User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 12:10 pm, 13 July 2024 UTC [refresh].

Thank you for your guidance with Maggie Dent

Thanks for your guidance re. copyright - I was still drafting the article and hoping for input. I had assumed that since some of the text was from the subject's website it would not be a problem but I understand the need to re-write this information in my own format. I've since found more information from other sources that I will be able to combine into the article.

Removal of quotations from Five Nights at Freddy's (series) page?

May I ask why quotations are not necessary when citing a video game? How will a reader know where the information is coming from, specifically? I'm not saying you're wrong, you know better than me, but I'd just like to know for next time. Thanks. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict wp:non-free content policy, and we don't allow a lot of copyright material in our articles. Adding quotations to your citations is unnecessary if you trust your sources. The amount of non-free content being added was so large as to have been picked up by a bot as a copyright violation. Also, we prefer secondary sources over primary sources. If you don't know what I mean by that, please read Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

IIM Ahmedabad Copyright Issue

Dear Diannaa, thanks for your guidance on copyright violations. I will rework those sections paraphrasing it as per Wiki guidelines. Regarding the Alumni section, there is indeed a more detailed list on a separate wiki page. However, in consonance with the practice of other business schools, it might make sense to have at least a truncated list of alumni on the main page, with a 'See also' for a more detailed list. Moreover, I will provide some detail to each of the programmes and student clubs (ensuring no copyvio) since they comprise an important component of the information about the business school. Thanks! Raunakshah8 (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Premakeethi De Alwis - Page Vandalism

Hi Dianna, The same vandal who is coming back with different user names have come back and added text that is against the Wikipedia policy. His actions have caused unnecessary amounts of work for the administrators. The Url is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premakeerthi_de_Alwis The same user who has come back under the names of Wipeouting, Academiava has now come back with Premakeer. Thank you for looking into this. Ramya20 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The page has been protected by another admin. I will re-add it to my watch list. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Hilal

I see your point regarding the structure and copy. I will re-do with unique language. Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it.--YongMein (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted also because the subject does not meet out notability requirements. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The references and articles I found were focused on the subject, but if need be I can find more sources. If you Google his name you will see where we came up with his notability. We are doing this for class and some recent news promoted our creation, so we dug in further. Can you offer some suggestions please? I'd like to work with you on this.--YongMein (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Army Men III copyright problem.

Hello, so you deleted my "copyrighted" short description of Army Men III, however, I have exclusive permission from the game's developer and can even provide proof that he did so on Steam, actually he edited the Army Men III article himself, I just most recently added a picture there, again, in accordance with his permission.

I also respectfully request that the request for deletion of the page be removed if you are a person in power, I believe the people have the right to know about the fan made project in the game series in which a lot of work and effort was put into.

Thanks in advance and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by $oldierboy (talk • contribs) 13:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Film Fan

Hello. Could you please try to talk some sense into this fellow? First he started an edit war in this article, then he became obsessed with removing your warnings, and now he's very rudely removing my warnings not to do that.--Max Tomos (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, check the talk page of the article in question, dear fellow. Have a nice day, go away. — Film Fan 20:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And now he's doing it again.--Max Tomos (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I have the right to remove any nonsense you put on my wall. You don't have the right to keep putting there, mind. Watch it. Go stand outside, and breathe. Maybe do something productive. See ya. — Film Fan 20:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I see he has also removed dozens of other messages and warnings. Not exactly a person who likes to listen to others.--Max Tomos (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Hi Max Tomos. Editors are allowed to remove warnings from their user talk pages, and doing so is considered to be proof that the editor has read the warning and understands its meaning. There are, however, certain things an editor is not supposed remove from their talk page as explained in WP:BLANKING. So, unless you are sure this is the case, you should not be re-adding any content removed from a user talk page by the user in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mildred Villafañe

Checking the logs I saw you and another admin have deleted this page twice as G12. My browser can't load the past website it was a copyvio from for some reason, but thought I would alert because the text contains bracketed numbers which suggests it was copied from somewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Everglades University

May I ask what exactly the copyrighted material was? You give no indication - instead you just gut a whole section.

Also, you deleted my sandbox page?!? It's not even public! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldPizzaDay (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi WorldPizzaDay. I am not an administrator, so I cannot see the content that Diannaa removed. Just for reference, all Wikipedia pages are public pages that anyone who can access Wikipedia can see. Your user sandbox may not show up in Internet searches, but whatever you post there is not private in any way. Copyright violations, like BLP violations, are one of those things which are not really allowed to be posted anywhere on Wikipedia, including the user sandboxes, so my guess it that's why Diannaa probably removed it. It's OK to add content you find online in your own words to an article if you feel it is in accordance with relevant policies and can be supported by citations to reliable sources. It's even acceptable to add short quotes, etc. per MOS:QUOTE as long as you properly cite the source where the quote is found. Large blocks of text, however, which either (1) have been directly copied-and-pasted into the article, or (2) are too closely paraphrased are almost always considered to be a copyright violation/plagiarism and are not allowed. The best thing to is to read the source your citing and try to summarize it in your own words as much as possible.

Finally, one more thing about your User:WorldPizzaDay/sandbox 4. It's not really a good idea to copy-and-paste entire Wikipedia articles into your sandbox. In many cases, there may be non-free images being used in an article, whose justification for use is only for that particular article, not your user sandbox. Another problem is that even though the content found in Wikipedia article's is freely licensed, proper attribution to the source of the content is still required when copying-and-pasting into other Wikipedia pages. More about this is explained at WP:CWW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted it again, too much of it was copyvio, despite the warning. WorldPizzaDay, how can you not know what you are copying? Doug Weller talk 11:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Bethany High

Should versions from the creation of the article to my last edit by revdelled for copyvio or just leave them be? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Other Languages

If using articles in other languages as sources how would one cite said articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deum ex machini (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Our citation templates include fields for language and translated title. For example:

{{cite book | last = Keller | first = Gustav | title= Der Schüler Adolf Hitler: die Geschichte eines lebenslangen Amoklaufs | trans_title = The Student Adolf Hitler: The Story of a Lifelong Rampage | publisher = LIT | language = German | location = Münster | year = 2010 | isbn = 978-3-643-10948-4 }}

displays as Keller, Gustav (2010). Der Schüler Adolf Hitler: die Geschichte eines lebenslangen Amoklaufs (in German). Münster: LIT. ISBN 978-3-643-10948-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Christoph Bull

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thank you for pointing out the copyrite issue - I actually wasn't sure about that and I appreciate the clarity. I'm working hard to be a good and welcomed contributor (because Wiki rocks specifically because of mentors like you!) Thank you! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for insight

Hi Diannaa, I noticed your entry at: User_talk:Reattacollector#Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution. It suggested to me that you may have insight to offer regarding concerns I posted at User_talk:NeilN#Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles (and again at WikiProject Automobiles#User making large unilateral changes to vehicle articles over short time period without discussion).
Thanks for your time and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: I repaired your cut and paste move[edit] Information icon

Thank you so much. Sorry I had to no idea how to change the title of an article, and I promise that I did attempt to Google it. The only solution I found was to create a new article and redirect the old one. I quickly realised that this was no correct since another user (Xx236) informed me. Thank you again. I shall look through my history and see which pages I have moved and list them in the link you provided. Thank you and sorry. Leave a message on my talk board if you want to discuss something - BardiaSaeedi. 22:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BardiaSaeedi (talk • contribs)

Copyright question on 2011 Southeast Asian Games

Hi Diannaa, I removed some content in 2011 Southeast Asian Games that was copied from various sources. Think I got most of it but the issue is that some seems to have been added over 500 revisions ago. Would it be worth doing a huge revdel here or would that be excessive? And would WP:CP be a better place for this? Thanks, /wiae 🎄 14:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

We actually do big revision deletions fairly often. If you would like to tell me which diffs to do I will get it done right away. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

One big chunk was added today (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Southeast_Asian_Games&diff=prev&oldid=765048939), but there are other copied parts dating back all the way to 9 March 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Southeast_Asian_Games&diff=prev&oldid=417973972). The extent of that earliest copying is the part about the NSC "mulling over the possibility" and another sentence, which you can see appeared on the Internet at least a week earlier. It's only two sentences and a quote that were copied, but it is direct. /wiae 🎄 14:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

All done. Thank your for your excellent work on copyvio clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being so prompt and helpful! /wiae 🎄 15:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Camp Lakebottom

I may be wrong on this, but it seems that your revision deletion on this article may not be compliant with WP:CRD: "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used." Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's the way we normally do it. Contributions are not removed, only hidden, so the attribution is still present, but is only visible to admins. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

INPhO

Could you please check the recent edits I made to INPhO and tell if they're okay(i.e., no plagiarism/copyright infringement, summary style etc.) Siddharth110200 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nan Sheets

Yeah, had a brain fart and hit the wrong button while I was editing - sorry about that. I meant for a preview instead, and it went live. Last night wasn't one of my finer moments all round, I'm afraid. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lithuanian language (disambiguation)

Why you deleted this page? Page described Lithuanian mentions as a Slavic language which NOT duplicates an existing Lithuanian language topic. Craft37by (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is the wrong place to write your article. I suggest you prepare a draft first and then move it to main space once it's ready. Or add your material to the main article Lithuanian language. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Plz Bring it back to the Talk Page

Hello Diannaa,

It for sure was changed, (Iran–Turkey relations) but anyway, as the edit is hidden right now, Please make it back here, and then I will be able to rewrite and put it back in the article then. Or at least make a subsection on the talk page of the article so I rewrite the texts once more and make more changes.

Thanks,KhabarNegar ^Talk 11:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The material added to the article was identical to the source webpage, so I cannot post it on the talk page. You can view the content at http://www.iran-daily.com/News/130925.html?catid=1023&title=Iran-determined-to-combat-counterfeit-medicines; it's the part that starts " In an exclusive interview with Iran Daily, ..." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Gomco clamp

Hi! I'm trying very hard to learn, and can't imagine what copyrighted material I may have included. Could you please give me more info on this? I'd really appreciate the guidance. Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Petersmillard. It's not a copyright violation, but we should not say in Wikipedia's voice that it's a fact that the device has an impeccable safety record. Nor should we say without providing a source that its safety record is because of the simplicity of learning and using the instrument. I removed that and amended the first bit to say that the World Health Organization describes it as having "an impeccable safety record", which is pretty high praise regardless. The copyright violation was when you were describing how the device could be put together using pieces from differently-sized units and thus not function as designed. I re-worded this passage to read "Because the Gomco clamp is made of three major parts, there is a chance that pieces could be incorrectly assembled from differently-sized units. Using mismatched parts results in a device that might not sufficiently crush the foreskin, potentially resulting in hemorrhage." You can see exactly what changes I made by examining this link. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. Excellent changes. I am a bit confused about the different manufacturers being removed, though, since that is a point that WHO makes clearly. This is because different manufacturers would have very slightly different sizes, even if they were listed as the same. I don't believe the Gomco clamp has been copyrighted for many years, but I am not an expert in copyright law.Petersmillard (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The prose is present in the WHO document http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44478/1/9789241500753_eng.pdf, which is marked as being © World Health Organization 2010 All rights reserved; that's what matters here, not whether the device itself is still under copyright. I will re-add the bit about different manufacturers. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for the clarifications and improvements.Petersmillard (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Prepex

Could I ask you to edit the Prepex article? I am trying to clean up the circumcision devicesPetersmillard (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC), but don't know where to start with this one. It seems like marketing to me. I'd really appreciate it. PeterPetersmillard (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to do that. I am too busy with copyright clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Louisarmm.jpg

Hi Diannaa--a student of mine needs a hand. Can you look into the license problem? I'm not very good with that kind of stuff. Thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The photo needs source information and a license tag. A photo from 1931 has to be assumed to still be under copyright, which means we cannot host it here unless it is tagged for fair use. We can't use fair use images in sandboxes or drafts, so we can't use this image until the article is live and in article space. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The source is apparently here, where it says “Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws.” That doesn’t say who owns the rights or why, but if it’s the archive or the university it might be willing to release them through OTRS; a contact e-mail address is provided at the bottom of that page.—Odysseus1479 22:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Diannaa, Odysseus1479. I found the curator for the collection and am emailing him. Diannaa, can you go ahead and delete the image? Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The image is already tagged for deletion and will be removed on or after Wednesday, February 22. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Circumcision Surgical Instruments and Devices

A quick question. Why was this deleted? A WHO expert review meeting on infant circumcision concluded that the procedure is easier to perform and associated with less pain and fewer complications when performed within the first two months of life.[2] When infant male circumcision is performed by well-trained, adequately equipped and experienced personnel, complications are minor and rare, occurring in 1 of every 250 to 500 cases.[2] It doesn't seem to be copyrighted material to me, but I am just learning. Thanks!Petersmillard (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The material was removed because it's identical to prose on page 5 of http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500753_eng.pdf?ua=1, which is marked as © World Health Organization 2010 All rights reserved. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law to do so. All prose you add to this wiki must be written in your own words. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks.Petersmillard (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio at Allama Gohorpuri Rahimahullah

Hi, info at Allama Gohorpuri Rahimahullah has been repeatedly reinstated since 3 August 2016 and appears to be copied from this website. The article had numerous problems prior to that but, I think, was probably at least free of copyright violations. I vaguely recall you recently mentioning that there is a revdel tag for situations such as this but I can't find it. Can you assist? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. The template is at {{Copyvio-revdel}} but you can post here instead if you like. I am seeing the copyvio coming from http://www.shariahcouncil-midlands.co.uk/articles/shaykhul-hadith-allama-nooruddin-gohorpuri.html ; the Wayback Machine shows they had the content first, as they archived it on April 2, 2016, and the content was first added to our article in August. Revision-deletion is done. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits to The British-Israel-World Federation

Thank you for the heads up about my cut n paste move. I currently have a problem with the title of the article. It currently is "British-Israel-World Federation" but the real title of the organisation is "The British-Israel-World Federation". Can you please assist me?? Thank you again, Scynthian (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Per our manual of style, we don't normally include "The" in the title of our articles. If you think an exception should be made, I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page and/or file a request at WP:requested moves. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to Removal of SF Mission

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at Signaleer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ilka Gedő

Would you please tell me what "we do not build our articles using primary sources" actually mean (??) and how you connect this with:

Primary source From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources".

Yours sincerely,

--ORANSIGLOT (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@ORANSIGLOT: While we do allow short quotations from non-free sources, the amount of non-free material you included was excessive, as there was 817 words of quotations in a 1795-word article. The quotations were 45% of the article. What's permitted is short quotations (ten to fifteen words) from reviews or other sources, and only when there's no alternative. In order to comply with our copyright policy and non-free content policy, the article needs to be written almost exclusively in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Well, I gave a second opinion as best I could. I also asked a question, which hasn't been answered, so I started to take a bit of a look. What are your thoughts (if any!) on the status of this document in view of this and this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of the original document, the translation appears to be under copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Another copy/paste

This comes from this. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My contributions to fighting Autism

Coenzyme Q10

I see no reason why you allowed that user SundayClose to delete my edits, since both are sourced, I wish there were 100 studies saying a drug cures Autism, but at least there is one source in both edits, the Q10 page for example says at the beginning of Supplementation:CoQ10 is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of any medical condition, yet there are 8 subsections, why was my edit the only one deleted? I was going to post the link, but I saw that SundayClose deleted my edit completely, it cannot be restaured, WHY? What's so bad about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove your edit. What I did do was perform revision deletion to hide the material in the page's history, because your edit was a copyright violation. You were notified of this on February 13. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. This user did it again here, copied from http://www.consumerlab.com/answers/Which+supplements+have+been+shown+to+be+helpful+for+autism%3F/supplements_for_autism/. He/she is being very defiant, edit warring on two articles over a period of months and making two personal attacks on my talk page: [1], [2]. I also suspect there is some socking with IPs: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Granito diaz. I hope something can be done about this. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule against editing while logged out. The user has been warned about copyvio, personal attacks, and edit warring. Any further violations in these three areas will result in a block. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Diannaa. As you had previously said in order to avoid plagiarism we should paraphrase the sentences. That seems reasonable when we want to use an article or book as a source but what about a list of items or things? As it's been common in Wikipedia, the articles about royal figures usually contain the names of their patronages. For example a series of charities are currently listed on Diana, Princess of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. Here's a list of all the charities that were under Diana's support. My question is that how the names of these charities should be added to the article? Or is adding only the names of buildings, items, charities, flowers, etc, that are mentioned in a source a copyright violation at all? Keivan.f^Talk 08:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an alphabetical list so there's no problem with copyright. However, I don't think you should add it to the article, as it's far too much detail. You might consider creating a separate list article, or offering the BBC web page as an external link on the main article, or both. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very detailed list but, per your advice, I'll try to add only the names of important and notable charities and organizations to the article. Keivan.f^Talk 04:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ko Ni copyright problem

Dear Diannaa. Sorry couldn't get to to you in time. I am sorry for the non para-phrasing of data. if you re-enable my previous edits, I may be able to fix the problem.Messiaindarain (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I will send you the removed material by email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

CDET: Wikipedia and copyright

Hi Diannaa, I understand you had to remove the content that were creating copyrights and plagiarism issues and therefore I'll try to rewrite or to follow the correct procedure to quote / donate etc copyright content. What I actually don't understand what is the content you found "advertorial", I can work around on the copyright issues, so could you advise on what was advertorial, please? I'm trying to understand how Wikipedia works and therefore when your guides / helps aren't so clear I cast an eye on pages that I find similar to the one I'm working on. For example, I broke in two a bulleted list as I found the code in a page, as the "help" in the dashboard doesn't say word about. Similarly, I wrote the board of trustee as I found it in the LAMDA page; why can they show it? How can I find the correct template to follow to populate wikipedia pages? How can I understand what exactly kind of organization is a certain business? Finally, could you be so kind to help me to understand how to upload a business logo? I really don't have the faintest idea of what I have to write to "explain how the use of this file will be minimal". I'm really sorry. Thanks for you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppanico (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The content I removed as worded like an advertisement and containing no useful information was this stuff, which reads more like a press release or an advertisement than an encyclopedia article:

The organisation is the first point of contact for those seeking information about training, education and assessment at all levels of study in the sector. The organisation's members make an enormous contribution to the sustainability and international profile of the UK creative industries.

...working hand in hand with Accredited schools and Validated awarding organisations to ensure that provision remains at the forefront of current industry trends, and addresses the real world needs of employers, with the purpose of securing the supply of high quality practitioners for the future.

...ensuring excellence in examination provision...

...contribute to the sector’s wider understanding of its history and contextual influences...

...makes a valuable contribution to the development of safe and professional standards of practice in pre- or non-vocational teaching settings...

Using other articles as a guide is a good idea, but make sure they are high quality articles. The one you chose to emulate is stub-class, which is our lowest rating on the quality scale. It's not so much athat they are "allowed" to have that content; it's the fact that as the encyclopedia has grown to now include 5.3 million articles, it's no longer possible for experienced Wikipedians to be monitoring them all continuously. Also, some of the people listed in the LAMDA have Wikipedia articles, and the patroness is the cousin of the queen, so these people are notable in their own right, so it's a lot more reasonable to list them than it is to include a list of private individuals in the CDET article. I have uploaded the CDET logo for you from the Twitter page. Please have a look at how I templated it for fair use and use it as a model for any corporate logos you might upload in the future. You might consider visiting the WP:Teahouse, where people experienced in helping new users are available to answer your questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DP-12 Deletion

I got the message about the picture in Standard Manufacturing DP-12 I added as well as the article. I was a little unclear about the article part, is it just in reference to the picture in the article possibly being a copyright violation or other parts of the article as well? Would removing said picture be sufficient? PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The entire article is a copy of another Wikipedia page: Kel-Tec KSG. While it's okay to copy other Wikipedia articles if proper attribution is provided (which did not happen in this case), I doubt that the two firearms are so identical. Hence the deletion nomination. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I used the KSG article as a base because the two items are so similar. Changing all the states that were different and adding parts to differentiate the two. The main difference between the two is one has two barrels and the KSG one. The bulk of the duplication hit seems to be from the bullpup firearms template at the bottom. With the other duplications being common features between the two. So I am not sure if it is not a false positive there. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I see, well thank you for the information. I will rewrite the common sections tonight to fix the issues. Again thanks for the help on this, I appropriate it. Cheers! PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Schizoid PD page

Thanks for your message on my talk page and for the warm welcome. I fully understand that it is important to not cite too much from textbooks in order to avoid copyright problems. But what I don't get is, why you deleted the DSM-5 criteria for SPD. Because they're the same as in DSM-IV- TR and these are cited freely everywhere on the web anyway, e.g.: http://behavenet.com/node/21648. Thanks in advance! Best Wishes, --Schattenblitz (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Material in the DSM-IV is copyright, and the publishers have specifically asked us not to copy their material here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker

You are going to get fed up of me, sorry. I have just commented out a paragraph that appears - sometimes directly, sometimes very closely - to come from this book. I actually suspect pretty much all of the additions of the last couple of days will be violations but most of the sources are not online. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not getting fed up with you - please stop by any time! I have removed the passage you commented out and was unable to locate anything else that is provably copyvio. Thanks — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I have been away, so my apologies for the tardy reply. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bluebird K7 and Donald Campbell

Hi Diannaa. Your input would be appreciated with the possible copyvio noted at User talk:Drmies#Help, I think I found a mass of copyvio / Talk:Bluebird K7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but you've already got two admins working on the case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Mar-a-lag- security

Hi, I understand to a degree that you removed the section, but the information is technical and has to come from a government source. The newspaper cannot make up a list like that on its own. So I doubt that the information is copyrighted, - it would mean that they made it up. It would be nice if the newspaper would reference their source.Ekem (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If you find a government source, it would be okay to re-add it unaltered. Otherwise we have to assume it's copyright since it came from a copyright newspaper. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This the FAA source:[3] Ekem (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's okay to re-add it then. If you copy the material exactly, please either use the template {{PD-notice}} or place it in quotation marks, so that the readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard Greene

Hi Diannaa! You'd been very sweet to me with an issue last year with an article I posted and I'm writing in the hopes you can help shed some light on something that happened last night! Over the weekend a friend posted a ted talk on their facebook page. I really dug the speaker, Richard Greene, and started looking into him on Google. Turns out he has a fascinating life and career; and also has been a popular talk radio host on Air America; a judge on a Learning Channel show; and is a regular writer for Huffington Post; as well as a global speaker and author (he wrote a book for Penguin Publishing with a forward by Tony Robbins (who he was partnered up with apparently (Robbins wrote the intro to his book and it's on the net on a bunch of book selling sites)). Anyway, I was JUST starting to post the article I wrote about him when I got an immediate red flag - speedy deletion. And then I contacted the user who added the tag and spent the night adding in over 40 links/references I found on the net. Anyway, I just woke up and it was deleted by another user. I would be so grateful to understand why it got deleted. I wasn't trying to promote him, just add what I think is good content on a credible and noteworthy person! :-(!!!

The place to start is to speak to the deleting administrator, User: Athaenara. I see you've already done that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User: Athaenara - thank you so much for replying. I tried to speak with Reddogsix immediately upon him adding the tag to my article; and the response I got was to leave the tag there and contest the deletion. I'm really coming from a point of wanting to be educated - and while I've been waiting I'm finding more links - like this one from CBS news that clearly states Greene's significance and mentions his legitimate connection as a speaking coach for Princes Diana - something I think on it's own would be of interest to the community - http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/28/master-of-charisma-shares-his-history-with-princess-diana/ - So, I guess I will try Reddoggsix again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Step one is to discuss with the deleting administrator. The deleting administrator was Athaenara. They have not yet responded to your inquiry. The second step, after you have discussed with the deleting admin and if you are not satisfied with the outcome, is to open a deletion review. This is done at WP:Deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User: Diannaa - hey - I am not getting any response from Athaenara - I wonder - since something clearly was misunderstood here - is there any one else I can contact? Sorry to bother you! Just wondering if you had any further insight for me. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Athaenara has not edited since your post. Please be patient. Not every editor logs in every day. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information re: WP:CWW - and two more questions

Thanks for the information you supplied in User_talk:Vfrickey#Copying_within_Wikipedia_requires_proper_attribution. I was unaware that such copying was in any way restricted under our project's licensing. But, looking up over this editing xcreen, I and other editors are warned "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." I was obviously negligent in not having followed the link "certain terms and conditions". I note that it doesn't point directly to the relevant guideline in this case, which is WP:CWW. I ideally ought to have read the source cited for that transferred material and written my own precis of it for the article Incapacitating agent, which would, I think, have eliminated the attribution issue entirely (or would it have?). And what about paraphrases of other editors' content? Is attribution required then? I'd say it was under a broad construction of WP:CWW, but the guideline doesn't address paraphrased material specifically. Thanks for your time and help. loupgarous (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources--Moxy (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Attribution is required in every instance where the material you move or copy from one Wikipedia article to another is not entirely your own work. If you re-write the content using the Wikipedia article as a base from which to work, you might use an edit summary of "Attribution: This material was adapted from Sleeping gas on February 19, 2017. Please see the history of that page for attribution." If you go to the original source document and write your own prose using it as a source, attribution is not required (but naturally you would want to cite your source in the usual way). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for correcting me on what might have been a contentious error with respect to Copying Within Wikipedia! loupgarous (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Plastic Smog

I've prodded this as an opinion essay, but the content reads to me like it was copied from somewhere. Copyvio detector only is at 54% and I didn't see it as blatant enough for G12. Thought I would see if you had an opinion on it since you are so good at finding copyvios where others can't. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The copyvio detector is only picking up the books in the bibliography. But using manual searching I did find a pretty big overlap with http://www.ecowatch.com/after-sailing-3-000-miles-its-official-microplastics-are-everywhere-1882083465.html and an even bigger overlap with http://plastic.scaquarium.org/plastic-smog/. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Soth Polin

Dear Diannaa, I have a problem and I don't know how to resolve it. I'm a specialist of Khmer language. I wrote the biography ot the famous Khmer writer Soth Polin (and others). I spent weeks to write it, trying to do my best (I'm new in Wikipedia) with all the good references (Universities, Journals, Reviews, translations, etc.), etc. It's a big work. I had a problem with Triptothecottage. He sent me a warning that I was vandalizing Wikipedia. I was not, of course, I was just correcting my own text! I told him he was to fast. I removed the warning but he never apologized. And two days after, he removed my page for "Investigation of potential copyright issue". I don't know what to do. It's too complicated for me to resolve this (I tried to follow the procedure but I am lost) and my page will be deleted soon. It's unfair. I asked him to help me. But he didn't. Please have a look. It's just because of few sentences in a small biography before an interview here (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/55431), which was just a English translation of my own work in a the French Jounal "Europe" (everything is written in "References", Triptothecottage should have read this) This is a very serious work which now has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale... I'm sad. I tried to do my best and the only thong I received it's an offer of deletion... Please help me. Domrey Sar Domrey sar (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Should just clarify that I self-reverted my initial identification of the edits as vandalism when that clearly wasn't the case. I've also explained to the user on my talk page how best to proceed if he believes that he is the copyright owner of the content. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Domrey Sar. Sorry you are having a bad experience here. 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 WP:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Mount Pleasant, New Zealand

Have made a mental note that next time I come across a copyright violation (like Mount Pleasant, New Zealand), I shall change visibility of the revisions as part of my edit. Schwede66 18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, any and all help is greatly appreciated. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

British Copyright image Issue

Hi Diannaa, I have a wee problem/request. I've been trying to get hold an image for several weeks. The image of the front cover of a code book used by the British during World War II. This is it Front Cover. I spoke to the guy who I thought who owned it, about three months ago. He came back, says he gave the code book, the whole lot, to Bletchley Park Trust. They have came back with an email yesterday, which states:

Thank you for your e-mail which was received on 31st December 2016. You wished to receive copyright permission to reproduce two images in a Wikipedia article. With apologies for the delay in getting back to you, unfortunately whilst the Bletchley Park Trust does indeed hold the code book in question (Object Number T-1495) we do not hold the copyright to it. Although the donor of the code book may have believed that they were signing-over the copyright to the Bletchley Park Trust, this cannot actually have been the case. This is because as an official UK Government publication, the copyright would have resided with the UK Government until such time as it expired (which may or may not now have occurred). I am sorry that we could not be of more assistance on this occasion and wish you well with your research.

Does that mean the copyright of the image is still active, or would it be in the public domain? If it is still active, would you happen to know who I could contact to get a licence on it, to produce it. Sorry for dumping it on your lap. Sometime I look at these emails I get, and I can't make heid nor tail of them. scope_creep (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The title page of the book indicates a publication date of 25 June 1921, which makes it in the public domain in the United States. Crown copyright in the UK expires 50 years after publication, so govt works prior to 1967 are now PD. The license templates to use are {{PD-US}} and {{PD-UKGov}}. Document is OK for the Commons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Coolio scope_creep (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Y S Rajan Page

Hi Diana, thank you for your inputs. I have been requested by the Professor himself to edit his page on Wiki, and add the content that appears on his own website. Perhaps you could help me with how I could go about doing it without violating any copyright issues? I would greatly appreciate your inputs on this, as the Wiki page on this very talented and creative person is sadly inadequate. Thanks! Sandii555 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Sandii555

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. 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. 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. Another editor has already placed some information about conflict of interest on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation copyright problem

Diannaa, The Conference Topics section that was removed from the LREC page comes from the Call for Papers of the conference. LREC and ELRA have not copyrighted the CfP, but since we, as Programme Committee of the conference, are issuing this call in the first place, we are entitled to use it including on Wikipedia. ISCAPAD is just conveying this information we have provided them to their community. Please put the section back in the LREC page. Looking forward to your reply, Best,

Helene Mazo (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Helene Mazo

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. 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. 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) 13:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dianaa, I am not sure I understand why this is related to copyright issue: the topics of the conference ARE the content and the terms used in this scientific community cannot be rephrased or replaced with synonyms. In this field, "Information retrieval" or "Speech translation" are terms that are found all over the scientific literature, but also announcements more random documents, and understood by all the members of the community. I would be grateful if you could help me sorting out this specific issue, as I am sure that you have come across this already. Thanks Helene Mazo (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Helene MazoHelene Mazo (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing quotes

Please don't destroy sources by stripping them of quotes, often the quote is the last reperesntation of the content when the original source is down and the webarchive couldn't save it (too old, robots.txt etc). Please consider reducing the length of quotes to a save length instead of eradiction in future. Thank you! Shaddim (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The included quotations were large, so large that a bot that detects copyright violations was reporting their addition. You should not need a quotation in a citation at all, especially if the source document is readily available online. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I cutted them significantly, I hope this is an appropriate compromise. About the quotes: they give the exact position cited, therefore they are valuable. Also, I have seen it too often that sources suddenly disappeared and were also not available in the Webarchive, therefore I'm careful here in relying on the online sources alone. cheers Shaddim (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Our non-free content policy calls for quotations from non-free material to be kept to a bare minimum. What I do is check the Wayback Machine at the time I add an online source to an article, and if the page has not been archived yet, I add it myself. That way I can be sure that an archived copy of the citation will be available later if need be. Then I check my good articles periodically and add the archive urls for any links that have gone dead. You can also add to your citation archive urls for links which are not yet dead. Template:Cite web has parameters available for this purpose. The use of citation templates also makes your sources available to bots such as User:InternetArchiveBot, which crawls the wiki looking for dead links and adds the archive urls. So please consider these alternatives as we really are not permitted to use non-free content unless absolutely necessary. Adding: Wikipedia:Quotations is an essay, which is trumped by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, an official Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. I am removing the quotations again. These will still be visible in the page history for future reference if you ever need to refer back. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

well, you activity seems well thought out I have to admit, beside one point which had bitten me before: even when archived, a later added robot.txt prevented access, so we can't relay on webarchive even if currently available. also, I'm not sure why you eradicate all quotes, even the smallest one, which are clearly inside safe boundaries (e.g. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations 250 words). "Our non-free content policy calls for quotations from non-free material to be kept to a bare minimum." -> well, this does not mean eradication. I would argue, if sufficiently small they should not be eradicate as we can't relay on the webarchive. Way aroudn I will cite Quotations "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles." I see no policy forbidding the use of quotations in references, therefore I think your actions are overzealous, especially on the already shorted one. Shaddim (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, so sorry. Our non-free content policy is clear: quotations from copyright material should not be used unless there's no alternative. The content is properly sourced, and there's no reason to permanently prove via quotations that the sources you provided back up the content. Occasionally people use a quotation in a citation, but that's only when they expect their work to be challenged or the subject matter is controversial. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Our quotation policy encourages clear sources and gives not hard limits the here discussed quotes would violate. And while I agree on your point we should minimize them if possible, I see no reason to eradicate them. I think your current eradication is not backed by the policies, especially the now only one sentence long quotes are quite clear outside of copyright and doesn't reach the threshold for originality. If I look here and take the most strict interpretation, everything below 11 words is not copyrighted. http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/563/6WJLTA247.pdf?sequence=6 I see no base for eradication of these extremely short fact quotes. Shaddim (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no quotation policy; you pointed at an essay. What you need to look at is the relevant policy, which is WP:NFCC. Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case, the freely licensed alternative is to provide a hyperlink to the source web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My argumentation was and is never fair use; I'm aware of its limits. My argumentation is you eradicate content which is so minimized to pure facts and so short that it doesn't constitute an copyrightable expression of idea. To summarize: facts are not copyrightable, and text needs a minimal complexity and length to be copyrightable. If both is not fullfiled, this is not fair use but public domain, where we have no usage restrictions. Your argumentation is not consistent in itself as also the other "copyrighted" texts in the given references would need to be eradicated: the title, the names, the website, the publisher etc. But, as copyright does not protetct such minimla facts (including such short quotes) we are fully allowed in includiong this: this has nothing to do with fair use or "freely licensed" but wiht "this is not copyrighted" Shaddim (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned here as you apply an dangerous over-eager precedence while you didn't address my point: we can't rely on the links or webarchive. Our possibilities of content additions are limited enough, don't restrict them needlessly without good reason. 07:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Complicated copyright claim - Lichfield Gospels

There has been a long-running dispute at Talk:Lichfield Gospels between users Wilshire01 and Blackstache regarding an external link to a University of Kentucky site pointing to a collection of images of these medieval manuscripts. It is my impression that Wilshire01 perceives some defect in the CC licensing declarations at the Kentucky site. They place in evidence a contract between Lichfield Cathedral, the institution which owns the documents, and an organization that performed the digital scanning. Earlier editors involved were PseudoAristarchus and Johnbod. There may also be allegations of an academic dispute about attribution or suspicions of COI editing.

Both sides have stated they were calling for administrator attention, but I can't find any results. And the dispute continues.

I've seen you handle some copyright issues before and I would like to ask you, with your expertise, to try to settle this back and forth, which has been going on for a couple of years, it seems (so I guess there's no deadline). It's not a routine problem and posting it at WP:CP did not seem like a fruitful path.

Thanks, jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)