, 2016 (UTC)

He must have access to a range of IPs to be able to create another acct so soon (he should have been caught in a 3-day autoblock). A checkuser may be able to calibrate a range block. Catching him and having him blocked within 6 minutes like we did may make him think twice about bothering us again anytime soon though, so I wonder if it's worthwhile. Reminder: I am not a checkuser. — Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but you are an admin. People are more likely to listen to you than me. :) But I don't mind doing the leg work on this one. My guess is he probably got blocked on the first via his home network and the second via mobile. Had that happen with another vandal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21 on July 9, 2016 (UTC)

If he is editing in a mobile, it's possible for him to be assigned a different IP every time he visits the Internet. — Diannaa (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. People know and trust you as well. — Diannaa (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I asked Kelapstick (via IRC) and he said that neither accounts had sleepers on the IPs they used. So we're good there. While he had "no idea" regarding rangeblocks, he was able to tell me that the IPs used were "not close".

Just to cover all bases, I asked GorillaWarfare to check the IPs to see if a rangeblock to the seperate ranges was possible. He said there way too much users on both ranges, too much collateral damage. So, we are back to whack-a-mole.

I do think a month's worth of semi-protection on the

WSFF, WVBE-FM and WVBB pages (the pages he his the most) and a week's worth of semi-protection on the WJJS, WPLY (AM)‎, WJJX, and WROV-FM pages would at least calm him down. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 01:00 on July 9, 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have another DUCK sock: User:Argh6262. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:17 on July 9, 2016 (UTC)

But all I did was point out a typo. That's not worth getting all pissy about and making assumptions. Argh6262 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Should I request another CU for that IP/account as well? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:31 on July 9, 2016 (UTC)

I guess so, — Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Kelapstick ran the CU and didn't find any sleepers. Totally different range too. Last night, I said CaptainHog probably used his home network for one and mobile for the other. Today, I think he is using a VPN, which would explain the different ranges. He could be using proxies, which VPNs run on, wish we had the proxy blocker we had a few years back. That would definitely put a stop to it. Anywho, I think page protection is still our best bet, because I figure he'll pop up later (or tomorrow) with another sock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59 on July 9, 2016 (UTC)

I am still on the fence about that, because all he did today was post on user talk pages, — Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

True, I guess I'm just trying to prevent him from causing any problems on mainspace pages. That's where I'm coming from there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:51 on July 10, 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianaa,

Thanks for your comments on Biometric device article. I have been working as a biometric project manager for last 4 years. So all the information I had put in the article is based on my personal experience and knowledge.

You have removed all of it saying "it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder". I also have this information on my blog for last 4 years. http://prasadchaubal.blogspot.in/2012/09/evaluating-automated-biometric.html

You can run a google search and I am pretty sure that you will not find this information anywhere. That is why I added it on wikipedia so the community gets benefited from what I have learnt in last 4 years.

So can we please agree on best bay to move forward?

Thanks Prasad Chaubal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaubals (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright issue, you can't copy material here that has been previously published online unless special permissions are in place. Copyright holders who wish to release material to Wikipedia under license need to follow the instructions at

WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:No original research. So please don't use your own blog as a source. — Diannaa (talk

) 13:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. Somehow I was under the impression that I could use my personal experience as a source. Will be careful next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaubals (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. I would like to learn from this editing mistake and assure that my choice of text from the source, and any similar editing I may do, complies with sufficient rewriting from the source to be acceptable at WP. Can you give me some guidance on this edit please? Thanks. Following your reply here. --Zefr (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The material was copied pretty much unaltered from the source paper and was picked up by a bot as a copyright violation. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. Where possible, use different terminology, present the material in a different order, and so on. What works for me is I try to imagine that I am describing the subject in my own words to a friend in conversation. For this particular addition, you've got several main points: The bird may be using ultrasonic vibrations as a way to flush out and disorient its insect prey, its songs differ in several respects from other oscine birds in that it uses sharp atonal forceful trills and clicks, and it has an unusually large vocal range of 1.8 to 30 kHz. — Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That was my intent, actually. How could I rework this satisfactorily? Perhaps a draft posted here on your Talk for joint editing? I'd like to be able to see the original edit, if possible without the strikeout. --Zefr (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to post the source material on-wiki because it's a copyright violation. Here's a suggested wording: "The bird may be using ultrasonic vibrations as a way to flush out and disorient its insect prey. Its songs differ in several respects from other oscine birds in that it uses sharp atonal forceful trills and clicks, and it has an unusually large vocal range of 1.8 to 30 kHz." — Diannaa (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to say, I would be happy to send you the source material via email if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll post that revision and recite the Pytte article. Yes to the email, please and thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Email is on its way now. — Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that U.S. senators are copyrighting their press releases ... press releases are freely distributable and typically not copyrightable. GrandLake editor (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" and as such is not eligible for copyright protection. Sorry for the mistake, for some reason I thought he was a New York State employee. — Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I researched the information, I wrote it and I provided said references. How would you like me to proceed?--RAF910 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the unneeded notification. I already added the attribution, so there's nothing further that needs doing. In the future if you could mention the copying in your edit summaries (whether you're the sole author or not), it would be helpful for those of us clearing the bot reports at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

OK..what you wrote to the comment section..."Attribution: Content in this section was copied here from Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 on July 8, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution"...is that what your talking about?--RAF910 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. If you copy from one Wikipedia article to another (or from other compatibly licensed material), you should use an edit summary like that one. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh...that's easy...I thought it was going to be some long drawn out process. I'll remember to do that from now on, even on my own edits. Although I've been on Wiki for a while, I don't have a working knowledge of the bureaucracy and its regulations. I just stay in my own little world, if you know what I mean.--RAF910 (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There's various templates available too, that we use for example when splitting off part of a big article to create another article. You can see a recent example at

PD-notice}}, for when you copy a big excerpt from a public domain source. It just goes on and on :). If you need any help with this sort of stuff in the future, feel free to post here and I will try to help. — Diannaa (talk

) 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You...I will try not to drive you crazy with too many questions--RAF910 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, regarding your note, I actually had no idea that that link existed (!), and mind you, I had done a pretty thorough search to find proper information regarding him. The information of which I based those sentences were taken from a seemingly copy-right free link. Odd, guess sometimes there are more fishy things going on than we'd expect. Anyways, thanks much for letting me know, and, of course, for having solved it. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help for an advice idunno how to explain this properly too much trouble... But its kinda... My images which in the

wiki or is not violated since it was a free source, (also they stated that my work is Propaganda) although its not since propaganda has not a source , and my image was made up, But it had a source based on the articles references itself.

Plus their accusations of propaganda was in the history of my old account User:Philipandrew, in that time arround 2014, i dont know yet multi accounts are prohibited in wiki, So i been ground but i think its not the reason to use it in this new account i made i making alot of Contributions here so far, But some deletionist tried to Use it as a weapon against me.

since the references i made idon't know how to fight them in legal way) since im not really famillar to other policies Except on the copyrights, But if you give me hand for just advice it will be a big help. Thanks if you can give me a link for where should i send my complain, Iam for the Neutrarilty of wikipedia.. (thanks) ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

Other Wikipedia pages and maps you created yourself cannot be considered as reliable sources for this wiki. What makes this a reliable source? Here you photoshopped an image and tried to use it in our encyclopedia. That is not okay. Also creating sockpuppets to present yourself with barnstars is not going to fool anybody. It looks to me like this activity is still happening as recently as June 2016. You need to quit doing that if you expect anybody to take you seriously. — Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi

WT:TAMBAY and other talk pages of concerned articles. Appreciate your kind advise. Thanks. --RioHondo (talk

) 03:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(

WikiBullying which is also one of the situations that the Wikipedia community cannot be tolerated. Hamham31Heke!KushKush!

04:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Hamham31. Im actually more concerned on his intentional OR edits and posting fake images and dubious sources. I know he also failed miserably at his recent SPI against me and another user who opposes him. And he engages in edit war not just with me but another WikiPhilippine member Obsidiansoul. I will leave it to the admins to act on his behavior and more importantly those malicious OR edits of his and his numerous other accounts.--RioHondo (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is not the place to talk about it. Let's not disturb Diannaa with this problem. I will visit your talk page privately. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 05:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Howdy! I worked on the

article. Dr. Dean gave me a picture of himself to use in the article (File:StephenODeanPicture.jpg). But you marked it for deletion. I guess I filled out the permission form incorrectly.

How do you configure permissions for a picture of someone - when they send you the picture (of them) and give you their own consent to use that picture in their wikipedia article?

Thanks in Advance! Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J Moynihan WikiHelper2134 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

What you need to do is get an OTRS ticket in place on the file. This is done by arranging for the copyright holder to send a permission email to the OTRS team. There's detailed instructions at

OTRS pending}} template to the file description page to prevent the image from being deleted before the email gets processed. — Diannaa (talk

) 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A couple of additional points to consider: the subject of a photo is not normally the copyright holder, unless it was commissioned as “work for hire“, and the permission must license the image freely, not being restricted to Wikipedia alone.—Odysseus1479 20:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I was looking for something in the old NFCR archives when I came across

) 01:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, didn't know this file is non-free. Please feel free to replace it if needed. Thanks for informing, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no rationale for its inclusion in Cheetah, especially in a gallery. I have removed it. — Diannaa (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, I'm rewritten the sections following the wiki guidelines ("put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase"). It's all 'in my own words and sections' now. Thanks dunmanus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunmanus (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Putting everything in quotation marks is not a substitute for properly paraphrasing the material. It's still too much, with a 82.3 per cent overlap with the source. The problem can be fixed with additional paraphrasing and the omission of less important details. I have done that for you now. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I usually pester Moonriddengirl with copyright questions but I know how much she loves list questions so I thought I'd check with you. What I learned from her is that a list that does not incorporate creative elements is usually okay (e.g. a list of the elements) but a list that does incorporate creative elements is probably not okay (e.g. best pictures of all time).

When I first looked at

I thought I would accept it as a false positive due to it being a list. However I'm troubled by the comment at the source "Assigning members of the club to single categories is often obviously quite arbitrary:". On the one hand, an individual is unambiguously a member of the club or not so the overall list is not a creative list. However, the copied material is not simply the list of members but the assignment to categories. Somewhat ironically, the recorded statement says the assignment is arbitrary which is almost the opposite of creative, but it obviously isn't random, so I'm on the fence.

One possibility is to accept that the list of individual names can be used, but we should undertake to assign them to categories based upon existing Wikipedia categories and not rely on the source material categorization.

As an additional comment I don't know anything about the source so I don't know whether it qualifies as a reliable source but that's not really a copyright question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it arbitrary to describe Lewis Carroll as an author rather than a mathematician and Darwin as a scientist rather than an author. They are categorised by what they are best known for. But all the same I would be tempted to place the entire list alphabetically, as the categorization serves no real purpose. The source website does not look like a particularly reliable source to me. What source material was used to prepare the list? Who compiled it? — Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I was unaware I was breaching copyright rules when adding to St George (advertisement) but now that I have gone over which parts you have had to modify to remove copyrighted text, I would like to re-add the removed information in a way that does not breach copyright.

I propose these re-wordings but please check they are okay. Text I have marked in bold is text that is currently in the article (added here to give context to the new text I propose to add). Text I have marked in italics show changes I have made from the original text in the copyrighted source.

From the Broadcast section: "Public relations firm Freud Communications worked with Britvic in publicising St George by making "a celebrity" out of the otherwise unknown Ray Gardner, arranging for Gardner to be interviewed by The Sun and The Mirror, and for Gardner to appear on TFI Friday.[1]

This is still almost identical to the source website. How about this: "Public relations firm Freud Communications worked with Britvic in publicising St George by making "a celebrity" out of the otherwise unknown Ray Gardner, arranging for him to be interviewed on television and in the newspapers."

From the Reception section: "The ITC dismissed the complaints because the advertisement's humour was in the same tradition of xenophobic British humour such as Alf Garnett or Basil Fawlty.[2]

This is still almost identical to the source website. How about this: "The ITC dismissed the complaints, characterising the humour as harmless and likening it to what viewers might see on Fawlty Towers.".

From the Accolades section: "and in November 1997, St George was the grand prize winner in the London International Advertising Awards,[2] beating 7,000 entries from 78 countries to win the coveted prize.[3] (The original text featured "grand" between "coveted" and "prize" and made note that the awards were a black-tie award ceremony afterwards)

This is still almost identical to the source website. How about this: "and in November 1997, St George was selected as the grand prize winner from among 7,000 entries from 78 countries at the London International Advertising Awards." Leave out "coveted"; you sound like you're selling something.

As for the entire removal of content from the Campaign Live source ([4]) in the Broadcast section, I would like to reapply the information in a new fashion. This is how I intend to do this, and I have been careful to re-word the source like I have above but please check if this is still okay:

"The unusual scheduling of St George in advert breaks of TFI Friday was planned by George Michaelides of Michaelides & Bednash, and today his actions are considered revolutionary;[5] For the Channel 4 TV Planning Awards 2006's "planner's planner," where figures of the industry explained who they each consider to be the single pre-eminent television planner whose pioneering TV work has helped change the media landscape, Vizeum UK's joint managing director, Matt Andrews, cited Michaelides, explaining:

Followed by the quote which you removed. I would like to reapply the quote if it is possible as I feel it explains the scenario quite well on how St George's scheduling was revolutionary.

Thank you, TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The quote is of course fine to include once the copyvio is fixed (I only removed it because it made no sense without the context). Your version is still not okay from a copyright point of view, and is so convoluted as to be difficult to parse. Here's a simplified and copyright-compliant version: "Scheduling the commercial in advert breaks of TFI Friday was considered unusual, even revolutionary, at the time. The idea came from George Michaelides of Michaelides & Bednash. Vizeum UK's joint managing director, Matt Andrews, considered Michaelides to be a worthy candidate for a prize at the 2006 Channel 4 TV Planning Awards. Andrews explains:"

General tips: Use different wording from the source material. Present it in a different order. Simplify; imagine that you are verbally describing the subject to a friend. Try to pluck out the key points and put them in your own words. The result should ideally be prose where not even three words are together in the same sequence as the source. For more advice on paraphrasing, you might like to look at the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing or this piece from Purdue. — Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for you help and for the general tips, and I have added your suggestions to the page. However I feel I should ask, can I add "alone" after "Scheduling the commercial in advert breaks of TFI Friday", because I feel otherwise it makes it look like scheduling the advertisement in TFI Friday ad breaks is what is unusual as if it was a show they would not advertise during, when in fact the unique nature was that it was only scheduled in TFI Friday advert breaks and no other shows. TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, how do you recommend I describe the Assuming Positions exhibition (in the Reception section). It is currently without description, leaving how the advert fits into the exhibition unknown. The exhibition showed, in the words of The Independent article, "how art could come from commercial sources", and I'm unsure how to re-word this.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The title of the exhibition catalogue was "Assuming positions : objects of art, lounge core, beige revolution" and here we see a fuller description of what the exhibition was all about. So you might like to include a broader description such as "The exhibit examined how art could be created from a number of unexpected sources". You might like to have a look at Whaam!. As far as additional wordings, I have no problem with adding the word "alone". — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and sorry for the belated response. I am updating the page accordingly.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

I appreciate all your hard work in continuing to uphold Wikipedia's incredible standards. I noticed that all of the changes I made over the last several days for Colonial Dames of America's Wikipedia page were removed. The organization has been attempting to change the page for several weeks and changes are being reverted almost immediately. Is there a way to revert what you did last night where you removed the entirety of the work I have done? If there is anything I can do to keep the integrity of this page out of question please let me know. However, as the page looks now it is extremely limited in the information it shares and is incredibly harmful to the organization to have such a bland and uninformative Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Dames_of_America&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDA Brendan (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there

neutral point of view. Much of the content that is suitable for your own website is not the kind of content we are looking for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Instead of editing the article yourself, you are supposed to put content suggestions on the article's talk page. And 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. — Diannaa (talk

) 20:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this one for copyvio please? My google foo isn't working properly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Government works (other than the text of legislation) are protected in India for 60 years from publication date. Finding the source documents was tricky as the material is all in "frames" and hence is invisible to Earwig's tool. However the old-school Duplication Detector can find the overlap once various sources are located by Googling snippets of prose throughout the article and looking for matches. All done, — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've never used either tool, I just do a visual comparison but that was a bit of a problem as google search was acting up for me. I came to this one courtesy of Drmies who seems to have found religion now and is looking to turn orthodox. —SpacemanSpiff 01:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd respond, but using technology is specifically forbidden in my new-found orthodoxy. Drmies (talk)

Hi Diana, I am the website manager for haynesintl.com and added the new content last week. Could you explain to me what I will need to do differently, or what permissions I need? The content on here is in desperate need of updating. I also updated the sources, as they were wrong and led to broken pages. All of these sources appear to be valid. Please let me know. Kierstin13 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I am unable to determine which article you are talking about, as you don't mention the article by name, and this edit to my talk page is your very first edit, so I have no way of tracing what you are talking about. — Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I guess it’s Haynes International, where you rev-del’d some copyvio a couple of weeks ago, and where the same IP that added it has since been reverted by another user.—Odysseus1479 21:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case the reason it was removed is because it was copied directly from the copyright corporate web pages. @

neutral point of view. Much of the content that is suitable for your own website is not the kind of content we are looking for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Instead of editing the article yourself, you are supposed to put content suggestions on the article's talk page. And 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. — Diannaa (talk

) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Issue

Hello. You removed some of my

metacompiler

edits on a copyright issue. Unfortunately I can not remember those edits.

So I am not sure exactly what I wrote. Or exactly the specific copyrighted meterial's content. I do not recall specificly copying any meterial. Was it something a put in both the META II an metacompiler artical?

In referaces I do copy a sentence or two. But I see that a lot and believe is legal. Can you give specifics as to the copyrighted work in question.

Your addition was picked up by a bot as being a copyright violation. The source document was http://www.ibm-1401.info/Meta-II-schorre.pdf. It's not okay to copy directly from your sources, not even a sentence or two. It violates both copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. All material you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. I can send you a copy of the deleted material via email if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

I have nominated many files for deletion on Commons, and just now I came across the file File:JSheadshot.png here on Wikipedia. As you can see, the claim is that the author is the same person as the subject in the picture, which I think is extremely unlikely [6]. I think it must be assumed that someone else took that picture. To me it just seems unreasonable that a rather prominent person would set up a camera to take a picture of himself. In the page history, in late May, I see that you wrote, "remove deletion tag for now, pending OTRS outcome". Perhaps you forgot about the file because you deal with so many of them, plus your other Wikipedia activities? No one edited the file after that action that you took, so I believe the file was released illegally into the public domain. I'm not blaming you, or anything like that, and I very much appreciate all the work you do, but I thought I should bring this matter to your attention as a precaution. Best wishes, Dontreader (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dontreader. The image won't get forgotten, because it is included in the maintenance category

OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days qualify for deletion under speedy deletion criterion F11. The backlog for messages sent to the permissions-en queue is currently 61 days, so this image and any others that have been tagged as OTRS pending from April 2016 and earlier should probably be tagged for F11 deletion. — Diannaa (talk

) 20:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Diannaa. Pretty much all I do on Commons every now and then is nominate files for deletion, to help out OTRS people and admins there, but of course I don't know any of the procedures that OTRS agents and admins are very familiar with, both on Wikipedia and Commons. I think I saw you on Commons a billion years ago, by the way. Anyway, thanks for very kindly explaining the situation to me, and have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, I'm sorry to bother you but...the disruptive F1 editor who you counselled about copy-violations just a few days ago is I believe, doing the same thing as an IP on this new draft. Copy-vio report here and original article here. Quite substantial amounts seem to have been carried over. Please can you advise the best course of action? Thanks. Although you left messages on both the editor's talk-page and at the IP he was using at the time, he probably did not see the latter before the IP changed and the former has been removed. Thanks for any assistance or advice you can give. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work at that page. There was even more than I realised. Eagleash (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I know you're very good with copyright issues. Would you mind giving a second opinion on a copyright issue I posted at Talk:Uber Everywhere? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thank you for the guidance - as you rightly surmise, I'm new here and trying to help :) I'm surprise that you've removed the certificate's contents section entirely, rather than quoting it, or changing the way I've done the citation - as it's regulation, it's a statement of fact that those are the contents of these certificates. If I change this significantly, then the contents becomes erroneous. I think the article was better with the contents of the certificate included as it's more complete. How should we/I include that kind of information whilst meeting wikipedia's guidelines? Hazelwhicher (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hazelwhicher. Sorry, with the volume of potential copyright violations that need to be assessed each day it is not possible for me to re-write the content in all instances, though I occasionally do so. The content was copied from this page, which is not the regulation, it's a copyright web page published by the Health and Safety Executive. The actual legislation in the UK is available under a compatible Open Government Licence v3.0, so it would be okay to add that, as long as you properly attribute it. — Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar for Richard Feynman. I have spent three days working on it and it has been one of the most difficult articles that I have ever had to deal with. Worse than John von Neumann. I was hoping that someone else would do it, but no such luck. Now we have to find someone to review it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could make the time to do it – I am super busy with the copyvio work. — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You sure are :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Hey! There's not a question about it; I could've improved the article (Cold Water (song)). No reason to delete the whole thing without my permission! These type of roadblocks make me want to give up on Wikipedia. Spent hours and hours on that page. As it seems, now I have to start from the scratch again. — Hurrygane 15:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(

"permission". Ian.thomson (talk

) 12:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and @Hurrygane: it wasn't Diannaa who redirected the page. All she did was remove your plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Understood my mistake but why it was redirected? Did you redirect it? No-brainer: Cold Water is going to be released soon. — Hurrygane 15:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC) (edit) Figured out who did it. — Hurrygane 15:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been directly copied from http://desmondfishlibrary.org/independ.htm, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you for your edits. Although I could not bring up the before/after comparison I was able to see what you mean. Actually, I had not been to the page you suggest as the cause for what you deleted. I suspect they obtained it from the reference I found. Regardless, I have instead replaced this with new language and citations. Thank you for your efforts. Info update (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, hope you are well.

Can you please delete these revisions on my talk page ([7]), ([8]) and ([9]). As you can see, they are by socks of Profile101 and are purely disruptive and also threatening and i don't want these seen by other people. Thank you!

) 13:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Class455fan1. All done, — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Diannaa!

talk

) 19:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again

talk

) 15:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Class455fan1, I've taken care of it. And it's [[Special:Diff/731160182]] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Neil!

talk

) 15:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. Out of the files I reported here last time, this one, which was taken from here, didn't get deleted. Isn't it copyrighted? - NitinMlk (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That one was not actually included in your post of June 14; it was this one wish a similar name. I am not an admin on the Commons so I cannot do the actual deletion, but I have tagged it. — Diannaa (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry for bothering you again regarding the Commons' copyvios! BTW, I did mention the following in my 14 June post: "The uploader who uploaded this image has uploaded one more image in October 2013 whose higher resolution version appeared here in May 2013." Then again, I reported around half a dozen images in tandem and it was easy to miss one. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay i guess it was my fault then, so sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

...for the tip about the iThenticate report. I was initially ignoring it, because I wasn't sure how to use it, but I am now using it much more, and getting more done. There's so much to do, though :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't let it freak you out. There's some stuff that did not yet get checked from June 15 to 26 (while I was away in B.C.), but other than that we are holding our own. :) — Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you added a {{soft redirect}} on my userpage. I want that Visitors will be force-redirected without a 2. click. Is this possible? --Keks by 22:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It won't force a redirect, because the page does not exist on this wiki. The soft redirect works better from a technical point of view, because the other way your user page appears on the list of broken redirects. Another way to do it is to create a user page on meta, and use that for all wikis. Please see Wikipedia:Global user page for more information on how to set that up. — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you for this detailed information :) --Keks by 08:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa! As a part of the team that works with the Laka Competition I assumed that I do not need to prove the fact that I am the copyright holder. Thank you for explaining that. Having read the details of the rules you have shown me I finally decided to paraphrase the contents in other words. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbpllv (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask you for your help on how can I get the page Airbag (Norwegian band) restored or approved when changed appropriately. What exactly do I need to provide so that the page doesn't get deleted? More proof with links that the band exists, not exactly sure what is needed? Also why isn't the German page of the band deleted, since it looks similar to the one I created? Sorry if this isn't the correct way to contact you, I'm not used to the Wikipedia user interface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kustodian (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion in 2013,

WP:BAND. Your version of the article, while it included a little more information than the versions that were deleted in 2013 and January 2016, did not include any sources independent of the subject of the article that would establish that the band is notable enough as Wikipedia defines it at this time to qualify for an article. If you wish to discuss matters on the German wiki you will have to go there, as they are a separate project and we have no control over what happens there. — Diannaa (talk

) 20:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for visiting the page. Can you please guide me which material is having the copyright issue. So that I can get the permission from the copyright holder. Would appreciate your help. thank you. (Jasline Joy (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC))

Content was copied from the following copyright sources:

• http://www.ecsfin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Press-Release.pdf
• http://www.citigroup.com/transactionservices3/homepage/demo/Citi_Prime_Finance_IT_Survey/files/assets/seo/page16.html
• http://ecsfin.com/about-us/
• https://ibsintelligence.com/ibs-journal/ibs-news/ambank-rolls-out-ecs-payment-solutions/ — Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Many thanks for the clarification regarding the page, it is greatly appreciated to have someone take the time to point this out so clearly and extensively. The element you rightly deleted under RD1 is the same one that exists on the Lithuanian wiki page - I was translating this too, is there some way you can prod someone to appropriately edit that too? Thanks again. Best, Nicnote (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you do it? I do not speak Lithuanian it's better that I don't try to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Best, Nicnote (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again for the help. Best, Nicnote (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, admin User:Homo_ergaster reverted my change? Best, Nicnote (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is on the LT wiki here https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenkija_Europos_S%C4%85jungoje

I suggest you take it up with him, or contact one of their administrators to find out how to proceed. — Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, the content that I added to the page was not taken by me from the webpage that you mentioned. I copy-pasted it form

) 12:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Der Golem. Normally I detect when this is the case but that didn't happen in this instance for some reason. You can help prevent this type of error when copying content from one Wikipedia article to another by stating in your edit summary what the source page was. In fact we are required to do this as a way of providing attribution, which is required by the terms of our CC-by-SA license. If you could do this when moving content from one article another in the future, that would be perfect. Here is a sample edit summary. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, I didn't know that. Thanks, I will do next time, even though I copy-paste extremely rarely :) --Der Golem (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe I haven't run across this before. Someone attempted to create an article Inca Jungle by simply copying and pasting the contents of the wiki travel article. The licensing is fine so it's technically not a copyright violation so I didn't delete per G 12.

They failed to provide a source so I removed the material as unsourced, but had they simply sourced it that would still not be appropriate. We do allow editors to bring in large blocks of text from public domain or properly licensed sources in some cases, as long as they include the proper verbiage at the bottom indicating that it has been imported from another source. However, I can't believe we want people to start creating articles in Wikipedia by wholesale copying of wiki travel. I'm interested in your thoughts on how best to handle this, both in this particular case and in general.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There's several problems with the article. (1) copying licensed content without giving proper attribution is a copyright violation. (2). Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We don't want trail directions, advice on hotels, lists of what to pack, etc. (3) It's pointless to copy the content over here verbatim when the article already exists on Wikitravel. He has created two other articles: Choquequirao trek which is tagged for G11 (advert) speedy, but also qualifies as G12 (copyvio) because it is copied from here; and Salkantay trek, which is also tagged as G11, but also qualifies as G12 because it is an unattributed copy of the WikiTravel entry http://wikitravel.org/en/Salkantay_trek. G11 is not a bad fit but all three definitely qualify as G12. There's no point in adding the required attribution and keeping them even temporarily because they would not survive at AFD. I have deleted all three and posted a message on the user's talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

After posting, I realized that it wasn't quite right to say that it is not a copyright violation, but I trust you knew what I was getting at. I'm surprised I haven't run into this before. Thanks for cleaning it up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

I've gone through the process of declaring Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License for the following CANARIE pages:

• http://www.canarie.ca/identity/ • http://www.canarie.ca/cloud/ • http://www.canarie.ca/network/nren/institutions/ • http://www.canarie.ca/software/ and the images and text associated with the particular images at the following URLs: • http://www.canarie.ca/wp-content/uploads/AllianceMap_jan2015WEB.jpg • http://www.canarie.ca/wp-content/themes/canarie/img/canarie-logo.png

I emailed Wikipedia more than a week and a half ago, but haven't received a response yet. However, I would still like to update the CANARIE page in order to display the most up to date information for readers. I've written on the CANARIE talk page, with updates for the Wikipedia page, but in order to remain neutral I would need another party to update the page.

Would you be able to do so?

Please let me know when you can.

Thanks,

Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik canarie (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Erik. Sorry but the people who review the permissions emails have about a 60-day backlog so it might be a while yet before any of them assesses yours. As I explained on your talk page, there's a second problem with your submission:

neutral point of view. Much of the content that is suitable for your own website is not the kind of content we are looking for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Instead of editing the article yourself, you are supposed to put content suggestions on the article's talk page. And 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. — Diannaa (talk

) 20:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

I shall state the conflict of interest on my profile. However, I do still require that the page be updated. I have done what you said and posted comments and information on the talk part of the page. If you could please read the information and fill in the empty parts of the Wikipedia page, I would be very grateful. Otherwise I do not know how else to update the information on the page without coming into contact with a conflict of interest.

If you are unable to do so, could you please advise how I might get this information updated without breaching a conflict of interest?

Thank you,

Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik canarie (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of editing the article yourself, you are supposed to put content suggestions on the article's talk page. This is done using the {{Request edit}} template, which will place your suggested edit in the queue for review by Wikipedia editors. — Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh, I was unaware of the request edit function. I'll be sure to put it to use. Thank you for the help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik canarie (talk • contribs) 14:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dianna,

Over the last days I added the information about our company's rebranding and product to the wikipedia, under CARTO. We are now called CARTO and we rightfully own both the carto.com domain as well as the CARTO trade mark.

There was a previous article about a different product there, which I left, not to mess with anything from the past, but I feel that we have the right to be displayed there. Our previous name was CartoDB and we have a

page, why shouldn't we allowed to have it also represented at Carto?.

I am not completely familiar with editing at Wikipedia, (I had only done minor edits here or there in the past) so maybe I didn´t follow some of the guidelines, if you could point me out to the right way of doing this, or what I would need to correct, I would happily do so.

Many thanks Best Miguel Marias.carto (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marias.carto. There were several problems with your submission. (1) You can't take one of our articles and over-write it with content about a completely different topic. Each article has to have its own unique name. (2) A second problem is that some of the content you added was picked up by a bot as being a copyright violation, copied from this journal article. We can't accept copyright material without the express written release of the material under license by the copyright holder. (3) Checking online, I see that according to this website Johnson & Johnson is still selling the CARTO system, produced by a company called Biosense Webster. I suggest your best option at this point is to contact our legal department at [email protected] as I don't feel this is the sort of thing a volunteer editor should be getting involved in at this point. — Diannaa (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand, regarding (1) I understand (while I didn't deleted their content, I thought they coud coexist). We need to figure out who has the main right to own CARTO article page then. (2) is weird since we had never seen that report, and while it relates to the same concepts, it is certainly not the same texts ;). We will change those texts in any case. Re (3) we will then contact [email protected] for this. Thanks Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marias.carto (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Diannaa. On the metacompiler removed test copyright issue. Is this an approate copy-referance method? It is from another article on lexeeless parsers. I changed it to a block quote and added the commonly used book name "Dragon Book". The whole test was given as a reference. - A.K.A. "The Dragon Book" text.

A lexeme is a sequence of characters in the source program that matches the pattern for a token and is identified by the lexical analyzer as an instance of that token.^[1]

Most of the information on META II comes from a paper written by Dewey Val Schorre that is in the UCLA archives and also in an ACM publication. Who owns the copyright? It was freely handed out by Schorre. Same identical text.

I need to get this correct. In describing programming languages that have specified meaning of their languafe constructs it is hard to describe specifications in a different wording. Is the lexeme blockquote above allright? I am interested in what was deleted. But do not wish my email address made public. Already have enough junk to deal with.Steamerandy (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. The copyright holder is the author of the material, unless they have specifically assigned copyright to someone else (for example, professional photographers). 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. Have a look at some of the links I placed on your talk page for more information on copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. As far as possible, content you add to this wiki should be written in your own words please. Technical material is very difficult to paraphrase effectively without losing the meaning. Short properly attributed quotations are okay. So what you should to is introduce the block quote by adding a short introduction, making the attribution clear. For example, "Aho et al define 'lexeme' as follows:" and then place the block quote.

I see you have your Wikipedia email activated, which means I can send you a copy of the deleted material without your email address being made public. I will do that right now. — Diannaa (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Agha Nasir has been changed. I think there is no issue with copyright now, if yes, please tell me i will re write whole page again. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The copyright issue has now been resolved and the page is okay. I just completed some further re-writes and added some wikilinks. Thanks for your help resolving this. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, Many thanks for your advice about watching copyrights policy of Wikipedia while editing. I'll try my best to paraphrase and use my own words when using reference sources. Even if I am rushing to finish my editing, I'll try to remember your advice and not let slip in something objectionable. I will watch your Talk page here for anything else you might have to say to me. Thanks again Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianaa, do you have time to read User_talk:Sitush#Speedy_deletion_nomination, please? The contributor has made nearly 10k edits since 2011 and there is no way I can work through that lot, nor am I particularly patient with people at the moment (health reasons). I suspect that the situation should be referred to CCI. You can see some of the problems by casting your eye over my very recent removals from various greyhound stadium articles. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this problem. I have posted a final warning on the user's talk page and requested that he assist in cleaning up the extant copy vio. I will monitor his contribs and any further violations will result in a block. — Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

what I find to be a rather cryptic message concerning

) 05:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The text that you found elsewhere is from the Smithsonian archives, which I believe I have correctly referenced. Probably I should have used quotes? Carptrash (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I did have quotes, you removed them. Very interesting, but what does it mean? Carptrash (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash. A bot picked up the edit as being a copyright violation, and showed a potential source as this website. I saw some very similar prose in the article

PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done one for you here as an example. Sorry for alarming you. — Diannaa (talk

) 14:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I did attribute the sections that I got from SIRIS to the Smithsonian, not just with quotation markes but also with a standard Reference notation. Or what ever it is called. The citation appears at the bottom of the page. It is, I believe, perfectly acceptable to quote a short passage from pretty much anything as long as the source is acknowledged-which I did. I am pretty confused it this is not the case. Carptrash (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing attribution with adding a citation. "Attribution" means that when you copy licensed or PD prose verbatim, you need to clearly state that the prose has been copied. The quotation marks are okay, but it would be better if you state in the prose where you are quoting from. For example, you might say "According to the Smithsonian website...". There's more information on copying from other sources at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. — Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually own the website (years of sourcing and work I might add) where all of the mentioned content has been sourced from. I will look into the option of using the (Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) so that the articles that I have created are not deleted.Racingmanager (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't copy anything else from that website until you get the permission issue sorted out. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have put a copyright notice on the website homepage. I have used the one that wikipedia suggested. If you require anything else please let me know.Racingmanager (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Racingmanager: It would be a lot better if each source document such as this one had the required license attached. Also, there's still a blurb at the bottom of the home page to the effect that "Copyright (c) 2015 greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk. All rights reserved." — Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I had made several edits to the Orthopaedic Research Societies wiki page but you had removed them. I am actually a member of the ORS. For some of them the reason cited for removal was that they were taken from "http://www.ors.org/" webpages and therefore may be copyright violation, but the wiki page is also for ORS so I don't understand why this would be copyright violation? For some others the reason cited was absence of source citation (this was for some graphs I had added). The data/graph came from the ORS, but its not published online. Is there a way I can cite this? Thanks. Mvkartik (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)mvkartik

(talk page stalker) Simple version: If the text belongs to the ORS, then it does not belong to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article about the ORS does not belong to the ORS.

As for citing an offline source, make sure that it is still publically available in some form (i.e. you can't use internal documents), use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, listing the name of the publication, the author, the publisher, the year of publication, the relevant page numbers, etc. You might want to put the {{

WP:CITE for more information. Ian.thomson (talk

) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have placed some information on your talk page at the time I removed the material. For some reason that didn't happen. The short answer is that the corporate web pages are copyright, and you can't copy them here unless they are released by the copyright holder under license. There's more information on this on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please block user:91.122.9.222. 2602:306:3357:BA0:4DB2:920F:8A07:D8CC (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point, as this is the third IP the person has used in the last 2 days. Also, no warnings have been issued. — Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, protect the page. 2602:306:3357:BA0:4DB2:920F:8A07:D8CC (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Activity has stopped. — Diannaa (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'm wondering if this file is properly licensed: File:Nachtjagdgruppe 10 emblem.svg. Author is listed as "Unknown", while copyright is listed as "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: Creative Commons CC-Zero..."

If you could let me know, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The source image is a jpg, and the uploaded image is a svg. An svg image is created with a source code, and this is what the uploader is releasing under license. The author of the original crest is unknown, and anonymous works fall out of copyright in the source country 70 years after publication. — Diannaa (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing the lack of the appropriate citation for the article Thrombosis prophylaxis. I embarrassed to say that I rarely use public domain text and didn't realize attribution was necessary. Is there a 'format' for doing so? Is it a citation that is usually located in the reference section? Thank you again, Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(

PD-notice}} or others from Attribution templates, where there are also specialized ones for particular sources & licences.—Odysseus1479

10:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation of copyright theft

Earlier today, you left a message accusing me of committing copyright theft regarding the article on Hans Klok.

The website to which you refer actually took much of its information, including the parts to which you refer, from an earlier version of the Hans Klok page here on Wikipedia, and so they are the ones who have committed copyright theft. If you check back through the edit history of the Hans Klok page here on Wikipedia, you will see that the information you claim that I have stolen from the site you reference was originally added to Wikipedia on November 1st 2007, while the domain for the site you claim I stole the information from was not even created until July 12th 2008 (see http://dawhois.com/site/all-about-magicians.com.html). Therefore, the information's appearance on Wikipedia predates the creation of the site you accuse me of plagiarizing, and the link I have supplied proves that they are the one who has stolen the information verbatim from here, not the other way around. As a result, I suggest that you check back through previous edits of pages and get your facts right before you wrongly accuse people of copyright theft, and apologize immediately for making false accusations!! 95.147.118.85 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Checking back, I see the content was in the article for quite a while (added in 2007 and removed on February 17, 2014). I did check the old revisions but obviously I did not look far enough back. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, you performed a whole sale deletion of Women's health alleging copyright violation. Please revert your changes. I assure you it was not copied. It is possible that the some of the numerous sources that were used in writing this section borrowed from each other, however that is impossible to verify due to your deletions. If you restore the article I am quite happy to carefully review the text for any possible similarities. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Information on STIs was copied from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs110/en/. The parts that were copied were the bullet points starting "Mother-to-child transmission of STIs..." and "STIs such as gonorrhoea and chlamydia...". I have temporarily undone the revision-deletion so that you can compare your prose with the source web page. Here is the copyvios report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I will take a close look at this. As a university professor I take plagiarism very seriously. I also happen to work with WHO. A fact sheet is a fact sheet, and facts are facts. As far as I can see, a number of peer reviewed articles that cite this source follow it very closely. Thankyou. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The material actually appears twice in your version, so it looks to me like you were in the middle of doing your amendments and got distracted and hit "save" before you were actually finished. I am off to work now, TTYL. — Diannaa (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

just came to the same conclusion - as I often do - I placed the original on the page and wrote my paraphrase above it. Actually what happened was a browser crash, I recall, and the original got saved accidentally - thanks for catching this - easily fixed. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Earwig looks like a useful tool - I should use it more often :) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(Greetings from Nova Scotia) Too many false positives in my brief experience, it needs to flag something more than an occasional common phrase, and stop flagging citations!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and for fixing this up. — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

excuse my french but go fuck yourself i took time to just translate this page which i do believe is important. any wikipedia has become a pure joke! Copyright form wikipedia? you joking me, people are free contributors! man, i can't believe that! i'd already stop writing because of the constant censorship but within 1 year it has become even worth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmvernay (talk • contribs)

I see the only place where we have interacted is on the new page Franck Lepage, where I asked you to please in the future provide the required attribution when copying licensed material from one wiki to another. Not sure which page you think got erased, but it was not this one. Sorry you found that so upsetting, but I think you are over-reacting a bit. — Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a bit. He needs to relax and spell check, as well. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you notified the editor recently of copyright issues, I thought I'd ask you at what point this sort of edit becomes disruptive. He/she has added content repeatedly with sources that make no mention of Pence. I've posted to his/her Talk page explaining that this would be considered

) 16:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Permission to fix copyright issue requested

Hi Diannaa. I am asking again about MORT (long non-coding RNA). You say that in the opening segment there is still a huge overlap and a lot of too-close paraphrasing and that you are unable to find any record of TomStar81 commenting that the article might be ready. The TomStar81 conversation is here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 June 30. I want to fix the opening segment, and any other parts that may need it, but as the article is now it is not supposed to be edited by anybody else than "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". - Do I have a permission to edit? - ElmonstruodeGila (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No. You are not supposed to edit the article directly while to copyvio core template is in place. The instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Rewriting content say that what you are supposed to do is propose a rewrite on a subpage. For this article the subpage should be created at Talk:MORT (long non-coding RNA)/Temp. Then, one of the administrators or clerks who works at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page will assess your rewrite and see if it is adequate to address the copyright issue. — Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, Wondering if you can take another look at my revised content and references for keyword: Gerhard Medicus. This was deleted last December due to inadequate reference build-out. I feel it's much better now and might be ready... or close. Thanks, Behal509 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@

AFC submission}} template so that an experienced person can review it. I have no experience in this area. — Diannaa (talk

) 07:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Congolese anthem

About the recent edit on the Congolese anthem, I checked the French article on the anthem. It was written by Simon-Pierre Boka. According to the article on the author of the anthem, he died in September 7, 2006. Are the lyrics public domain after he died? 174.113.214.250 (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No. In Congo the author has to be dead 50 years before their works fall into the public domain. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. You appear to have deleted my user page per

) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the mistake. I sometimes do Twinkle batch delete of the items listed at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects/Userspace. It appeared on that list because someone placed a broken redirect at the top of the page. I don't remember viewing your page so I must have included it the batch by mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

talk

) 14:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a

. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

1 Main website now carries message as per wikipedia guidlines 2 All html pages have the copyright footnote deleted as per your suggestion 3 If Sitush or any other user does their homework by visiting/studying/reading any of the numerous sources that I cite in the articles then they will see that the material is not only reliable but important. Greyhound Racing remains even to this day as the second largest spectator sport in the UK and had very few articles relating to it. 4 I will now add on the homepage that the PDF pages are copyright free but find it hard to see that there is still an issue because it is clear that I own the website and that no copyright laws have been breached.Racingmanager (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Copyright free" is not the same thing as released under a CC-by-SA license. And there's no such thing as "copyright free" under the law; according to the terms of the Berne Convention, prose is copyright until specifically released under license or into the public domain. If you are releasing the PDFs into the public domain, it's better to use the phrase "public domain" rather than "copyright free". If you are releasing them under the terms of the CC-by-SA license, you need to say that. — Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/
• User talk:Sitush#Speedy deletion nomination
• User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#Copyright issues

Ah yes, you're absolutely right. As I edit and add/remove info, I copy&paste the info I'm using from the source, then add whatever I am adding, then delete the "copied material." Usually I remember but forgot to on that one! I'll make sure to add it the proper way. Thanks! Regards, MavsFan28 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa, For the information regarding to SuperMap, I have contacted them to give me the permission to use the content on their website and they have sent an email to verify my use last week. I checked with them this morning, yet they got no reply. So can I use the information now or should I wait for them to get a reply first? Thanks Seanzhang1015 talk

The way it works is the copyright holder sends a permission email to the OTRS team. One of them assesses the email and verifies that the material has been released under a compatible license. This may take a while as they are experiencing a 60-day backlog. Regardless of the copyright issue, some of the material you copied from the corporate website (mission statement, values, etc) is not really suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Lists of products are okay, but without the advertorial introduction. The wording in the history section is okay, and can be re-added once the OTRS ticket is processed. However, if you work for SuperMap, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article at all. I have placed some information on conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look please? It appears to be a foundational copyvio from this forum post but the author there and here happens to be the same. The author is a serial image copyright violator on Commons. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Article was deleted as copyvio on June 12 under its former title

Relu Ram Punia. So I have deleted it. I have given the user a final warning for copy vio and will watch his contribs. — Diannaa (talk

) 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of my Sandbox

Perhaps you can explain to me why you deleted my page Smallchief/Sandbox3.

During my 6 years at Wikipedia and 20,000-plus edits on 1,000-plus articles I have used sandboxes to work on new articles and store material I might want to use in the future. I thought that was why sandboxes exist. So, why did you delete it? What harm did the deleted page do?

I don't recall what material if any I had on Smallchief/Sandbox3, but whatever it was it is now lost. Smallchief (talk 07:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What I deleted was

User:Smallchief/Sandbox 3, which was a redirect to User:Chiribaya, a page that does not exist. You had moved your sandbox to that location on June 22, where it was deleted on July 23 by another admin, as there is no such user. I have restored it and moved it back to your sandbox 3. — Diannaa (talk

) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Recently added content - copyright issue

Hello, regarding the recent edits to Paralympic classification articles and the message you posted here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:62.157.163.42&oldid=730809608&diff=cur I work with the International Paralympic Committee. We are trying to update the information here in Wikipedia, and make it accurate and up to date. Therefore, I wanted to kindly ask you if you could undo the changes you made to these articles. I appreciate it. HernanGold (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't accept copyright material without the express written release of the content under a compatible license by the copyright holder. There's instructions how to do it at

WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk

) 12:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion Needed

OmniBot, which is operated by Omni Flames, is doing "General Fixes" but according to the Tasks section on the bot's user page, it appears that was "withdrawn by operator". Is this bot operating without the proper permissions or am I missing something? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:01 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Neutralhomer: OmniBot was approved for trial. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89: I was going by the first entry in the "Tasks" section of the bot's user page. My mistake there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:35 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Wondering if we have a sock and/or a paid editor here: [11] and [12]. Started the same day, similar styles, similar errors, have the feel of paid puff pieces. The articles themselves so far are GNG in my book, but the cleanup needed is noticable, I don't want to get into "two for one" editing here. Your thoughts? (or actions...). I can start an SPI, but if you feel you can act faster, go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. Looks like we have an answer here: multiple interns at the equestrian magazine The Plaid Horse. I will lay some COI {{Uw-paid1}} templates on the talk pages of the two you have discovered so far. — Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Undisclosed Plaid Editing? Crow^Caw 19:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Remunerated by check, no doubt.—Odysseus1479 20:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I see a pattern here --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL! I am so glad we all had fun here! And thanks for your help. Montanabw^(talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hullo Diannaa,

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you, but it took quite a while for me to understand how to do so.

As I did not keep a record of what you may have deleted I am somewhat puzzled by your message.I get the impression that whatever it was it may have had inverted commas around part of it. Can you please elaborate on the thrust of your message?

Ngarndhi (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

PS My user name is "Ngarndhi", not "Ngamdhi".

The copyright violation was detected by a bot as the same content appears in this document which was published July 22, 2015. It's the sentence that begins "In June 1804 a handful of settlers confronted..." — Diannaa (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hullo Diannaa,

Thanks for the explanation. The copyright violation comes from my own work, www.nangarra.com.au which is an online history of the Hawkesbury Nepean Frontier wars. I copied and pasted my own sentence, which is a summary of a contemporary newspaper report. I hope this explains the transgression. Ngarndhi (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In order to protect the rights of copyright holders, we need you to verify via email to the OTRS team that you are indeed the copyright holder. If you wish to release the material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at

WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk

) 21:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential copyvio?

Hi Diannaa, could you please check? The copyio detector report is linked

) 00:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

The content has been present in our article since November 2007. The Wayback Machine has archived the potential source page on July 15, 2007, coming up with a 92.5 per cent overlap. So yeah, this is a copy vio, added on November 10, 2007. Has to stay out. — Diannaa (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to get the edit summaries back? After your moved the page back to the proper title casing, the old edit summaries disappeared. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 03:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you mean

diffs. The old revisions were intentionally hidden so as to remove the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk

) 03:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right about difs. And... Oh. Ok then. I didn't make the connection. Gracias. :) —PermStrump(talk) 03:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa I will definitely do that in the future and don't want to be banned from editing Wikipedia which I like to do.D Eaketts (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, you wrote: "All or some of your addition(s) to HP LoadRunner has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder." I'm the Product Marketing Manager for this product so no copyright problems - how can I prove that? Thanks GasWiki (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There are several 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. If the copyright holder wishes to release the material under license, they need to follow the instructions at

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 more information about conflict of interest and paid editing on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk

) 13:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa, maybe you can help with this user. I'm not sure if they very 1)new and not sure how things work, 2)are posting on the wrong page, or 3)are just wasting time and vandalising. Their edits show 4 edits (their only edits) that could go for any of three. I added a Warn1 message with a polite addition to it explaining the problems with their edits. I am trying to AGF, but I would appreciate a second set of eyes on this. Thanks in advance...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06 on July 28, 2016 (UTC)

It almost looks like they are trying to promote something. Or possibly they are a very young and very new. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and what that is, I haven't the slightest clue. I'm was thinking it was a little bit of both. That's why I wanted the second set of eyes. :) I'll keep an eye on the user. They haven't updated since my Warn1 warning, so hopefully that got the message across. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:08 on July 29, 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked 'User:HRWF'. I suspect they reincarnated as 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVR17' to edit the same article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Without_Frontiers

There are no references except the individual/orgs own website. I removed a load of linkspam. I wonder if the topic page is legitimate at all? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.10 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What we've got here is the latest single-purpose acct to edit the article. Whether they're the same person or a different person is unknown but I am not going to bother our busy check-users, since EVR17 has not edited since May. I have removed some copy vio, copied from their own website. This has also been a perennial problem with this article. As is notability, as you say. I am not very good at judging notability so I am going to start with an A7 speedy deletion and we will see. — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I got your email of the removed text. We talked about block quoting. It seams the removed questionable text was block quoted and referanced. Can you be specific as to the problem. If it is a problem then there are several other articles I took as examples on referancing copyrighted meterial. The lexeme example I gave previously. The difference is the copyrighted meterial being wholly contained in the referance. I am confused.^[1]

See lexical analysis - References ^[2] and ^[3]

Does using blockquotes make a difference:

(Redacted)

If the above is OK then why not the following?

(Redacted)

On a side note. Using the android app I can only append here.Steamerandy (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Problematic material and copyright violations on this wiki can never be solved by adding more problematic content or copyright violations. As we have more than 5 million articles, there's always going to be more examples, and adding more only makes things worse. Placing material in a block quote or inside quotation marks does not let us off the hook from a copyright point of view. Short, properly attributed quotations are okay, but that's not what you're proposing here, as I already told you on July 19, when I said "Short properly attributed quotations are okay. So what you should to is introduce the block quote by adding a short introduction, making the attribution clear. For example, "Aho et al define 'lexeme' as follows:" and then place the block quote. In other words, what you need to do is make it clearer by stating outright that you are quoting and who you are quoting, and make your quotation shorter (or better yet, paraphrase the material and avoid the copyright issue altogether). — Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. The META II document I quoted from is in public domain by law being created at a government facility. It was in public domain by law from the time it was created at a government facility. Namely UCLA. If you have any questions you may contact the legal department at Walworth Publishing were I worked. I am now retired.Steamerandy (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Content of the UCLA websites is marked as being © The Regents of the University of California. The source web page http://www.ibm-1401.info/Meta-II-schorre.pdf is not marked as being copyright, but it does not need to be. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. D.V. Schorre's paper cannot in my opinion be construed as being a work of the US government, which would make it in the public domain. If you wish to pursue this further I suggest you contact the Wikimedia legal department at [email protected] . — Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Double-checking your work, I hope you don't mind. The article in question is not copyright by the University of California. The copyright is owned by the ACM. The researcher who wrote the article was working at the UCLA Computing Facility at the time of publication per the byline on the article, but that paper was presented at an ACM National Conference and subsequently published in their official Proceedings for the Conference. The ACM, the leading association for computer professionals and academics, clearly shows the copyright and publishing date (per law) on their web page where they sell this article. There are wild PDF versions of this article on the internet, which the editor had referenced, but I have heard the ACM defends and enforces their copyrights whenever possible. The ACM reference and copyright can be found here:

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=808896

— 75.62.129.228 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I also called up the legal department of the University of California to ask their opinion, and they informally assured me that the Regents of UC own copyrights, trademarks, and patents, and that they enforce their rights of ownership. They said that the public domain rule applies to Federal government work, but even that is not absolute, for example the Post Office owns the copyrights on stamp art. So the editor is confused about asserting public domain versus copyright rights. — 75.62.129.228 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really sure how best to deal with this but there is a user who has self-identified as being the representative of Fred Lynn and is actively changing his page. When I reverted his changes, he left multiple messages on my talk page ([13] & [14]). Even stating that if needed he would sign up for multiple accounts to make sure his edits stuck. Can you advise? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The photo has already been in use on other websites such as here, so I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. An OTRS ticket is required. The user has been blocked for 31 hrs by a different admin. — Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa, something screwy happened. Earlier today I added a couple of comments to your copyright discussion of 20:42, 28 July 2016.

When I went back to proofread what I had written, both of my edits and your 20:42 edit had disappeared from your Talk page! Not only that, but 5 edits altogether had disappeared, 2 of yours and 3 of mine.

The page seems to be reverted to the edit just prior to your 20:42 edit, that is, to the 19:56 edit of Steamerandy.

Yet the "View history" page for your Talk page shows all 5 missing edits and no undo's or reversions. It's as if your changes and my changes never happened. But the history page confirms they did happen.

I have never seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. Did I screw something up? Did Wikipedia roll back something in the database and restore an old version of your Talk page?

I apologize in advance if I did screw something up, but all 5 edits were there, I swear. I went back and checked what I had written at least a couple of times, and I was only going back for a final proofread when I noticed the reversion to the 19:56 edit had taken place.

Wha hoppen?

Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter, especially if I did something wrong.

Cheers and keep up the good work :)

I will check here in case you post any updates on this screwy situation. Thanks :)

—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. Everything seems to be back to the way it should be. But what happened?

Feel free to delete this whole section.

—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What often happens when you view pages whilst you are not logged in is you are served a cached version of the page. For the best and easiest viewing experience, I suggest creating an account, as then you are always served the most recent revision. If you are not interested in creating an account, you can manually purge the server cache by clicking the "edit" tab and replacing the word "edit" in the url with the word "purge". A couple of the super busy pages like WP:ANI and WP:AN have built-in purge buttons. — Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, thank you so much. I only do very casual editing and reference checking here on Wikipedia, so I never figured I'd need an account. My bad. I will look into creating an account first thing in the morning, when I'm awake enough to create an ok user name. People here seem to imbue their name choices with some flair. I usually avoid such things, as well as the rest of social media and its customs. I will make an exception for Wikipedia. Again, thank you so much for the explanation, and I apologize for any problems I may have caused.—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

All the best usernames are taken! you might have trouble finding something excellent. See you later, — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear

) 14:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't have an article

G8. So we might as well leave the redirect where it is. — Diannaa (talk

) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

But we do have an article for JSAT Corporation where there's an entry with most details of that specific spacecraft. A better explanation of the redirect would have allowed me to correct the situation faster. Regards, — Baldusi (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

I contact you because I saw that you recently talked to SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits about copying chunks of text from one article into another without proper attribution. Could you please also have a look at his work on Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)? It seems he has previously been rewriting it in his sandbox and is now copying that to mainspace section by section. However, he has copied large chunks from various articles and seems to have made small changes so that it appears to be different. Compare for example the text of Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)#Lugal with that of the actual article on Lugal. I already did some cleanup work as some of the changes were not for the best, but it seems there's quite some copyvio going on here and I don't know how to proceed. I would also like to point out that he has done something like this on the exact same article about a year ago (see [15]). Thank you for taking the time to look into this! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'm writing to request your assistance with multiple articles and users, some of whom I've reported at AIV with no luck. First, much of what

) be deleted for blatant copyright violation, and asked for a userblock; this, too, was deemed not actionable, and several of the articles still stand. Perhaps nearly everyone is vacationing.

So, my frustration is fairly palpable, and of course you're in no way obliged to take care of each of these. But I respect your work here, and dropping this en masse at ANI isn't practical. Lucky you! My thanks in advance for any suggestions and assistance you can provide. 2601:188:1:AEA0:E043:273F:60CC:B6DD (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in helping with copy vio work. I can understand your frustration as the problem is huge and it's hard to keep up with all that is going on.

• CSMLA: I have revision deleted the material on Los Americans and elsewhere and will monitor future contribs from this editor. He is now on final warning.
• Rich Ashooh: Earwig's copyvio detection tool showed 42.2 per cent overlap with the website https://www.ashoohforcongress.com/meet-rich
  . I have cleand out the copy vio. I think A7 speedy deletion might be an appropriate criterion as running for office alone is not enough to establish notability. I have warned the user re: copy vio.
• User:WikiDavisco added some copyvio at Obafemi Awolowo University so he has been warned. I discovered this while checking edits of Hokagedemehin. He receives the short custom warning (it's actually one of the prepared messages from User:Diannaa/Copyright) as there's already a lot of templates on his page. He too will get added to the virtual tickler file for monitoring. Thanks again for your help. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, and have a great weekend! 2601:188:1:AEA0:E043:273F:60CC:B6DD (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This probably needs a fast close and a possible boomerang: [16] Clear copyvio, edit-warring to remove a CSD template. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks like it took two-three admins but the case is complete. Thanks for posting, — Diannaa (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hence, calling your talk page stalkers too! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem with Sitush? I get a comment on my user page for good work on my latest two articles and he jumps in and insults the work. The two new articles are sourced with their original sources which is the way I am going to work from now on because of the concerns over using my own website as the source. Where does he think the original work for my website came from? He then insults me by telling the other user that he is looking to get me blocked. I suggest that you block him for attempted bullying. Racingmanager (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Howdy! Kindly nuke revision 732134467 by IP user 68.58.25.211 from 7/29/2016 at 14:32 U.S. Pacific time, which inserted a copyvio plot summary from [17]. Thanks much! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. regarding Racingmanager. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, Sitush keeps reverting the article information that I am editing. See 1927 English Greyhound Derby. Where there is a 'clarification needed' I have added the clarification only for it to be deleted constantly. He is also deleting any reference to the Barrie Dack book that I a using in the competition reports. Why is he doing this? I even added the page numbers which he initially said were missing. Please help.Racingmanager (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have added comments to the administrator page that Sitush has started. Please respond to the my concerns above, (you reply to Sitush immediately). I cannot believe that you are now claiming that I have copied another website (This website only carries Derby final information). I don't know what you want from me! I was under the impression that wikipedia wanted information and I am doing everything that is asked of me despite this harassment from Sitush and the false accusation of a blatant misrepresentation.Racingmanager (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the article differences between greyhoundderby.com and the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article. The website states -

• the wrong result of the winner of the Northern Final
• the wrong northern qualifiers
• no mention of the illness of Great Chum
• no mention of the cost of Entry Badge
• no mention of the Hopsack

How can you possibly claim that the article had copied the website and suggest this as though in support of the fact on the administrator page?.Racingmanager (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suggestions for handling copyright, SPS, misrepresenting sources?. Please don't cross-post your comments here or at Sitush's talk. If I have anything to say, I will say it at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at the Administrator page and provide feedback if necessary. Many thanks.Racingmanager (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Much of the alleged copyright violation was in quotes. And much of the edits you have annihilated were not even alleged violations. Now I can't even go back and look at what I've written to redo the edits! Isn't this a bit heavy handed? --

) 02:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

None of what I removed was in quotes. I left off doing the revision deletion and offered you a link to the copyvio report at 01:48 so you could check my work. Your response was to re-add the copy vio, so I went ahead with the revision deletion at 01:59. — Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong about the quotes (or at least much of them), none the less a great deal of what you have not just reverted but destroyed was rewriting for clarity, form, grammar etc. and had nothing to do with text from the turkeyanalyst story. Now impossible to go back retrieve it.

talk

) 02:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I might add I was unaware you were an admin at first. --

talk

) 02:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not revert; I selectively and carefully removed only the copyright material. The revision deletion is a separate transaction which hides the intervening diffs. Not all the content in those diffs was reverted. — Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Much rewriting having nothing to do with copyright has been removed. If you will allow me access to it I make improvments to the writing of the article that will have nothing to do with copyrighted material. --

talk

) 02:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It is possibly the material in your edits of 01:36 and 01:40 were lost in the process as there was an edit conflict. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can check my work and re-do the two lost edits. The copyvios report will be visible again, where you will be able to see the comparison between the source web page and revision 731855691. Here is a link to the copyvio report. Please do not re-add any of the copyright material. All content you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have done my best to repair the material that was lost in the edit conflict. Sorry about that, it initially looked to me like just a small edit but I see it was actually quite a bit of stuff. Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Too easy to put the attribution in comments for pasted content from linked articles. Strip club article edits are not showing on public site, and not able to determine what protection level is on the article. Was planning to do more edits, but want to know what the situation is before spending more time on the article. Are you able to check status? Thanks. Wallanon (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

People who are not logged in are served a cached version of the page. Perhaps that's what is happening here? — Diannaa (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that was possible. Just had not seen it take so long to push edits, but I have not been that active on Wikipedia for a while. Thank you for replying. Wallanon (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a big wiki, server lag may be an issue at times. — Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Dianna, I was wondering if you could take a look at the edits of User:Magnolia677, specifically those made on July 23, regarding Kentucky towns and high school sports championships. The user removed sourced information from each of the pages with the edit summary "Per WP:USCITIES", while using TWINKLE. I checked and I could find nothing regarding high school sports championships not being allowed in articles regarding towns in WP:USCITIES.

Admittedly, the information added could use some sprucing up, but wholesale removal of sourced content. This is kinda troubling. More so, when tonight Magnolia677 was engaged in removal of sourced content with User:Alex jirgens.

I'm wondering how I should procede. Leave it with you, take it to ANI, ignore and revert? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:12 on July 30, 2016 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: He has now replied to your query on his talk page. The guideline he is talking about can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Sports, where it says to only include major pro sports teams and major Division 1 college teams. However that will most definitely leave some articles such as Bardwell, Kentucky (pop. 723) devoid of sports content. I don't see the harm in leaving it in myself, but in most instances there's no sources anyway. Some of his edits are obvious errors, such as the instance where he removed the citations and left the content or accidentally removed the coordinates of the town. You might like to follow up on those. — Diannaa (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I get that it is supposed to be only "major" sports teams, but in rural Kentucky there aren't any "major" sports teams. :) That part of WP:USCITIES should be changed. But, what continues to concern me is that according to his reply, User:Magnolia677 and User:John from Idegon (both non-admins) and User:Graham87 and User:Fuzheado removed, what they called "spam" added by User:Drrharpe33, even though it was sourced. The source coming from the Kentucky High School Athletic Association, the main organization in that state for managing high school athletics. Then User:Fuzheado blocked User:Drrharpe33 for "repeated nonuseful edits".

The whole thing smacks of

biting the newbies, reeks of misuse of tools (since TWINKLE was used) and stinks of abuse of power (regarding the block). I really want to take this whole thing to ANI, but I want to know what you think regarding it first before I do. Since fellow admin are involved, I completely understand if you wish to back away from this. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 23:25 on July 30, 2016 (UTC)

Let me add more to this, an ANI thread was started regarding this by John from Idegon requesting a "Quick block needed to get someone's attention". I didn't know we did those. Fuzheado then blocked Drrharpe33 for 48 hours. That's alot more than "quick". Then, did not add a block template to Drrharpe33's talk page. It was added by another user.

Please tell me I'm not seeing 4 users, 2 of them admin, ganging up on a newbie editor, removing sourced content, requesting a "quick block", blocking a user for no clear reason, and disregarding every rule possible. Because that's what I'm seeing here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34 on July 30, 2016 (UTC)

They may believe him to be a spammer, as almost every edit contains a link to khsaa.org. This kind of edit is called "reference spam", where a spammy link is added in the guise of a citation. That would explain why he removed the citation and left the content on that one edit. The best place to start is to talk to the blocking admin. — Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

But the link isn't spam, it's actually a reliable source. I'll talk to the blocking admin, but I doubt it will do any good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:24 on July 31, 2016 (UTC)

showing up out of the blue and adding 100 links to one website doesn't look good, whether it's a reliable source or not. People will question his motives, especially when there's been 4 posts on his talk page asking him to stop and discuss. — Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Still, a 48 hour block should not be given for constructive edits, not responding aside (that is a problem), and a reliable source. I am actually considered going back through and readding the information myself, especially after this exchange from John from Idegon. "Stick it" clearly shows how constructive he is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58 on July 31, 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa... I have forwarded the mail from Actor Karan Hariharan to the wikipedia mail regarding permission to use the Picture. I hope that should solve the problem. If anything else, do let me know.

Anamika S Jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anamika S Jain (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I am troubled by some recent edits to Ysgol Uwchradd Aberteifi; specifically the addition of the Headteacher's Message. I arrived at the page through copy patrol, and in the context of copyright issues I note that they did include the passage in quotes and added a reference.

I am concerned about a couple of things. First, the absolute size of the passage is 208 words, which is significantly larger than I think is typically accepted as fair use direct quoting. Arguably, I could stop here and say this is not acceptable on this basis alone.

Second, I think it is well accepted that the usage of quoted material should not look solely at the size of the quote but also the relative size of the quote compared to the rest of the article. In theory an article should have a lot of pros and a relatively small amount of quoted material in comparison. In this particular case, the quote is 208 words, and the entire rest of the article is about 124 words. Thus, well over half the article is this single quote. I don't think that's acceptable but I'm not put my finger on exactly what principle a guideline is applicable.

Third, we strive for a neutral point of view. While that does not mean that the view of an individual with an obvious conflict of interest is absolutely prohibited, we ought to be cognizant of the fact that a message from the headteacher is not exactly neutral in general, and in particular this one is decidedly not neutral. Essentially, it is an advertising message and far from de minimus.

I'm tempted to remove it but would like some additional input and support or pushback, whichever is appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The policy that applies to the usage of non-free content is

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Content of this type almost invariably is advert-like in tone and generally does not impart any useful information. I think it should be removed. — Diannaa (talk

) 16:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Plus the headteacher's message is just dropped in verbatim, with no analysis, discussion, context, or anything, so seems to me to be non-transformative and used to provide content rather than support or contextualize article prose. Crow^Caw 16:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I'll remove it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Why did you deleted Daniel Hasidim page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hasidim)?

Their is no problem with copyright issue with the page of the zionist billionaire forum [18].

Both pages were writen by the same man.

I added the page as a source.

What is the problem?

Here is the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hasidim (2nd nomination). In addition to the copyright issue, the decision was that Hasidim is not notable enough (as Wikipedia defines it) for an article at this time. — Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I am a representative from the company BASIS Schools (BASIS.ed) and I am trying to build out the page properly. I worked on that schools page yesterday for a long time. Please undelelet BASIS Oro Valley. No sure I understand what I did wrong. Please help me restore the page. Can you save the page before it gets published? LDMedia Account 1 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several 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 this policy

not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, — Diannaa (talk

) 03:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Zombie (computer science)

FYI, the reason for all of the copying of

) 03:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa,

website now redirects to : https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ,

but why all my history points in the page were removed ? why managers make things harder to me more and more every day ,is there any thing else now?

how can I assure my edits will be stable , so that next manager reviewing the page will not just disparage my efforts and delete things with another new..reason !? thanks --Thelaststory99 (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The person who removed the material direct you to read the content guideline at Wikipedia:Spam for the reason why he removed the material. What it means is that the content and tone of what is acceptable on a corporate website is not necessarily suitable for inclusion here at Wikipedia. This is not the place to promote the school. Promotional content and stuff that is worded like an advertisement is typically removed. That's what is happening here. — Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	thanks for mentioning my faults. I'm so thirsty to learn more about copyright rules and you did it free for me. it was nice of you . health and wealth. Muhammad 09:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa Thanks for reviewing and amending the draft wikipedia page Music Rehearsal Space. Is the page now ready to be reviewed and accepted/declined? Bandspace (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't normally assess new drafts; there's a group of people who specialize in that. This may take a week or more, as the Articles for creation process is backlogged; there are 642 submissions waiting for review. Please be patient. — Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, if you remember

00:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A request for checkuser should be added to the sockpuppet investigation case page. Add your request to the section "Comments by other users". Checkusers will not undertake checks unless there's a good reason to do so, so be prepared to present some evidence as to why a check is needed. — Diannaa (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I put that request? Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just state that you want a checkuser to have a look, and present your evidence why a check is warranted. The instructions say: "Explain how you know the accounts belong to one person

1. explain how the accounts are being used abusively
2. explain why CheckUser evidence is needed (in most cases it isn't)
3. support your case using diffs: Clerks and CheckUsers will not do so for you!

If you can do all those things, do that, and change the template {{SPI case status|open}} to {{SPI case status|CUrequest}}. This will put the case in the queue for checkuser attention. — Diannaa (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. We've now received OTRS permission to use the copyrighted text from selected pages of the source that was pinged as a copyright violation at SuperMap (see Talk:SuperMap). Would you mind taking a quick look when you have a chance and determining whether any/all of the revision-deleted revisions should be made visible again (or possibly reverted to)? Alternatively, I'd be happy to do it if you prefer. More broadly, do you have any objection to me undoing revision deletion upon the receipt of appropriate permission via OTRS? Thanks for your diligence in protecting the rights of copyright holders. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I have no objection to you undoing revision deletion when OTRS permission is received. In fact I am super busy keeping up with the copy vio stuff so it would be helpful if you could do that step yourself if you don't mind. — Diannaa (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I did it in one other situation already, but I'm always hesitant to revert administrator actions and I definitely don't want to do it en masse without asking first. Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I copyedited the text a little bit. Is there a filter etc. that you can use to see if the copyrights issue still remain? TouristerMan (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes we do have such a tool! I have checked and the new synopsis is fine. — Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind can you explain the notice on the top of the page? I have tried reading the help but it is kinda confusing. How is the "Orphan" notice removed? TouristerMan (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A bot has now removed the orphan tag, as links to this article appear in 3 other Wikipedia articles. You should not have uploaded the poster to the Commons. Non-free movie posters don't get uploaded there. I have created a local copy of the file and tagged it for

fair use and added it to the article. — Diannaa (talk

) 16:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not upload the poster lol. ty for creating local copy anyway :D TouristerMan (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot — Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

User:EndAll6969, DUCKs are a-quackin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:05 on August 1, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58 on August 1, 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, noting here that these files were listed at FFD because there were questions about whether they can be copyrighted at all. There is no way to keep the bot from mistagging them as F5 when they are at FFD, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2nd Avenue 2014 logo.jpg is a low quality image which has been superseded by a high-quality replacement svg logo, File:2nd Avenue (2014).svg. In my opinion there's no point moving the old logo to the Commons as it has no foreseeable usages. I am not seeing a listing at FFD for that one.

I should have noticed the FFD for File:Careers360 Logo.png, I probably would have left it alone if I had. But I expect the outcome would eventually have been the same: deletion (but perhaps with a different criterion). The related article was deleted 3 times at the title Careers360 and once at the title Careers 360 at AFD. — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this is my first attempt at this. Please forgive any mis-understandings. The material you have removed is not Copyrighted. The standard is open any freely copyable, as is all of the material on the Triple-S website. Can you please revert the change ?

Patmolloy (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Patmolloy There is no indication on that website that the material can be freely copied - or freely sold for money and modified, both privileges we need to host text. On the contrary © 2016 The Triple-S Group. All rights reserved. implies we can only look at it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for citing the improper use of this entry. I have asked the Foundation that owns the copyright to grant permission to me to create the entry. I am learning the laws and regulations that protect artists from abuse and theft and am eager to correct my entry. I noticed that the photo is gone, but I did not remove it. Does this mean that the textual entry may remain? Please advise, and thank you so much for all you do. -LaVicente LaVicente (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of questions here, which I will answer in order.

• The prose was copied from www.getty.edu. Getty never releases their stuff under license, so the odds of you receiving permission to use prose from one of their websites is very low.
• The photo is not present in your draft, and it never has been. You must have forgotten to add it. Regardless, non-free images are not allowed in draft space, only in article space. The image is too large for non-free use; I have tagged it as {{non-free reduce}} and a bot will be along shortly to make it smaller. The image can then be used once your draft is accepted for publication.
• Your entry is still in draft space. If you think it's ready for publication, add the template the {{
  AFC submission}} template to place it in the queue for review. Then an experienced user will assess the draft and publish it for you. This process could take a week or so, as they have a backlog right now. — Diannaa (talk
  ) 14:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, I will correct the prose and upon all parties approvals, I will prepare the template for publication.

The Herb Ritts Foundation wrote back to me via email stating that it would be up to the living subject of this photograph, in this case Miss Patitz, to grant permission. The Foundation does own the copyright to all of Mr. Ritts' works. My question is, how to I transmit their approvals to add "Veiled Head" to Wikipedia to you.

Many thanks, LaVicenteLaVicente (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to bother doing that, because our fair use rules permit a small version of the image to be used in the article once the draft is published. If the copyright holder of the image wishes to release it under a compatible license, they need to follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. This is Not a good idea for works of art, as the license is irrevocable, and applies to all uses, not just Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianaa. I have a small query. There is an article by the name

and seems very adamant and refers to Tinashe in past tense, yet they are a living person (BLP).

I believe Katy Perry and Snoop Dogg, for example, changed their names and record labels, with old names redirecting to current names, and old accomplishments still indicated. I would like a third opinion (3O) from you as I realized it may soon turn into an edit war. -Takutau (talk)13:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have moved it back to Rationale (musician) and left a note for the other user on his talk page. I have found over time that attempting to communicate only via edit summary seems to be unproductive. A talk page message or user talk page message is a much more effective way to communicate — Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for taking care of the history bit that violated copyright. I didn't know you could remove history pages like that.

Cheers, Anothersignalman (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa I just saw your revision of my changes to the Rationale / Tinashé page. Please let me explain in more detail.

Tinashé Fazakerley was signed to Island Records and released music around 2010, including the album "Saved".

After this album, he put his artist career on hiatus. Last year, he started releasing music again as Rationale.

My problem with the page is as follows: - Rationale did not release music as Tinashé Fazakerley, yet the page is titled Rationale. Therefore the article makes it look like the artist named Rationale previously released the music that was released by Tinashé. The artist Rationale did not release this music. The article would make sense if it were titled Tinashé Fazakerley and then detailed Tinashé's various exploits in music - but it is not. It is titled Rationale. This is not logical, or accurate, and therefore does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. - it is misleading because, although the article is titled Rationale, it says He is known for his synth-pop sound[2] and his African influences. Rationale is not known for either of these influences. Tinashé might have been, but this article is titled Rationale. Again, misleading.

At the very least, to be factually correct, the page should be titled Tinashé Fazakerley, and not Ratioanle, and differentiate releases made under the alias Tinashé and those made under the alias Rationale.

- I also do not believe that Tinashé warrants a Wikipedia page at this time as his achievements so far have not included the awards or success of his releases required by Wikipedia to warrant a page.

Thank you.

Paultnharris (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Paultnharris

Okay, looking at the http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/rationale-interview-ive-carved-my-own-path-and-its-feeling-good-a7124761.html article I see Rationale is releasing his debut album so they can't actually be the same guy! Also compare the photos. Not the same guy. We were both moving the page at the same time; it is now located at

Tinashé Fakerley. — Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Any further discussion on this topic should take place at the article talk page, please. — Diannaa (talk

) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Paultnharris (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Paultnharris

Well, I thing the original contributor was me. Let say, I'm not the one who created the article in id:wiki, but about 3 years ago I found the content was so horrible and it was translated from en:wiki. So I rewritten and added so many references and so many information mistakes and hope someone to translate it to en:wiki. I think I left my message on it's talk page. But no one seems to care until some days ago I translated it by my own. And there are still so many articles like this, like City God, Wealth God, etc., but I don't think I'm gonna translate it soon. I don't know if it is still necessary to put the contributor, but I don't know. How do you think? Okkisafire (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already added an edit summary to the article that states that attribution for the content transferred here from the Indonesian wiki can be found by reviewing the history of that article, plus I added a {{

translated}} template to the talk page. So all the attribution is done. If you are the sole author of the prose that has been copied or moved, you technically don't have to include this step, but I always do it regardless, so that people know what's going on. — Diannaa (talk

) 16:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I checked the talk page and couldn't find my message. I must left it on the other articles' talk page. But I noticed your {{

translated}}. Thank you again Okkisafire (talk

) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Leaving a message on the talk page is not what the requirement is! We are supposed to use an edit summary in the destination article at the time we move the content that states that the material is copied, and where we got it. Here is a sample edit summary: "Attribution: Content in this article was moved here from example on July 31, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution." — Diannaa (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, You are right. I more or less copied the purpose (three lines) from the web site of the association because I found that the words were well chosen, but you are right. I wrote the rest of the page myself. And I sent a message to the president and the vice-president of the association, to tell them that I created a page about ISCA and suggest them to improve the page. Thanks for your work. Francopoulo (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but can you take a look at this picture and tell me if it is worthy of being a featured picture. I took great pains taking the picture at just the right angle and spot. TouristerMan (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about featured pictures. I think there's separate featured picture processes at the Commons and here. There's a page on the Commons at commons:Commons:Image guidelines and locally at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. — Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

190.104.115.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• 190.104.115.104
• 190.104.115.208
• 190.104.120.32
• 190.104.120.136
• 190.104.120.148
• 190.104.120.240

Same range as last time, 190.104.112.0/20 (4096 addresses). Hard to say if anyone else wants to use this range, because he starts editing again the day the range block expires. But no one has complained that I know of. Blocking for 6 months. — Diannaa (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I received a message that I "added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder" being "(remove copyright content copied from http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2016/07/20/prime-minister-minister-for-defence-joint-media-release-training-iraqi-law-enforcement-agencies/) for Operation Okra.

I believe you mean this "additional 15 ADF personnel who will provide a counter rocket, artillery and mortar capability at Taji which is currently being provided by another Coalition member"

This is an Australian Government media release on the Defence website which is copyright. http://www.defence.gov.au/Copyright.asp

Now the Prime Minister's website has the same media release https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2016-07-19/training-iraqi-law-enforcement-agencies

It is creative commons licence https://www.pm.gov.au/copyright

So I can use this?

It was too difficult to paraphrase. --Melbguy05 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The PM's document contains the stuff I removed, so I was able to put it back in. Thanks for finding that other source. — Diannaa (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as you are an expert on copyvio could you please reply to this user, their last article Reconciliation Day was a 97% copyvio copy and paste from what they claim is their website, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I prefer "specialist" to "expert"; being an expert is too big and scary! I have replied at Talk:Reconciliation Day and also laid a {{uw-copyright-new}} on her talk. This info should have been provided to her when the copyvio was originally removed but somehow this step got missed. — Diannaa (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that a couple of years ago you dealt with some copyvio problems on the Southern Connecticut State University article. It looks like you cleaned up stuff that people had cleaned up years before. And just today it looks like I cleaned up a lot of the same stuff. My point is that apparently this is going to be an ongoing problem. I'm not sure if there's any action that can be taken to keep this from happening again but I thought I'd let you know what's going on since you were involved once before. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a chronic problem on school articles. I will add it to my watch list. — Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I don't log in very often and my photo got deleted sooner than I saw the message about it requesting a letter. If I organised the photographer to send the copyright permission letter now, could the file be undeleted or should I upload again? Cheers, Wallstonekraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallstonekraft (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(

OTRS pending}} tag; best to first approach the one who deleted it, as admins are usually loth to undo others’ actions.—Odysseus1479

02:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Odysseus, I'll have the copyright letter sent and then get in touch with the deleting admin.Wallstonekraft (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I was stunned that wikipedia had no article on a presidential candidate for the Republic of Texas, so I tried to write stub. My article may be weak, but a sound approach would be to blank my contribution, not the article itself. --Blackhood (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has already looked after cleaning up the article for you. Your point is taken that I could have done this myself. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that was not my point. My point was a necessary article should be cleaned up--not deleted. --Blackhood (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I do understand your point and have apologised already, so I am unsure why you are posting here again. — Diannaa (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. You recently removed copyvio at Ahmad Alaadeen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I just removed more copied from [20][21][22]. The last one has conflicting licensing on the page CC BY-SA/GFDL and (C). Was I correct in removing the text? If so please RevDel, otherwise you can revert me. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

An older version of the webpage archived by the Wayback Machine on Sept 14, 2011 shows the material as being Copyright 2008-2010 ASR Records. All Rights Reserved. I think this may be a case of license washing, and we should leave the content out. There's more info on license washing at commons:Commons:License laundering. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have a question regarding Draft:Donald W. Sweeting: what's the proper tag for COPYVIO? It is clearly copied from the university's website. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If the copy vio is pervasive and there's no copyright-compliant version to revert to, go ahead and nominate for deletion as

G12 (copy vio). If you can find a clean version, revert to it, and use the template {{copyvio-revdel}} to get the item into the queue for revision deletion. — Diannaa (talk

) 19:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Cathedral Basilica of Our Lady of St. John of the Lakes

The article in english is a translation of only some parts of its version in Spanish, in any case a verbatim copy of any web page.--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case you should have said so in your edit summary. When copying from other compatibly-licensed wikis, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content. It's also a good idea to place a {{

translated}} template on the talk page of the new article. I've undone my removal and added the required attribution. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk

) 20:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hi! Here's an annoying request that I keep adding to talk pages of admins who are active right this second! RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I've recently been involved in a discussion on whether or not a single Knight’s Cross confers presumed notability. There’s no consensus on whether it does, although opinions differ; here’s a summary of a multi-part discussion at Notability (people).

The avenues for reducing the volume of such articles is AfD or PROD. A matter might come at AfD as to whether the articles could be redirected somewhere. There are list articles containing all of the 7000+ recipients, which I only recently became aware of. I am concerned that these lists may not be sufficiently transformative—that is, the list articles appear to be a line-by-line reproduction of the work by Fellgiebel (sample), which is available in English as Elite of the Third Reich. Compare to the article Recipients starting with Sa-Sch They include exactly the same information as in the book, and in the same order.

Is this okay from a copyright perspective? Another issue is the amount of red links, which does not appear to align with

) 00:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a copy vio. It's an alphabetical list; that's why they are in the same order. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism, "simple, non-creative lists of information, such as a list of song titles on an album, or actors appearing in a film. If creativity has gone into producing a list by selecting which facts are included, or in which order they are listed, then reproducing the list without attributing it to its source may constitute plagiarism." — Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Another CaptainHog sock, User:NoMoreSilence420, has popped up. The checkuser and range block was turned down by Vanjagenije, I think might help change that user's mind. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20 on August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Let's go back to your idea of page protection. I have protected some of his most popular and most recent targets:

• WJJS
• WPLY (AM)
• WVBE-FM
• WVBB
• WSFF. Semi-protected for one month. — Diannaa (talk
  ) 02:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully that will force him to give a rest. Thanks for your continued help on this one. Much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42 on August 5, 2016 (UTC)

The sock is strong with this one. Keep me posted please, happy to help. — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you help me understand what I need to do to keep our article from being speedily deleted per your request? I'm learning as I go and would appreciate insight on getting our article correct and verifiable. Thanks in advance. Juwebb (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could tell me where to locate the draft article that was declined in 2014. We need to have the continuity so that the original author gets attribution as required by the terms of our CC-by-sa license. A second problem is

not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, — Diannaa (talk

) 14:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You got mail!

Hello Diannaa,

Several months ago, there were some issues regarding Future Directed Therapy and Future-oriented therapy. A previous article on Future Directed Therapy was merged onto Future-oriented therapy. The material of Future Directed Therapy was removed from the merge due to the content being entirely different from Future-oriented therapy. The redirect from the former to the latter is protected, so the new draft that I am creating for Future Directed Therapy cannot be added to Wikipedia until that redirect is deleted. Do you mind accessing the Future-oriented therapy page to delete that redirect of Future Directed Therapy to FOT? Once again, the two therapies are completely different, and I am in the process of having Future Directed Therapy having its own article on Wikipedia.

Thanks again so much, and hope to hear from you soon.

lhaddad1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaddad1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This can be done if and when your draft is accepted for publication. — Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This also includes all your assistance in removing copyright violations. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the above article, as it was previously deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dechronification. I am also going to delete User:Shultz the Editor/Dechronification and User:Shultz the Editor/Joshua Brown (motorist). The reason is because copying other people's work into your sandboxes does not include the attribution history of the page, which is required under our CC-by-SA license. These pages are therefore copyright violations. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is over 10 years old. Wouldn't a statute of limitations on them have expired by now? What does it take to legitimately remake an article deleted so long ago?

I started "Dechronification" under another username long ago, so I copied my own work. Would I please get that and the Joshua Brown (motorist) articles' latest versions in some kind of a private message or email so that I can keep them in a private pastebin? I would feel aggravated to see my efforts and time going down the drain like this. If anyone notified me that they were going to delete it; gave advance notice, I would've saved my efforts by archiving a copy of them privately. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised to hear you don't have a copy, because you created it entire on August 4, 2016, at 05:12. I can email you a copy. There's no "statute of limitations" here The version you added was identical to the old version deleted long ago, and the

policy page says "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". — Diannaa (talk

) 02:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

History of Johannesburg

I responded to both your queries on my user page. Sorry about my mistakes. I will try harder.Vaaljapie (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'm copying this request from Drmies' page, figuring the more eyes on this, the better. Thanks for any help you or talk page stalkers may provide.

• Please see Sukhnidhey Films and Rituraj Devaang. I've begun to clean the former, but am encountering resistance from likely COI accounts. Two awful press releases. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My stalling has paid off, as these are both already deleted. Good ol' Coffee, he's all about the fresh today — Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It's worth saying (and this is especially true for poor Drmies, whose talk page I often embroider) that I rarely expect rapid responses to transgressions less than serial defamation. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I see this article has been put up for GA review; I know you had some interest in Rommel in the past, and worked on getting D-Day related articles (Normandy landings for example) up to GA in the past, so you may want to GA review it. I don't recall you editing on it before. Up to you -- Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't have time for GA review right now, so busy with copy vio work. — Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought. Kierzek (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The users in those images have had well over a week to respond. The tickets have all been checked, they were all responded to asking for additional information, and they were all ignored. Waiting another week is not going to do anything when they have been waiting for an email response for months. --Majora (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

F9 is not the correct speedy deletion criterion. The correct criterion is F11, under which the user is entitled to a week's notice. You may not think it's a big deal, but I am obliged to take the use of admin tools seriously and follow the policies to the letter. — Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between {{

OTRS received}} and being ignored. The images are a copyright violation in their current form and permissions were denied. These images have been around for months and months without the proper permissions so an extra week as a copyvio isn't going to matter all that much but it is still allowing a copyvio to exist for an extra week. --Majora (talk

) 01:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The correct criterion is F11, under which the user is entitled to a week's notice. You may not think it's a big deal, but I am obliged to take the use of admin tools seriously and follow the policies to the letter. — Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proper CSD tag for {{OTRS received}} but not confirmed.. Thank you. Majora (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth would you feel the need to delete a page from someone's sandbox? Someone said it could not exist there forever, but it hadn't even been there 24 hours. I hope you have a good answer. Casmeli (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted was User:Casmeli/sandbox/Amentini Motors. The reason was because it's a broken redirect to Amentini Motors, which was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amentini Motors. Before deleting the material from article space, the deleting admin moved it to a different sandbox location, User:Casmeli/Amentini Motors. — Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa,

I am writing to you with regards to your removal of the edits and additions that were made to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Minimum_Rules_for_the_Treatment_of_Prisoners&action=history on 6 August 2016, at 18:56.

I understand why certain parts were removed. However, the current article lacks a lot of information on the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules). The additions that were made on 5 August 2016 by UNODCJS were prepared by the UNODC Justice Section in an attempt to ensure that all the information on the Mandela Rules were recent and accurate. We would therefore really appreciate if you could kindly provide us with guidance on this matter to ensure that the edits and additions we make are in conformity with the Wikipedia standards.

We propose the following:

- We will paraphrase and reference the copyrighted parts from https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/expert-group-meetings-8.html and http://www.un.org/en/events/mandeladay/.

- We will reduce the links to minimize 'link farm'.

However, as to the 'unsourced additions', these additions were based on the work of the UNODC and prepared by our staff. Therefore, most of the text was original which makes it difficult to source/reference them in accordance with the relevant Wikipedia standards. Appreciate any help you can give us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNODCJS (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. In addition to the copyright problem, there's the issue of

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for assistance in this regard. For assistance in general matters you might be better off asking at the WP:teahouse, where volunteers experienced in helping new users are available to help. — Diannaa (talk

) 18:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diana, Thank you for your reply. I understand the issue with conflict of interest and will post a notice to that effect. However, the nature of the article makes it difficult to reference journals/books as the websites and referenced resolutions are the primary source for the information. Also, the information is all factual in nature which leaves little room for bias. Having said this the current article lacks a lot of information and does not reference any journals/research either.UNODCJS (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Need TNT at [23] Crow^Caw 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Y Done -- — Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I can find no support in online newspapers for this edit. Since it is potentially libelous, can you delete the edit? Thanks for looking into this. 32.218.152.85 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(

revdel is needed? Also, I removed the superintendent's name as well. There's no need for such information since he does not appear to be Wikipedia notable, it is unsourced and it is not relevant to the context. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 04:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to folks who mind the store while I am at my day-job. — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Quack

User:Justwhy69, actually asked for permission to edit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:28 on August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Done by DQ. — Diannaa (talk)

Water polo RD1 Edit

Can you please explain what you did and why? Still learning wikipedia, and would love to know. Thanks!Apriestofgix (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, happy to do so. The edit diff of Water polo appeared at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol as a potential copyright violation. I saw that there was a page Rules of water polo and as far as I was able to determine, the text was not copied from there. The material does appear at a couple of different sites on the Internet, including this one, so I revision-deleted it under criterion RD1. — Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

So in the interest of article cleanup I had moved edits from the main

Water Polo page, and added them to Rules of water polo. Should I also delete that content on that page as well then? Thanks! Apriestofgix (talk

) 23:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No need to do anything at Rules of water polo, as the content you moved did not contain the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(

WP:CWW for a full explanation.—Odysseus1479

01:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

For edit summary, I usually go with something like this: "Attribution: content in this section (or article) was moved (or copied) here from example on August 8, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution." — Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:11 Truth

Hi, As I understand it you have deleted this page because it did not conform to NPOV policy. I'm afraid I don't understand how it breaches that policy. To my mind, it's a simple explanation of the group of Military Officers for 9/11 truth with links to several of the members. How should I emulate, say, a similar group's page Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth to ensure I conform to NPOV policy? Thanks, Petra Liverani (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the draft for deletion because is a copyright violation. All the content appears to have been copied from the web page http://1amendmentcont.blogspot.com/2011/09/us-military-officers-for-911-truth_13.html. — Diannaa (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of that page. The page you quote simply places the whole of the Military Officers page on its page and as I put a quote (attributed) from the Military Officers page on my page which does not have a lot of text I infer that that's what makes it look like plagiarism. However, it isn't. Thanks, Petra Liverani (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to have a look at the copyvios report, which shows your opening paragraph is also a match for that website: here is a link to the copyvio report. — Diannaa (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the text almost matches, however, some of it is an attributed quote and a lot of it comprises a list of military personnel with their qualifications, taken directly from the website itself which I can edit to state that it is actually taken from the website. I'm not really pretending to say much myself at all. If this is not acceptable I will simply have to edit so there is less replication. Thanks,Petra Liverani (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't normally include mission statements or goals, so that part will have to come out as well. Of course that leaves you with essentially nothing, which is why I nominated it for deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Driver Booster copright

Hi, I understand why release notes had to be deleted, but why Windows 10 ones are on Wikipedia (and are copyrighted), while driver boster can't? Thanks 82.202.116.145 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If you see other copyright violations on Wikipedia, please feel free to remove them, or post a note on the article talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant wiki page Windows 10 version history, its content is copied from windows update history or windows blogs. 82.202.116.145 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's already tagged for copyright clean-up and has been since December 2015. Please go ahead and clean it up if you have the time. — Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Windows 10 comes up clean. I have to go to work now. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issue for "Nuclear power in India"

I received a note from you stating that my additions to the "Nuclear power in India" violates copyright. Since the information was taken from publicly available information, my assumption was that it will not violate any copyright issues. However if it does any copyright issues, thank you for reverting back the additions. I have added some information this time making sure that it does not violate any copyright issues. Please let me know if it does, so that I can edit it again. Monster eagle (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC) monster eagle

The material was copied from The Hindu, a copyright newspaper. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Future Directed Therapy and Future-Oriented Therapy Continued

Thank you Diannaa for your attention,

However, this redirect can be very misleading to the public, regardless of whether or not the Future Directed Therapy article is accepted for publication. Future Directed Therapy is an active treatment being conducted at Emory Healthcare as part of our treatment resistant depression program. Future-Oriented Therapy is not a treatment model that is in use anywhere. The similarities of the name are confusing, and having a redirect to this page is potentially a great disservice to people suffering from depression who are seeking treatment. We are requesting that this redirect be removed.

Thank you kindly for your assistance with this matter,

lhaddad1

Hello Diannaa,

Several months ago, there were some issues regarding Future Directed Therapy and Future-oriented therapy. A previous article on Future Directed Therapy was merged onto Future-oriented therapy. The material of Future Directed Therapy was removed from the merge due to the content being entirely different from Future-oriented therapy. The redirect from the former to the latter is protected, so the new draft that I am creating for Future Directed Therapy cannot be added to Wikipedia until that redirect is deleted. Do you mind accessing the Future-oriented therapy page to delete that redirect of Future Directed Therapy to FOT? Once again, the two therapies are completely different, and I am in the process of having Future Directed Therapy having its own article on Wikipedia.

Thanks again so much, and hope to hear from you soon.

lhaddad1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaddad1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This can be done if and when your draft is accepted for publication. — Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaddad1 (talk • contribs)

The place to go if you wish a redirect to be deleted is WP:Redirects for discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Thomas Rosica Wikipedia Article

Dear Dianna,

Thank you for your efforts with Wikipedia: for moderating it, keeping it balanced, clear, within correct bounds and unified. Obviously I am not core Wikipedia expert, and I contribute in-frequently. I wish I had time to do more. I have learned about many subjects and popular opinions on persons and events thanks to Wikipedia, and I love that about Wikipedia.

What surprises me regarding the Thomas Rosica wikipedia article is how easily all content is being removed without being reviewed, adjusted or modified. As you can see, there have been many attempts to make the article on this individual detailed, balanced, referenced, and fair. There is a plethora of references to a detailed biography on Thomas Rosica out there in the web, he has authored countless articles, and been introduced with similar introductions and summaries. There is only so much I can do in paraphrasing and re-writing what this individual did factually based on the wide array of references available. The proximity of words to original articles is un-intended and coincidental, and cannot be helped in some cases in the efforts for being concise and factual. Please indicate precisely where the copyright issues are.

I have seen and read many other Wikipedia articles that have been far more poorly sourced, or written, and they do not undergo this degree of modification and wiping. I would hope that some admins and moderators would be open to being more constructive in adding, editing, or adjusting the article rather than removing all content, leaving it with a skim sentence about the person in question, and one section lending undue weight to a controversy.

The fact the article has often been reverted to this form several times regardless of many efforts to add information and balance the undue weight to a single controversy, leads me to believe there is a bias or carelessness on the part of some admins. If my gut feeling is wrong about this, please let me know. I would like to request other admins to weigh in on the history of this article over the last 3 months and see for themselves. Please keep the "Free" in the slogan of Wikipedia being "The Free Encyclopedia".

Thank you for your consideration,

Where_he_spoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where he spoke (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The content has repeatedly been removed because it's a copyright violation, copied pretty much unaltered from http://saltandlighttv.org/about/rosica.php. The content was removed in its entirety because the violation is pretty much total. All material you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words please. Alternatively, if the copyright holder of the source website wishes to release the material under license, please see the instructions at

WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk

) 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Hi Diannaa, I've noticed at ANI you seem to be the goto person for image copyright issues. I was on IRC in Wikipedia-en-help and there was a question about trying to figure out if an image that was taken by the Iranian Government would be in the public domain similar to what we have in the United States. Any help would be much appreciated :D --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Verheyen Vincent: was the user with the question. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@

Join WP Japan

! 05:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: I've poked Verheyen_Vincent on Irc and they will follow up here. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598 and Nihonjoe: The image Shahram Amiri (شهرام امیری).png was adapted from a Creative Commons Attribution-licensed video which published on 26 May 2012 on the YouTube channel "VOA Farsi" (used interchangeably with "VOAPNN" & "VOA Persian"), which is the Persian language branch of Voice of America (the official external broadcast institution of the US federal government). However, the original source of the relevant footage was recorded in a studio Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (the Iranian state organization regarding domestic and external broadcasting), in Tehran, Iran. This footage was either recorded, broadcasted, or both (not so clear to me) on 17 July 2010 (according to AP Archive). It seems relevant (assuming the footage is likely to be created by IRIB) to understand whether or not the Iranian government considers content released by IRIB [abbreviation of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting] as "free" or not, since Wikimedia Commons asks for the following:

Images must be free in both the country of origin and the United States in order to be free enough for Commons.

— Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Commons#Differences between Wikipedia and Commons (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

@Cameron11598 and Nihonjoe: Article 11 of the Official English translation of Iran's Copyright Law (communicated to Unesco by letter of April 20, 1970, of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education), with regards to the copyright law dated 12 January 1970, might be of interest:

Reproduction of works protected by this law, as mentioned in Article 2, section 1, and the recording of radio and television programmes are permissible, but only for private and non-­commercial use.

The above was translated from the originally Persian passage:

‌ماده 11 - نسخه‌برداری از اثرهای مورد حمایت این قانون مذکور در بند 1 از ماده 2

و ضبط برنامه‌های رادیویی و تلویزیونی فقط در صورتی که برای‌استفاده شخصی و غیر

انتفاعی باشد مجاز است.

— Islamic Parliament Research Center (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

@

Join WP Japan

! 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Please note that "public domain" might be a concept which can not be found as such in Iranian idioms (therefor, it might be interesting to look for characteristics of works which can be considered "free", particularly in the original Persian text). Article 11 at least mentions the the right to redistribute television programmes, under circumstances. Another article which catches my eye is Article 8:

Public libraries, documentation centers, scientific institutions and educational establishments, which are noncommercial, may reproduce protected works by a photographic or similar process, in the numbers necessary, for the purposes of their activities, according to a decree to be issued by the Board of Ministers.

The above was translated from the originally Persian passage:

‌ماده 8 - کتابخانه‌های عمومی و مؤسسات جمع‌آوری نشریات و مؤسسات علمی و آموزشی که

به صورت غیر انتفاعی اداره می‌شوند می‌توانند‌طبق آیین‌نامه‌ای که به تصویب
هیأت‌وزیران خواهد رسید از اثرهای مورد حمایت این قانون از راه عکسبرداری یا طرق

مشابه آن به میزان مورد نیاز و‌متناسب با فعالیت خود نسخه‌برداری کنند.

— Islamic Parliament Research Center

I think that both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons can certainly be considered documentation centers, and the image in question is certainly produced by a photographic or similar process. Nevertheless, I understand the relevance of your reply though. I seem to have to accept that, if no Persian reading person could find new information, the future of the image on Commons is not looking very bright. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

@

Join WP Japan

! 18:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems to me this hinges on the legitimacy of the CC-BY licence on the VOAPNN video. If they had authorization to release the video under this free licence, then an image derived from it should also be free, assuming proper attribution. The status of the original work only matters if the CC licence is invalid. Is there reason to believe the channel is careless of permissions? Or is it assumed they would ignore Iranian copyright in the absence of a treaty? If in fact VOAPNN had no right to license the material, I agree there’s nothing to indicate it would be free under Iranian law. There seems to be a common misconception that all government works are PD, but the US federal government is actually quite unusual in this regard. Most countries (and individual US states) make a few exceptions for things like laws, regulations, and public notices (although there are often non-copyright restrictions instead), but reserve copyright on everything else to the state (or the Crown). I also agree that non-commercial and educational-only permissions are not acceptable: although the WMF projects themselves would qualify, policy requires our free content to be reusable for all purposes; in other words we are not only publishers, but also distributors.—Odysseus1479 19:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified the existence of this section at an identically named section on Wikimedia Commons, namely: at the talk page of the file "Shahram Amiri (شهرام امیری).png". I have notified all users who participated to the above discussion during the creation of the mentioned new section. I would like to propose that the discussion be continued on the mentioned Commons talk page, as this discussion seems now to be centered around that mentioned file. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

Dear Diannaa, thanks for you comments on the "Bernd Kortmann" draft article. I have added some changes as requested. Is it ok to keep the "publications" part the way it is? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.91.86 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Lists are almost always okay form a copyright point of view, as long as they are "simple, non-creative lists of information". So yeah, you can leave that part as-is. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, thanks for you comments on the "Cayman Islands Cricket Association" article. My questions:-

1. How will I come to know that copying material from their (for that matter any particular) website is a copyright issue?
2. Is it okay if in Wikipedia page of Cayman Islands Cricket Association page, one provides link to Cayman Islands' History page and does not copy the extract and paste on Wiki page?
3. Is it okay if I take a prior e-mail approval from them before picking the information from their website and pasting on wikipedia?

Best Regards, Vikram Maingi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikram maingi (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very briefly:

1. Always assume material is protected by copyright unless there’s an explicit licence or release saying otherwise, or it’s so old that the copyrights have expired.
2. Yes, you can generally use a
   External Links
   section.
3. No. Permission to use material on Wikipedia is insufficient: it must allow anyone to use it, for any purpose. To be accepted it must also go through the OTRS system for verification and recording: see WP:Donating copyrighted materials.—Odysseus1479 04:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa,

What makes you believe the section removed from the page is copyrighted? It seems to me a clear case of a backwards copy.

• Here is where the "paradigm shift" phrase is first introduced, containing "it makes the reader to": [[24]]
• This is the only hit I can find that uses the original phrasing: [[25]], which was established in July 2012, so it's possible it copied from Wikipedia - the other book descriptions on that page have google hits, so they look copied too.
• Then there is the part where the phrase is changed to "it helps the reader": [[26]]. After that, many many hits show up. This strongly implies that Wikipedia was repeatedly copied by external sites.
• The final change in phrase is the addition of "i.e.": [[27]]. Again many hits show up.

In conclusion, it looks to me like there is a gradual change in phrasing, documented on the page history, and repeated backwards copying from Wikipedia to many external sites.

Do you still have reason to believe the content is copyrighted? Do you have an original source that is not an external website that could have copied the Wikipedia article?

) 13:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much the "paradigm shift" paragraph I was concerned about but the summary that follows of the seven habits. Looking back, although it has been edited heavily since then, we have had a version of that summary since 2003. It looks like the material has been removed and re-added a couple of times, which is what triggered the bot report. Looks like you are right, it was a false positive. Sorry about the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You had raised a Copyvio issue regarding

) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it may be a paid editor, as there's an unrelated article creation at Danielle Sheypuk (which is actually a copy-paste of Draft:Danielle Sheypuk, but that's another story). I will notify the user about the relevant policies. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The material added in this edit is copied verbatim from the source ( http://www.30thinfantry.org/history_docs/john_ericsson.doc ), so could you please revdel it? Thomas.W ^talk 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Y Done; sorry for the delay. I had to go to the city to help my mom with something all morning. — Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't feel any stress, we're not getting paid so real life always takes precedence. And enjoy being with your mom while you have her, one day she'll no longer be there (I lost mine a few years ago). Thomas.W ^talk 21:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I would make you aware of yet another CaptainHog sock. The sock has been blocked, just trying to fish out any sleepers. I've alerted DeltaQuad, since she ran the checkuser in the last SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26 on August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this draft article under review. You removed 2 definitions from the page. I had another reviewer check this out on 7 Aug 2016 and he confirmed that the direct quotes do adhere with Wikipedia policy as listed here

) 15:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the quotes because I think they are too lengthy, failing our

WP:NFCC. I have no intention of edit warring with you about it though. — Diannaa (talk

) 15:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am user CorbuleacM and I am the author of Unigma wiki page. If you believe this url: http://www.bsminfo.com/doc/public-cloud-monitoring-management-is-now-easier-unigma-0001 is a clear copyright infringement you should have it removed from Unigma wiki page, but not the entire page. I believe that based on all partnerships Unigma has: with Autotask, Kasyea, AWS and those were proven by using accurate URLs, Unigma is significant, it is a top player on the cloud management market based on its features and benefits. Let me know what I need to provide more to prove its importance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that in many instances the copyright violation can be removed and the article rescued. However I did not think it was worthwhile to do that in this instance, bacause the article also failed speedy deletion criterion

G11 (worded like an advertisement). — Diannaa (talk

) 17:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your promt reply! Please let me know what I can do to rescue the article because I believe that its importance is proven based on the fact that big managed services companies like Autotask and Kaseya agreed to partner with it even though it is a young company, founded in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In order to meet the notability criteria as outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), you'll need to provide multiple in-depth coverage of the organization in sources independent of the subject. We like to see a minimum of three independent sources that give detailed coverage (not just brief mentions). I'm just not seeing that at this time, so the subject does not meet our notability requirements at the present time. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Beside the ones that I mentioned here are 3 recent sources published after Unigma released an API-based multi-cloud cost calculator. There are only few multi-cloud costs calculators out there and for that you may check:

http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/unigma-helps-it-departments-evaluate-public-clouds-with-new-tool

http://www.findmyhost.com/webhostingblog/unigma-offers-it-departments-service-providers-first-capability-to-compare-and-select-public-clouds/

http://cloudpost.us/2016/07/hostingcon-spotlight-kirill-bensonoff-founder-of-unigma-talks-cloud.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you believe you have adequate material to establish notability, I suggest you start a draft using the Articles for Creation process. There you will have the assistance of people experienced is assessing sources and notability. — Diannaa (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dianna! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I believe this is a copyvio Space Dev Steering Committee (copyvio report). I would appreciate you looking into that. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The http://whois.domaintools.com/zeably.com shows a creation date for that web page of June 2012, and we have had the content since 2008. Our earliest revision states the organization did not have a web page at that time. I had one other tool but it's gone 404 on me so that's all I've got. Odds are that we had the content first. — Diannaa (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and currently I am trying to improve the contents of above page accordingly. With regard to the picture of him in Wikimedia Commons, it is not possible to use the picture as in his official twitter account? Please advise. Thanks NaidNdeso (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If an image has been previously published elsewhere online, we need the copyright holder to release it under license. There's instructions how to do it at

WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk

) 14:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If I change the copyright into {{|tlxGFDL-self}}, would it solve the problem and prevent the picture from deletion? NaidNdeso (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No. The reason is because the photo is already in use elsewhere online. We need a permission email from whoever took the photo, because that is who holds the copyright. If you took the photo, you are the person who needs to send the email. If it was someone else, get them to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, could you please compare Neuron#Overview with this book starting on page 17. As far as I can tell, parts of it are verbatim copying and parts are very close paraphrasing. The section in the article has existed in one form or another for a very long time, but this update in 2010 rewrote it in the approximate state it's in now.

The book seems to be licensed, I think appropriately for Wikipedia's use, and given some of the refs in the book, it may be our article included the text before the book, but even if it's not infringing, shouldn't we at least source the section (there are zero sources)?

Anyway, I don't want to do anything drastic. I figure you'll know what to do, if anything. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The book is a collection of Wikipedia articles. Have a look at Page 1, which is a copy of

WP:MEDRS to be followed. — Diannaa (talk

) 19:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't want to source it myself. Heaven forbid. Should I at least tag the section as unsourced or just let it go? I don't read science articles of any kind much, but the subject of neurons came up at home a little while ago, so ... --Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, tag it for sourcing; I will also ping User:Doc James to have a look and maybe work on it if he has time. Also, I meant to mention, there's a template we can place on the affected Wikipedia articles: Template:Wikipedia mirror. I don't have time to do that myself, too busy with my copy vio work. — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Book extensively references Wikipedia[28] And that is the

) 20:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up

Can you follow up on some of these [29] They are using their own work which is a COI issue but the work has been previously published and they likely do not own it anymore. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Amazonian motmot into Blue-capped motmot. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, there is an attribution link provided on the talk page.....the AOU split the species, so each one links back to the Amazonian motmot page......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What you need to do differently is state in your edit summary at the destination article when copying/moving material from one Wikipedia article to another. The talk page templates are optional; the edit summary is not. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. — Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That was fast, wasn't it? As I couldn't have a single word about it, let me tell you: I got those two paragraphs from HMS Ardent (1764). Yes, I made the mistake of forgetting to say it, but it could be easily resolved if someone asked me first, now I won't lost my time to write again. So, instead of accusing me of a copyright violation you people should point yours fingers into another direction. Nick 264 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. I don't see any point in restoring it though, as all the content is still present at the source article. — Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW the external source, The Nautical Research Journal published in 2014,[30] appears to have copied from Wikipedia by lifting text I wrote in the HMS Ardent article in 2010.[31]. Not proposing a page restoration, but I don't think this is a copyvio, or at least not at an en-WP end. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a case of unattributed copying within Wikipedia, which is technically a copyright violation, but not as serious as copying from external sources. I do look for this when checking the bot reports, but it's not always evident. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually just expanding my comment to acknowledge that very point when we edit-conflicted. I suppose also to ensure the copyvio removal didn't inadvertently extend to my 2010 text, which is the original material. Agree that the new article didn't add anything to what already existed on the Ardent page. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at

) 00:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it appear they may be copying from their own work. As the publisher is closed source it looks a bit like both a COI and a copyright issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

if anybody is interested in details - it seemed that KaiStr used my text from my paper (contacting me on it, prior to posting, I didn't mind it) - Doc James pointed to the copyrights issue (thanks), so today I edited (paraphrased) the section that was a simple copy. I can, of course, deposit my whole paper on the Wiki, its draft version and format before it was published (the publisher only owns the copyrights for the printed format, the packaging of the idea in the image that can be seen when looking at their journal but not the actual phrasing/text - this belongs to author, i.e. to me), but I just wanted to resolve this issue faster. I looked at the donation of the text page procedure - emailing, then waiting for a permit for an uncertain time - it is easier just to edit the text... I am open for suggestions, if it doesn't work for some reasons.

talk

) 00:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that while you may self-identify as being the original author, we can't take your word for it. We have a system in place for authors who wish to release their material to Wikipedia under license. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for details of how to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about copying within wikipedia. I am aware of the rules and did place the relevant template on the talk page with this edit within seconds of the edit to the article.— Rod ^talk 06:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I did not check the talk page. However, the talk page templates are optional; the edit summary is not. If you could provide attribution in your edit summary at the destination article when you move the content, that would be perfect. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, The text I copied into Timiryazev's article came from the article Tverskoy Boulevard. In view of your action the boulevard article may also need attention as it is all attributed to «"Great Moscow 850: Guide", E. Efimova, 1997»--Johnsoniensis (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. What you need to do please in the future when copying from one Wikipedia article to another is to provide attribution. This is done by at a minimum stating in your edit summary at the destination page where you copied the material from. I have undone my edit and added the required attribution. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The Tverskoy Boulevard article has had the content about the since 2006 so it looks like it's us that had it first. — Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I find it hard to remember the plethora of rules.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WRT https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KenThomas/Rev._John_Littlejohn&action=edit&redlink=1, I no longer remember what exactly was on this page as I do not check WP frequently. WRT http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.littlejohn/482/mb.ashx , Ms. Lyne (a personal acquaintance who *prompted me to create this article*) appears to be quoting from the Kentucky Index of graves, and a separate source. Such small quotational uses of larger copyrighted works are fully protected by fair use. As well, your quick deletion (why is this necessary, again?) has resulted in the removal of a stub about a notable, if very neglected key figure in US history. KenThomas (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This was a sandbox you created in 2009 and it was deleted in February 2016. It was a verbatim copy of the content of the webpage http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.littlejohn/482/mb.ashx, a copyright web page. While short excerpts are permitted under our fair use policy, it's only permitted where there's no free equivalent. In this case, the copyright material could easily be replaced by prose you write yourself. — Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and racist rants by blocked editor and his IPs:

• [32], [33], [34]
• Not as offensive as above diffs, but still inappropriate edit summaries, if you think they're inappropriate and disruptive, please delete them: [35], [36]

Thanks. --

) 10:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the three that called a specific editor a racist. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you hid a dozen or so revisions to Obaidullah (detainee), with the explanation that they were "blatant copyright violations". Can I ask whose copyright was being violated?

Material that could not, of course, be included in article, can be paraphrased, summarized, in ways that complies with our policies -- correct? Then could you please go back to your notes and provide me with the URL(s) to the materials source?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The material was copied from this PDF from the Amnesty International website, which is released under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence, which is not a compatible license with this wiki. — Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Diana, I created this page for my father. I believe his contribution to jazz is important. Check out his discography. Please reinstate so that I can continue to work on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8501:2A00:D83:1BF6:B780:DCF5 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

diannaa, Von Varlynn “Bob” Whitlock page was deleted. I created this page for my father. IHis contribution to jazz is important. His discography bears this out. Please reinstate so that I can continue to work on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmancuso (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The page was deleted because most of the content was copied from http://www.jazzwax.com/2015/07/bob-whitlock-1931-2015.html, a copyright web page. Also, the subject of the article does not meet the notability requirements for a musician; see the guideline at

WP:BAND. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk

) 22:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Diana,I read through the guidelines and do not see how he doesn’t meet the notability requirements. He played and recorded with Gerry Mulligan, Chet Baker, Zoot Sims, George Shearing, Jack Sheldon, Victor Feldman. What am I missing?Jcmancuso (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations are missing. What you need to do is find and cite at least three independent

reliable sources that give in-depth coverage of the subject. The version that was deleted had one, from which content was copied (that's the second reason the page was deleted: it was a copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk

) 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thank you for you note - however nothing I have put up violates anything. I have permission from the artist and everyone quoted to put up what I wrote. Another Wiki person also added material yesterday - some incorrect that I had to correct today. Please - instead help me to format it correctly instead of removing it. Thank you so much musicfan (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If the copyright holder wishes to release the material under license, they need to follow the directions at

WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk

) 00:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Also I came across this today and I felt that there were ways you could have helped - knowing that I was a newbie instead of threatening me with a block and me not understanding the "rules" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers I have had so many of you messaging me and users changing things on my draft when I am just trying to get a guitar player listed with his accomplishments like the other members of the band he was in. It was a glaring missing page on Wiki that I thought I could help fill. Thank you for any useful/user friendly help you can provide. I appreciate that. 04:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackguitarfan (talk • contribs)

Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello D. I saw your removal of the plot at Pumpkin Man and it brought up a question. From experience I know that some of what is at IMDb is copied from WikiP. Is there any way to tell which came first in a case like this? Please don't get me wrong I think the removal was correct and I am glad that you took the action. I am just trying to add to my learning about this kind of thing. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

IMDb is not archived but the same content is all over the Web, including http://cinemamechanic.com/Pumpkin-Man.html, where it has been in place since 2009. I guess the promotional breathless tone makes it fairly obvious when it's not user-generated prose. — Diannaa (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. No matter how long I've edited here there are always new things to learn so I appreciate this reply. MarnetteD|Talk 01:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

HI Diannaa. I saw User talk:Jackguitarfan#Wikipedia and copyright and am wondering if an old Commons:Sandbox edit which can be found via here is the same copyvio. Do you know whether Commons revdels in cases like this if it is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a match for http://www.jackpearson.com/?pg=bio. I bet they would like to revision-delete it. commons:Commons:Revision deletion says to contact any Commons admin off-wiki and ask them to take care of it, or post on the IRC channel. There could be a Commons admin among my talk page watchers who will do it — Diannaa (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've posted something at c:User talk:INeverCry#Revision deletion question since INeverCry is a Commons admin who seems to have warned the user about adding this content to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I hope you're well. INeverCry 04:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh hi INeverCry. All is well, thanks for your help as always — Diannaa (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the work you do keeping copyrighted material out of Wikipedia. I'm particularly impressed by your patience in explaining the nuances of paraphrasing vs copyright and attempting to work with new users rather than just block and forget about it. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It's nice to get some positive feedback for a change, especially coming from you! — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dianna,

Thank you for your efforts with Wikipedia: this said, I fully disagree with the complete removal of the page I created. I did so with the full consent of the author of the book 'death of the queen of hearts' - he provided me with the image of the front cover and all of the reviews I quoted were cited in keeping with wikipedia policy. It was removed without giving me adequate time to prove my sources. I am new to wikipedia so please tell me how I can provided the proof and have the page reinstated. TStegiouallen —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The page was deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion method, which means that it can be restored upon request. The reason given for the deletion was "Searches are not finding any actual substance, there's nothing to suggest independent notability". Books do not typically get stand-alone articles (especially when the author does not have an article) unless notability can be established. Wikipedia:Notability (books) recommends in-depth coverage in alt least two sources independent of the subject of the article. — Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You “blanked the page” User:Vejlefjord/#2_Draft saying you did so because “this is an unattributed copy of Henry Thomas Buckle.” By blanking the page you freed User:Vejlefjord from the dire warnings about speedy deletion and freed me from being threatened to lose my editing rights.

But, FYI it was the other way around. The page you blanked was my draft that I previewed before using it for my edits to

) 19:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page history, and here is what I found out.

• On August 17, you copied the contents of this web page into your sandbox (Diff 1 of User:Vejlefjord/). You can't do that; it's a copyright violation.
• The content was removed by User:ThePlatypusofDoom. He did this by restoring an old revision of the page from March 24 that still contained the Henry Buckle content (Diff 2 of User:Vejlefjord/).
• Another user nominated the sandbox for deletion as a copyright violation. At that point the Henry Buckle content was present, and while copying within Wikipedia should not be done without proper attribution, we don't have to delete the page for that reason. So I blanked it. At the time, I did not notice you had pasted copyright material from http://www.jcrelations.net/An+Address+to+the+Churches.+Seelisberg+(Switzerland)+1947..2370.0.html?L=3 into your sandbox at 22:20 on August 17, 2016. That diff needs to be revision-deleted, and I will do that as soon as you have had time to review and understand the sequence of events. — Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Do you think OTRS permissions is needed for this image? The source of the file seems to be www.josephmaroon.com, but the file's description lists a person other than the uploader as the photgrapher. It could be that the photographer was hired to take this image sepcifically for use on the website, but I'm not sure if that automatically means a transfer of copyright (at least not enough for Commons) has taken place. PUF no longer exists and I could nominate the file for discussion at FFD, but if it's obvious that OTRS verification is need, then tagging the file with {{

) 12:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If the pic was a work-for-hire the subject owns the copyright. While the uploader's username matches the name of the subject, we have no evidence that it's actually him. Since the image is also in use elsewhere online, an OTRS ticket is required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Diannaa. I will tag the file with {{

No permission}}. If I do it incorrectly or something else needs to be done, just let me know. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 22:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice on copyright issue

Hello Diana. Earlier this week I found that a large section (over 90% according to Earwig) of the Johnny Horton page was lifted from this article. I followed the procedure for it in putting a notice on the page and listed it as a copyright violation. The issue is complicated as the problem originates from an 2010 edit. Since then a number of additions were made. So reverting back to the pre-2010 version is not desirable. How to proceed? And my apologies if I took the wrong course of action here. Karst (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing at WP:CP was the right thing to do. This gives interested editors an opportunity to re-write the prose before the violation is removed. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The content of the article has now been changed. However the previous content was also under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 licence. There is an attribution to its source thus the copyright has not been violated. The text has been rephrased now. I have removed the tag of speedy deletion. Please advise on whether it will still be speedily deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberun (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you have created yourself. An admin needs to assess. Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 is not a compatible license with this wiki. I have done some more clean-up and the current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dianaa. Can you please direct me to the guideline section for this wiki which refers to its incompatibility with Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative and how this incompatibility amounts to copyright infringement of Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative? Thanks a lot.

The chart of compatible and non-compatible licenses is here. — Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianaa

I see that you have deleted the article on Madhushree Mukherjee citing copyright concerns. Following is the re-written article. Kindly approve this so I can go ahead and create it again:

Madhurshree Mukerjee is a journalist and author of

) 04:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to look after this. — Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Dianna, on my talk page you wrote: "August 2016 Your addition to Hound Dog (song) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)" To which I responded:

Diannaa (talk I am at complete loss as to exactly what constituted an alleged violation of copyright, and why you removed edits that have nothing to do with the website you cite as having its rights offended: http://campber.people.clemson.edu/chess2.html. As an experienced WP editor, any edit I made using material from other sources would have been attributed. Further, the way you reverted the edits, makes it impossible for me to see exactly what was removed, and how I can include this material in a way that conforms with your interpretation of copyright violation. Can you re-post the deleted material here (or somewhere else) so we can discuss this matter to our mutual satisfaction? smjwalsh ~

~

The edit was picked up by a bot as being a potential copyright violation and appeared on the copyvio report https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can view the copyvio report. This diff is the problematic one. Note the unique phrasing "playing as brilliantly as he ever did on his own sides" and "would have to wait till the late 1960s" — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• copyvio report of diff #735087259 (14:44, August 18, 2016): Here there's a pretty substantial overlap between your addition and the the webpage http://campber.people.clemson.edu/chess2.html.
• Copyvio report of diff #735091538 (15:18, August 18, 2016), just before it was removed by user: GeneralizationsAreBad (GAB). This version has been edited, and some of the overlapping material is in quotation marks. I can see why GAB removed it; it's not at all clear that the second bit is a quotation or who you are quoting and there's really no need to use a quotation for basic info such as the date of the release of an LP. It looks like you copied the source material into the article and then did some further editing. Please don't do that; it's still a copyright violation, and the material is publicly visible in the page history unless revision deletion is performed. Editing of copyright material should be done off-wiki in a text editor, or performed before you save the page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. As you indicate correctly the problem is one of process (ie pasting material, saving it, editing it, attributing it - in that order). I will modify my method accordingly so as not to offend the sensitivities of the bot. I have now edited the material I wanted to add and believe it conforms to WP standards. ~

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. In the future, could you please sign your posts? This is done by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had had 2 year break from WP and had forgotten how to sign discussions. I had remembered to use a tilde but not that there were 4 smjwalsh (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:CatcherStorm#Edits removed from Tahir ul Qadri page. I would appreciate your input on this issue. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, racist and personal attacks by a nationalistic pov pusher and his IP-socks:

• [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

Is a range block possible? That disruptive sockmaster/IP-hopper always creates new accounts and repeat those stuff. --

) 10:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

195.214.190.101, 73.206.73.84, 88.251.168.126 are unrelated IPs and there's no opportunity for a range block. 88.251.168.126 is already blocked, as are the named accounts. I don't think the word "racist" alone is enough to warrant revision deletion of the edit summaries. The worst one is already hidden by another admin. — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

But this one is a personal attack against me. --

talk

) 05:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct, I see it now. — Diannaa (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding the above file, that you just CSD'd – it's a picture of myself, taken by a friend, and only going to be used in project space (

) 17:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. — Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Suggestion: Take a selfie with your phone -- — Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for that incredibly helpful explanation. I am obviously not going to bother the already massively-backlogged OTRS folks with a Teahouse profile pic, so please go ahead and delete that file. And congratulations on so diligently defending Wikipedia from non-existent copyright violations. Joe Roe (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dianna, thanks for pointing out the copyright violation. I have fixed the copyright problem you can use the [42] to check again. Thanks Historywiki11 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't fix the copyright problem by pulling down the source web page. That's not how it works. :( — Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My apologies.....

Can i delete the previous contents on the Wikipedia page and write another? Historywiki11 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. — Diannaa (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done that, tho it's a bit shorter than before. Thanks so much Historywiki11 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, i appreciate your help Historywiki11 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Historywiki11 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello I noticed that this user created a couple of pages that by the layout and wording looks like they were lifted from somewhere. The original site for the company is down and the web archive I checked only had a placeholder for the site. What (if anything) should we do in this circumstance?

23:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There‘s something weird here: the user page is a redirect to project space, which in turn redirects to an article(?) also in project space. What‘s the best way to deal with these: MfD? or move back to user space?—Odysseus1479 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Then there's a copy at Aarius studios. I suspect G6 applies to the others given this one. Crow^Caw 23:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Now the decided to move their user talk page into the template space. I'm not sure what they're trying to do now.
    Talk
    23:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I've done:

• User:Aarius2014: Blanked the page.
• Wikipedia:Aarius2014: deleted as an implausible redirect.
• Template:Aarius2014: moved back to User talk:Aarius2014 without leaving a redirect.
• Wikipedia:Aarius and Aarius studios: These are both the same, so I am redirecting Wikipedia:Aarius to Aarius studios. I don't want to delete the draft (which is where the history is), because the company does not look notable enough for an article, but I'm not 100 per cent sure. This way there's a copy in the draft history that the editor can use moving forward if the copy in article space gets deleted. Changed my mind; I have moved the draft to Aarius studios without leaving a redirect and then re-added the FrescoBot edits. I couldn't find any evidence that the material at Aarius studios is a copy vio. — Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Quick question about {{

) 01:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Doing it that way is prefect perfect. — Diannaa (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Should it be tagged for F5 speedy? Or is it better to wait? — Diannaa (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I tagged the file for speedy and did find the free equivalent on Commons, but the editor who was disputing the rfu is the one who used it to replace the non-free one. Per the file's talk page, he seems satisfied with the free image so I guess it can be tagged with {{

rfu}} should now be removed as well. FWIW, F5 is given seven days before deletion whereas rfu is given only two, so that technically means the file could be deleted per F7 before being deleted per F5. It might also be able to be tagged per G7 by the uploader (which can lead to an even faster deletion), but not sure. It seems the end result is going to be the same regardless and the only difference is the time allotted prior to deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Another mark up thing I never learned. Is ageism a thing if one directs it at oneself? ;^) Tiderolls 12:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a little bit of fun to brighten your day. Glad you like it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am on the board of directors for Southwest Alternate Media Project. There was a lot of cut and paste from the non-profit's website because that copy was created by the board of directors. We were going to expand it with historical information about James Blue, one of the founders of the organization. We expanded on what was already existing in the Wiki at the time which was created by a Wikipedia bot I believe. We can either provide the license permission or edit the information citing the website where we need to, so please do not delete the article. Currently, we cite the www.swamp.org site, but will produce a wikipedia worthy article within the next few weeks if allowed.

I will also need time to fully digest all the rules and regulations behind Wikipedia and the mechanics of the site. Thanks. EsDog (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There are several problems with your addition. 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 this policy

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 talk page. — Diannaa (talk

) 03:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, most of the material were taken from their official website which is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 India License. This allow copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. So I was under the impression that it doesn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or rules. Please let me know about it more if am misinformed about this licensing and copyright issue. About the other source, I will try contacting the original author about licensing. Still I will try to restructure and rewrite sentences but I need you to revert it back so that I can also seeks helps from community to make it in better shape. Thanks.

) 08:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikhilndev454, I have restored the introductory material and the product list, as those parts are indeed released under a compatible license. Sorry for not noticing this earlier. The page needs work in other areas so I have added some maintenance tags which will hopefully attract some more editors to help. — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa,

I WAS NEW AT WIKIPEDIA. I CREATED A PAGE FOR ANIS CHOUDHURY. FOR COPYRIGHTED PROBLEM, YOU DELETE MY PAGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO REVISE ME. SO THAT I CAN CREATE A PAGE CORRECTLY. I HAVE SOME OFFICIAL REFERENCE OF ANIS CHOUDHURY. I AM FROM BANGLADESH. Bangladesh have a governmental official encyclopedia whose name is BanglaPedia. Reference is /Banglapedia. In that page you will find the anis choudhury information. I give you the link Anis Choudhury . Another reference has that when anis choudhury died our nation parliament propose a condolence for anis choudhury. this is hard copy. in the attachment, i send you the scancopy ( Bangladesh Parliament Condolence April 1991 – Page 1 Bangladesh Parliament Condolence April 1991 – Page 2 Bangladesh Parliament Condolence April 1991 – Page 15 ) . You can see the biography of our site also Details Biography of Anis Choudhury . If you need any other proved then, i will try to give you the information. Thank you advance. Sorry for late response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahi Uddin (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Anis Choudhury was created by user: Mahiuddin1982. Please restrict yourself to using one account; multiple accounts make it more difficult to communicate with you or find the deleted article that you are talking about. The article was deleted because all of the material was copied unaltered from http://www.anischoudhury.com/2011/10/24/about/, a copyright web page. Banglapedia is not a reliable source, because it is a wiki. When you say "our site" and point to anischoudhury.com, it makes me think you have a connection to the subject of the article, and therefore should not be editing this article at all. I have placed sone information on conflict of interest at your talk page (User talk:Mahi Uddin). — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this diff? I was about to post to User talk:Rjdeadly regarding inadequate/incomplete referencing in various articles, then noticed your final warning to the editor re: repeated infringement of copyright. The Description section seems very close to the Met. Museum's text here. Haploidavey (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There was at least an effort to paraphrase but it's still a copyright violation I'm sorry to say. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That was amazingly fast. And yes, the editor tried, kind-of, which makes it a rather sorry business. Have to say, though, you do a great job here. Haploidavey (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone was kind enough to notify me about this project. Thought I'd do the same in case you're interested. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 10:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation for these deletions. I'm still not clear as to why they were made, as the source material for most was public web pages on the subject. I was trying to draw attention to the contribution made by the Engineering designers of the vessel, as the 'appearance' designers seemed the only ones credited. Please advise as to how to amend, as I did not directly quote anything from those pages as my own work. I paraphrased some text, but if I rearranged this and put it quotes, would that suffice|? Regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.242.27 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your addition was reported by a bot, which is comparing all additions of a certain size to material that already exists online. The passage was not identical to the source in all respects, but it was close enough that an editor removed it and I revision-deleted it. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This means your version will be typically shorter than the source. Our non-free content policy calls for quotations to be used only when absolutely necessary. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue. — Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected as much , but you know how I am with copyvio tools. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your addition to Tanzania Hockey Association has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

I didn't realise that it was a copyrighted material.

Thanks, Vikram Vikram Maingi (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

How do I come to know that news section from FIH is a copyrighted material? Request you to help me on this so that I do not do such mistake again. I do not want my i/d to get blocked.

Regards, Vikram Maingi (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

I followed the procedure liste here and will forward the permission as specified when / if I get it.

Diomidis Spinellis (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to request that

) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

• 13 July 2016: 7,000
• 1 August 2016: 9,000
• 7 August 2016: 10,472
• 16 August 2016: 11,500
• 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have company here from out of town but will try to get to it ASAP. Got to keep that https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/ up-to-date as well, but that is getting easier as more and more people pitch in to help. Thanks for the alert. — Diannaa (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa, thanks for the message earlier about using Wikipedia content with its own domain. I actually had in my mind to share the attribution but completely forgot. Actually i am here to ask you... more than confirm from you that is it permissible to use the content of

) 00:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Chiming in as a tps (feel free to wait for Diannaa's response) I'd say that if the material from Wikia is properly licensed (some is, some is not) then use of it does not create a copyright problem (assuming that it is properly attributed/referenced) but it is almost certainly not a reliable source, so other than the relatively rare circumstances such as an article about Wikia or an article about some Wikia entry, it wouldn't seem to be appropriate. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Nauriya: I agree with Sphilbrick. Wikia's default license is CC-BY-SA3, although individual wikias can choose other licenses. So as long as the particular wikia you're using hasn't tightened their license from default, then you're theoretically ok from a copyright perspective. I have seen wikias take copyrighted content and publish on their site under CC, which is illegal of course, so my advice there would be to google a couple of sentences and see if they appear verbatim elsewhere. Lastly, copyrights aside, wikia is pretty much entirely user-generated content so may not be considered a reliable source. My guess is that if you can find it on wikia, you can probably find it elsewhere on a more reliable source. Crow^Caw 22:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:TONE, so if i want to write myself here in Wikipedia, words might be different but 80% of the style and arc (obviously) will remain the same. Tell me what should i do? Nauriya (Rendezvous

) 12:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check each wiki carefully and make sure it it released under a compatible license before copying.

WP:reliable sources noticeboard with the specific question as to whether compatibly-licensed wikis can be used as a source for plot descriptions to get further input of the acceptability of the practice. My opinion should not be considered as the final word. — Diannaa (talk

) 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Diannaa: for such a brief answer. I have seen the compatible licenses list that you mentioned above and the content of Wikia that i want to use here, is licensed under "CC-BY-SA" which is compatible, you can look by yourself which states Content is available under CC-BY-SA so what is your opinion? do i still have to request somewhere else for confirmation? Nauriya (Rendezvous) 14:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest posting at the

WP:reliable sources noticeboard with the specific question as to whether compatibly-licensed wikis can be used as a source for plot and character descriptions. I don't think it should be used for anything else, since it's a wiki. — Diannaa (talk

) 13:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I am not going to use it as reference or source, i just need the summary of course i will use reliable sources, but summary is not usually sourced as it is written by users after watching/reading the subject. So the specific question is that "Should i copy the summary plot and used it here, in new wikipedia article with same title, lead section and other." Because if i want to write myself, i wouldn't be able to change much except for wording, because whatever i need is same just different platforms for same subject. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 16:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The question is, how do you know their summary is accurate? What makes it a reliable source for the summary? That's why I suggested you should ask at the reliable sources notice board. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Because i read it, i have watched the content of summary, then i read it again, it was right with Wikipedia style of tone, good grammar, hardly any mistakes. It is written exactly the same way we use to write here, at first actually i thought they copied from here, but when i couldn't find any article only then i asked you before making any decision. And if i am to be more precise in elaborating, i want to tell you i am not using Wiki as a reference to Wikipedia article, i will use real references, just with summary copied from Wikia. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 11:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not my decision to make. Please stop asking me. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I and a good friend brought this article to GA-status. One learn a lot from reading it (btw, the Sybil image is of me, yaaaaaa!). Anyhow, I plan on nominating it for A-class status. I feel it stands a good chance. When or if you find the time in the near future, would you mind looking at it and maybe leave a few comments for improvements on the talk page? Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 22:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you look at this revision? It seems libelous. It's been deleted, but a revdel may be needed. Thanks. 32.218.152.35 (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

(passerby): done. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Euryalus and other watchers for helping while I was busy this weekend with RL things. — Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to get a better sense of why the page I created was deleted. The page was Streaming Video Alliance (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nSdUMMHmiT4J:www.streamingvideoalliance.org/news/2014/11/12/industry-leaders-announce-streaming-video-alliance-t...). I think I can rewrite it so that it's not using so much language from that URL's text, but I don't understand why the deletion based on the fact that it was solely promoting a company or organization. I'm the editor of a magazine that covers the Streaming Media industry (www.streamingmedia.com), and I was creating the page to describe a new organization that has been formed by a group of companies in that industry. It is not designed to promote any one of those companies. The organization is an impartial one. Schuras (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Schuras

Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several 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 this policy

not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, — Diannaa (talk

) 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Btf0401. Wikipedia and copyright

Hi Diannaa - Thanks for your note on copyright.

It has been some time since I added to the Great Southern Group entry. I actually cannot recall the detail of what I added.

I do know I referred to a recent Australian Senate enquiry so I'm not sure if that is where the breech occurred.

It would be nice to have been given a warning and a request to review my submission so I could ensure that it conforms.

I am a victim of the Great Southern collapse and I was concerned that the total entry should reflect a victim's experience. For example it would be in the interest of the banks to downplay their involvement for the public record.

Bryan

Btf0401 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The material was reported by a bot as being a copyrignt violation on 24 June, but the additions were only assessed by me yesterday, as there's a bit of a backlog. Examining your addition, I found copyright material had been added from http://asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/key-matters/information-for-great-southern-growers/ and http://www.allens.com.au/pubs/ldr/foldr12feb15.htm. Both of these are copyright web pages. The topics covered in the removed material were: details as to the number of investors and the amount of money involved; word-for-word copying of the sequence of events in the liquidation; proceedings and results at the trial. If you are a victim of this series of events, you should not be editing the article at all, as you have a WP:conflict of interest. — Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

On

talk

) 22:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see a bit on Google Preview and it does say that, though I can't confirm the page number, as the version I am permitted to see is not paginated. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

See if you can see it: here — Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I have isolated it Diannaa. It is based on a single assertion, a claim by

talk

) 22:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting new books are written to make money, they need to have something fresh to say or they are unlikely to sell. — Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

True, but how should we treat it D? It's been reverted but it may kick off a little dust if replaced. Do you think it is R/S and Undue weight or

talk

) 23:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

My feeling at the moment is that it should stay out unless confirmed in more than one source. The book also says that the original manuscript does not survive. So how would they know that they were typewritten rather than hand-written? And how would they know (other than hearsay) who prepared the drafts? — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. First and apparently only mention, and hearsay unsupported by surviving manuscript evidence. Totally agree. Hitler typing conjures up humerous visions for me anyway ;) a la

talk

) 23:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

e/c - It should stay out; it goes against the RS citing of mainline historians. Schaub's "comment" is not enough and it is undue weight and fringe at this point. Kierzek (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, Kierzek.

talk

) 23:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW I believe I’ve found the relevant footnote—although it’s hard to be sure without chapter headings or page numbers. It’s #28 under “Chapter 11: The Holy Book” and reads “Plöckinger, Geschichte, 142–43, 147–49; Beierl and Plöckinger, "Neue Dokumente," 261–318; Ian Kershaw, Hitler: A Biography (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), 147; Letter from llse Hess to Werner Maser, December 28, 1952. "Fahrplan eines Welteroberers: Adolf Hitlers 'Mein Kampf,'" von Werner Maser, Der Spiegel, Nr. 32, August 1, 1966, p. 38.”—Odysseus1479 00:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If the information came from llse Hess I would be more likely to trust it, as she had a reason to be on the scene, though she did not marry R. Hess until 1927. — Diannaa (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I posted the Native American genetic studies on the Native American article because they are relevant. The article was missing them.Grenzer22 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason I posted a message on your talk page is because you copied prose from one Wikipedia article to another without providing attribution, which is required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license. Attribution is done by (at a minimum) saying in your edit summary at the destination article where it was that you copied from. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I edit it then under the argument that those are relevant recent genetic studies on Native Americans in general which were missing in the main article? I'm here to follow the rules. Thanks for helping me!Grenzer22 (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. I have no objection to the content or its addition, but you are required to provide proper attribution when from one Wikipedia article to another. That is all. — Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it. Thanks!Grenzer22 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you think that the building of an encyclopedia can be helped by redirecting an article about a town with a population of 14000 to an article about a district with a population of over a million? Would you even dream of doing such a thing to an article about an equivalent town in Canada? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't even have sourced material to start a stub. I can't find it listed on the 2011 census. — Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Please check this link: [43]. Note that from my experience, this web site is quite often down. Beyond that, a quick search in Google Books shows that there are sources in English to develop an article on the subject: Encyclopaedia of Tourism Resources in India, A handbook of Kerala, atc. Further, let's keep in mind that the local language is Malayalam. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get things started. They spell it "Kozhenchery" — Diannaa (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)