User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 2:51 am, 17 October 2024 UTC [refresh].

Copyright question

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 List of Athenaeum Club Members 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)

St George (advertisement) text

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)

Colonial Dames of America

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 CDA Brendan. 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 the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights which explains how it works.

Another problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. 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)

DPDO KANNUR

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)

Copyright questions/help

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. @Kierstin13: 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 the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights which explains how it works.

Another problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. 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)

File:JSheadshot.png

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 Category:Wikipedia files with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS. Files tagged with {{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)

Draft:Tyrrell 007

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)

Uber Everywhere

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)

Copyright issue on Landlord's gas safety certificate page

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)

Richard Feynman

Dianna at work on copyvio clean-up

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)

Wikipedia and copyright

@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)

(talk page stalker) "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)

Pierre Van Cortlandt

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)

RevisionDelete request

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! Class455fan1 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you very much Diannaa! Class455fan1 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A query

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)

Thanks...

...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)

Soft redirect on my Userpage

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)

Thanks!

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)

Help with deletion

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, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airbag (Norwegian band). Mere existence alone is not enough to qualify a musical act for a Wikipedia article. It has to meet our notability requirements, as outlined at 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)

Copyright issue with some of the content of ECS Financials

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)

Poland in the EU

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)

Re:Avast Antivirus

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 Avast Software, the antivirus developer's Wikipedia page, where it has been for long time, unnoticed by you, so you might want to check it out. Cheers.--Der Golem (talk) 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)

Wikitravel copy

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)

Help Updating CANARIE page

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: conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. 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)

Help with the restoration of CARTO "hijacked" article

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 CartoDB 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 legal@wikimedia.org 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 legal@wikimedia.org for this. Thanks Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marias.carto (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Metacompiler

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.

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)

References

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

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)

Pakistani furniture

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)

CCI query

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)

I have just received

what I find to be a rather cryptic message concerning Replicas of the Statue of Liberty and Replicas of the Statue of Liberty by the Boy Scouts of America. Doubly enigmatic to me since you are an administrator and should know what you are talking about. What exactly is the text that you feel I have “copied?” And from whom? This is, to me, a fairly serious accusation. I mean, look at what they are doing to that poor Mrs. Trump over her copying? So could you please tell me specifically what it is I have copied? Because I think it is nothing. I created a new article, Replicas of the Statue of Liberty by the Boy Scouts of America, with a redirect, or something, at Replicas of the Statue of Liberty, but there is no, or very little text in common. I look forward to hearing from you, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 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 Replicas of the Statue of Liberty, and since you had recently visited that article, I assumed you must have copied it from there, which is okay, but requires attribution. Copying from a US Government source is also okay, as the material is in the public domain, but again attribution is required. Quotation marks is not adequate attribution. What you need to do is place the template {{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)

Copyright issues

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)

Copyright issues

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)

Orthopaedic Research Societies

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 {{cite}} template in the reference tags, filling out as many of those fields as you can. See 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)

91.122.9.222

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