User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 12:07 pm, 7 July 2024 UTC [refresh].

Just a quickie

Is a photo of a print of a 1925 poster within regs? Hope you're well! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I would need to know the country of origin to say for sure. The cut-off for PD in the US is 1923. Have a look at the Hirtle chart for more info. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that, wilco. Netherlands, fyi. Think they have the authorlife +70? Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another chart: commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Netherlands — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Copywright issues with 1998 FIA GT Championship

With regard to the issue that you raised on my talk page re the above, I have revised the wording and added the section back into the article. It is always difficult to change the wording of sporting regulations without changing the actual meaning. As you may notice, I had made no attempt to hide the actual source of my information, having quoted it as a reference. My source was not the webpage that you quoted on my talk page. GTHO (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The material appears at several locations online. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Management Inquiry

Hi Diannaa, I believe your comments about copyright violations on the Journal of Management Inquiry are erroneous, but I altered the text to satisfy you. Also, it is odd you are welcoming me to Wikipedia as I have been here since it was created, but thank you anyhoo! Good luck with your work! SamotracesVictory (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@SamotracesVictory: The page from which you copied is marked at the bottom as "Scimago Lab, Copyright 2007-2016", so it's not okay to copy it here without the consent of the copyright holder. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

thanks for your feedback, Ayaani (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

H.D. Woodson High School

I'm not understanding. The Washington Post is a credible news outlet. I used what they had for woodson history because it was accurate. I cited where it came from. I don't understand why it was removed. Please explain further. I was not stealing there story. I credited them.Dornessa (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The material was mostly copied from http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/article/13034957/end-of-an-error, a copyright web page. The newspaper's "Terms and Conditions" page states that their content is "protected by copyright and intellectual property laws. You may display or print the content available through Washington City Paper for your personal, non-commercial use only. Content may not be reused, rebroadcast, or redistributed on the web, print or elsewhere without the prior written permission of Washington City Paper and/or the content provider." What that means is that if you copy material from there, it's a copyright violation, which is against the copyright policy of this website as well as copyright laws. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Safe harbor (law)

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at one of my edits? I came across the article article at WP:MCQ#How to definitively satisfy Wiipedia's image copyright criteria and saw that someone had embedded an external link into the article. In the process of cleaning that up, I saw that the relevant text was basically copied and pasted as is into the article. I rewrote it a bit to try and clean up the copyvio, but I'm not sure if my version is OK or if the previous version needs to be revdel. I am also not sure about the reliability of the source which seems to be user-generated by a "bird expert" who may be the same person as mentioned in Rex Graham nature reserve, which might make it OK per WP:UGC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The source looks ok but I found a better one and re-wrote the passage as I thought your version still had too much overlap with the birder page. My source is PD so it's ok to copy from it as long as we provide attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. I appreciate the help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Skip Mahoney and The Casuals

Thank you for your message and rules. I am Mrs. Skip Mahoney and the entire bio that I posted was written entirely by me with input from Skip Mahoney. Now the resources section I admit I was not sure about and put links to the Washington Post and the Washington City Paper. Should I have put the articles' authors or something more. I am also the developer of the group's site. Any assistance you can give me to get the group's info in Wikipedia would be helpful.

Thank you

Renee Maoney — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMAHoaney (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@GMAHoaney:Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is notability. I am not sure the organisation is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. We require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newpapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organisations that are not notable are typically speedily deleted.

The third 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.

So if you wish to add the copyrighted content to a Wikipedia article, the proper licenses and permissions will have to be in place. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials for how that would be done. Or, you could write a new draft that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. And you would have to avoid the conflict of interest guideline while doing so. Even then, chances are that the article would be speedily deleted as not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

KZNE

My sincerest apologies. I had no idea the history of the 1150 facility in College Station, Texas was copyrighted. Joe Polichino (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So 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 info. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group

Hi Diannaa, I would like to create a page for 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters and Signal Squadron for the unit. I work for the federal gov't, department of National Defence. I've had some difficulty uploading some unit historical information and am a new user to Wiki. Are you able to help me? Please email me at (Redacted) where I can provide further information. Thank you kindly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Canadian_Mechanized_Brigade_Group Edmonton-signals (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Edmonton-signals

I have removed your email address from this post, as there's bots that scrape this site and you will potentially get spammed. You would be better off proceeding to the Teahouse with your questions, as there you will find people standing by who are experienced in assisting new users. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Article "Architecture"

Thank you for your assistance on the editing of the Architecture article. I thought that by creating a link to the main articles I made it obvious that the insertions were extracted from the main articles. I will be more careful next time. Thanks again for your assistance on this subject. --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:IdlePheasant

I think you can explain better to this so call new user (No way do i belive he/she new with the ability to link policy as they are doing in first day talks). See Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism #Why is attribution of public domain established as compulsory by this guideline?.--Moxy (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that a coupla people have now commented there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Neogene article

I've noticed that you have deleted some copyright violation edits in various geology articles over the past months. Thanks for doing so.

I don't know what the correct procedure is for arranging for copy/paste copyright violations to be deleted, but I thought I'd inform you that I reverted some copy/paste copyright violations by User:Hbf1184 on the Neogene article on 27 February 2017. Can you fully delete these copyvio edits, so they can't even be browsed in the article's revision history, please?

If I find any more copyright violations, should I continue to report them to you, or follow another procedure?

GeoWriter (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi GeoWriter. You can use the {{copyvio-revdel}} template to request revision deletion of copyright violations. Alternately, if you find the template awkward to use, please feel free to post here instead. Neogene is done. Thank for reporting this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. GeoWriter (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dosho Port copyright problem

Thanks, Dianna. I am not very experienced in Wikipedia. Also, building a page for Dosho Port is a complex process. Even though I have access to him, his history in American Zen is quite complex. I was lofting in the stuff I found, planning on changing it. But I realize that is dangerous. I will add source and references to my own words. I have external notes to the page that also allow me to build text and put it in. Thanks again. I will be more careful, oh Wikipedia Master. In gasho, TooTallSid (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add copyright prose to this website, not even temporarily for editing. If you have to save something that way, please do so offline in a text editor or Word document. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

• Souled Out (1997) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding your comment here about User:Mark Linton, are you still planning to notify the user? I don't see anything recent from you on his talk page. This editor recreated the article today (Feb. 28) after it was deleted per G12. I haven't checked it myself to be sure there is a copyright violation. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, for a minute there I thought I somehow lost the remarks I took quite a while to prepare. Turns out I posted at User talk:Ymblanter#Souled Out (1997). I've now copied the same remarks to the user's talk page to be 100% sure he sees it, and to leave a better record (on his talk) of what has transpired so far. Thanks for noticing — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright for Materials Research Society page

Hi Dianna, I work for the Materials Research Society and was given this text from the communications department to post. Is the page currently fine with your deletions, or does more action need to be taken? If so, what would you recommend given this content is direct from the organization the page is about? Thanks for your help. Penguins8771 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)13:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)13:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)~~

Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is notability. I am not sure the organisation is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. We require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newpapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organisations that are not notable are typically speedily deleted.

The third 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.

So if you wish to add the copyrighted content to a Wikipedia article, the proper licenses and permissions will have to be in place. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how that would be done. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. Or, you could write new content that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. And you would have to avoid the conflict of interest guideline while doing so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

More copyvios on Operational Performance Management

Hi Diannaa,

I've reverted edits on Operational performance management where User:Yellow79Red re-added the copyright violations that you had previously expunged. You might want to hide the offending revisions. --Slashme (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna & Slashme,

Sorry for any inconvenience. I thought if we had quoted the users, it would be okay. I can redo them if that's not the case.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow79Red (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Copy-pasting copyright material from other websites is a violation of the copyright policy of this website and of copyright law. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa - Could you please restore the edits that weren't copyrighted? Not everything in there was and only the quoted parts could have been removed. I could rewrite those instead of deleting the full page? Thanks.

We already have a similar article at Business performance management, and Operational performance management redirects to there. Pretty much everything that I removed on February 26 was copyvio, so there's nothing to restore. I can send you that material or the later March 2 version by email if you like, but first you will have to activate your Wikipedia email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comments about CIMMYT entries

Dear Dianna, Perhaps you should have talked to me about this before deleting the content, since I wrote the original content anyway and was just trying to update the Wikipedia page with current information. It is actually so outdated that it is inaccurate. All of it was sourced. I sourced it to the original pages and also sourced it to other places. I'm not sure how you made the decision to delete it, but I really wish you could replace it and I can at least rewrite it again. It took an extremely long time as I had already rewritten it. Just out of curiosity, what gives you the authority to simply delete something without checking with the originator first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellingtales (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) tellingtales 07:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And just to add that you deleted all the updated "partners and donors" information which was taken from a page of icons from the CIMMYT webpage, so how could it be a copyright violation? I think you should restore it or at least explain why you think listing funders and donors is a copyright violation. For example, I added Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation -- how does that violate copyright? It is also listed on their own Wikipedia page. tellingtales 07:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tellingtales: We are required to remove copyright immediately. No authority is required to remove it or in fact any material. In any case, you seem to have added someone's biography to the article, which is inappropriate. I see you've also listed people winning awards. Awards should only be mentioned if they have their own article, and only if the award was to the subject of the articles or to staff because of their work with the organisation, ie a direct connection between the award and the organisation. As it stood, your edits were mainly sourced to the organisation itself. Surely independent sources have discussed it and can be used? I'm not defending the original article either. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Great.Now I know how it works, I'll remove stuff too. I will rewrite the biography. I added the Nobel Peace Prize and the person who won it has his own page and so does the Nobel Peace Prize. I sourced it both to the Nobel Peace Prize and to CIMMYT, so not sure what the problem is there. Ditto for the World Food Prize Awards -- the scientists have their own pages as does the World Food Prize. I sourced to both places. And it wasn't a violation of copyright to mention the awards. You didn't address the other query about listing the donors. How can that be a violation of copyright. I don't think it makes sense to just randomly delete entire swatches of text without reading them first tellingtales 14:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the "Partners and donors" and "Awards" sections as there doesn't seem to be any copyvio in those sections. Sorry for the mistake; it looks like I got too aggressive with the removal of content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: :@Diannaa: Thank you. I appreciate it. I just checked the International Rice Institute page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Rice_Research_Institute#cite_note-originIRRI-10 I see that they sourced 90 percent of the information to their own website and materials. They used a couple of newspaper reports as well, but basically they are the source for their own material. tellingtales 15:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. Under-20s and Academy copyright problem

No issues at at all - looks fine to me. ShugSty (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Louis A. Perrotta

Noticed this page just created. The way it is set up, looks like either a copyvio or a copy of a draft, pasted into mainspace? I can't put my finger on it, I wondering if you could perhaps glance your expert eye over before I begin copy-editing. Karst (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Scrap that, just found the draft here. What do we do in such cases? Karst (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We can delete as copyvio, as the draft was written by someone else. If this had not been the case things would get a little more complicated, involving hist-merge and such — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It just struck me as very odd. The editor is from Nepal and has a poor grasp of English. This article appeared to be at a very advanced level for him. Karst (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death (edits)

Question: ok so I had added a new section that included the description that came along w/ each diorama along with a photograph of most. The reason I added that was after researching the topic, and then visiting them, I think it's especially helpful to include that information in this entry. It provides much more helpful content about each diorama--info, on my research--that really isn't available anywhere else. I also wanted to include the photos to help illustrate the intricacies of each diorama. So the content isn't excessive--and my question is what makes it non-free? One of the diorama descriptions is cited in a Slate article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/06/nutshell_dioramas_of_death_frances_glessner_lee_forensic_science_and_training.html. Do they just need a citation, quotes included? Please advise--I'd really like to be able to include the section you removed as it's valuable additional information about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashaull (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Lashaull (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Lorie

It's not a question of your citations; the problem is that we don't build our articles with quotations. Our non-free content policy does not permit such large quotations from non-free sources. The quotations consisted of 3500 words; that's far too much non-free content. Pretty much everything you add here needs to be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I've been contributing photos but I'm on the newer side to contributing text. If I were to write up some of the descriptions in my own words to further detail some of the dioramas, then that would be acceptable, right? Lashaull (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Lorie

Yes, that would be perfect. :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you so very much! Lashaull (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Bibi Ka Maqbara copyright problem

I have checked the link http://www.apnnews.com/2014/02/13/afghanistan-born-arshi-khan-to-play-aurangzebs-wife-in-indias-first-4d-bollywood-film/ that you were referring to on my talk page and well the website http://www.apnnews.com on which the news article has been published, has, in fact, copied content from the article Dilras Banu Begum. The content in Bibi Ka Maqbara article has also been copied from the article Dilras Banu Begum. So I have not copied any content from any websites, instead the website http://www.apnnews.com which published this article, has copied content from the article Dilras Banu Begum. Please check the article on Dilras Banu Begum, the information was posted there long before this news article was published.

http://www.apnnews.com doesn't seem like a reliable source as it has copied information word for word from a wiki article. So you have made a mistake and the content should not be removed from Bibi Ka Maqbara. — Helena_Bx (talk) 21:31 PM, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, the bot does not check the wiki and I did not spot that it was internal copying rather than from elsewhere on the web. What you need to do when copying from one article to another is to mention in your edit summary where you got the prose from. In fact such attribution is required under the terms of our license. Please see WP:copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic. I've re-added the material and provided the required attribution in the edit summary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue for Draft: William Beauclerc Otway

Hi Diannaa,

I am the copyright holder for the material on the Ballarat Industrial Heritage wiki, and I am giving myself permission to use it on Wikipedia. There is no copyright violation. Please restore my Wikipedia page.

CactusPolecat (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi CactusPolecat. If you are the copyright holder and wish 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) 03:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant. Many thanks, Diannaa. Now that I look into it in more detail, I see that by contributing to the Ballarat Industrial Heritage wiki, the work is now covered by something called an Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) (the page explaining this is at https://bih.federation.edu.au/index.php/Ballarat_and_District_Industrial_Heritage_Project:About). Of the three conditions, I understand 'Non Commercial' and 'Share Alike' will be covered simply by how Wikidpedia works. As for 'Attribution', I believe if I follow the rules at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly_licensed_sources, this will also be covered. Can you now please restore my page. CactusPolecat (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't plan to leave the text as it is. Can it be restored long enough for me to copy the text into my sandbox so I can edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CactusPolecat (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright material in sandboxes or drafts. I will send it to you via email and you can work on it off-line. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Asking to revert deletion of part of the article on Right to Recall

Dear Diannaa

Thanks for interest in Right to recall page.

I had edited right to recall page , giving the example of right to recall drafts. You have deleted and left the draft of another law TCP!

I am working to implement this right to recall law for last five years and have realised the law in depth.

TCP is the law , which will bring RTR law. RTR law has subtle variation for each of the ~300 position. It is essential to explain one rtr law draft summary , and give the complete draft of other, to make the article complete.

So ,I suggest you to undo your edition and restore to my version. Previous revision of Right to Recall

Than you

with best regards ≈≈≈≈ shiva

Hi Shiva, Government works, including legislation, are copyright in India, and thus your addition is an unacceptable amount of non-free content, violating our non-free content policy. I suggest you offer the readers a link to the material in the external links section of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi Diannaa,

I'm a little confused. When you copy and paste material, and then edit it, does that still count as infringing on copyright laws? And what if that's just coincidence, that two sentences are exactly alike? Because all of the material you just deleted was only based on facts from that PDF. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The material I removed was identical to that in the PDF. Two of them were picked up by a bot that looks for copyright violations and the remainder I found manually by checking your contributions. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. I realise that's difficult with technical information, but the effort must be made. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you removed all the material. Not just identical stuff. E.g. I said "Zimmeriana azumai is only known from the female." That was a valid sentence. Although not a long one, why did you have the right to remove things that were not copied and pasted? Megaraptor12345 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Was that in the Zimmeriana azumai article? Because I am not seeing that sentence in the removed material on that article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, the Zimmeriana lasiodactylum article had the sentence. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, that sentence is not present in the source PDF, but there's no point in re-adding it, as the source document states adult females and subadult males were examined. Adult male was not examined however. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So? It says very clearly in the document that the adult male is unknown! "Not examined because it's unknown", not "unknown because it's not examined". Megaraptor12345 (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to go out in 10 minutes, so I don't have time to re-add it. Please go ahead and add if you don't care to wait until I get home. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)q

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot . Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Speedy deletion of John T. Standley, Rite Aid chairman

That is quite fine. I could care less.Cindy Minard (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Chappell Hill Female College

Thanks for deleting that, but I thought it was terribly sad. I didn't have time to create a non-copyvio version yesterday, but I've done so today, at User:Yngvadottir/Chappell Hill Female College. Could I ask you to look at it to verify that it's sufficiently distant from the Handbook of Texas source (I also found and used others), and if so to move it to mainspace without leaving a redirect? I'd also like to ask a further favour: that you undelete and rev-delete the earlier versions, so that TeaganBeard gets their article creation credit. That and Waco Female College (which I also intend to re-create) were their only article creations, they were still quite new, and nobody pointed out the source was copyrighted; in fact someone thanked them enthusiastically on their talk page. So I feel a bit guilty for having finally noticed and run the alarm bell. I hope I've now remedied what was done to the college by our having to delete it, but I'd also like to be nice to the editor, who may still be a reader, or an editor under another name. Someone tells me I'm being too soft-hearted, though, so I will quite understand if you don't do this; the main thing is, I hope my version passes muster. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I must research the Waco institution. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please check User:Yngvadottir/Waco Female College for copyvio concerns and if it passes muster, likewise mainspace that one without leaving a redirect. I found a picture this time; I think it's copyright-free by virtue of age, since it is captioned with the name of the college, shows the building they moved out of in about 1892, and the source newspaper calls it a newspaper picture. I put it on Commons because I couldn't figure out how to get the PD-OLD licence here; if you think my reasoning is flawed, please nominate it for deletion there or let me know and I'll do so myself. And again, I'd like to ask as a favour that you undelete the earlier versions of the article and instead revision-delete them so that the creator and any other editors get credit. Thanks, Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Yngvadottir: I‘m sure the image is fine on Commons, assuming the date is approximately correct, because a newspaper illustration would have been published shortly after creation. But for future reference I believe {{PD-US}} would be the generally appropriate tag here.—Odysseus1479 20:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. There’s an almost-legible byline under the image: “W. R.(?) WATKINS(?), WACO, TEXAS”, from which it may be possible to identify an attributable author. 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The image is okay and correctly licensed. All eligible uploads should be done at the Commons and only non-free images and things that are not OK for Commons should be uploaded locally. The draft has been moved to article space and revision-deletion of restored article history completed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, great! We wound up with 2 decent articles, I think. I'm always nervous about kiping images from the internet, but I thought that was probably old enough; until I tried to get through the Commons Upload Wizard. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Leonidas Polk photograph

Hello Diannaa, I found a website that uses copyright, for the photo of Leonidas Polk I was planning to use. To verify, I would like you to check and see if it's okay to use this one: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/general-leonidas-polk.htm

Thanks you for your time, - Seth --154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam: assuming the photo is from 1861–1864 in the USA, it is almost certainly public-domain and OK to use, regardless of any copyright on a work in which it‘s included—I doubt anyone would challenge a {{PD-US}} designation on something so old. However, it would help if information could be found concerning its authorship, precise date, provenance, & publication history, in order to be absolutely sure and to assist potential reusers.—Odysseus1479 23:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation copyright

Hi

Does there is any problem to link to translation of letter printed in Haaretz newspaper[1] from copyright point of view?--Shrike (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page discussion, they're not talking about copyright being the problem, but whether it not it is a reliable source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes but I asked about copyright.Its not clear for that the translation was authorized by copyright holder.As you dealing with copyright issues here I though I ask for you about that.--Shrike (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not a copyright expert or a legal expert, so I am prepared to render an opinion on that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Trinity-Pawling School

Hi Dianaa,

I did not copy anything word for word. I properly annoted my sources as well. Please reinsert the content. --- NewYorkx2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkx2007 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Newyorkx2007, I have double checked, and the content is identical to the source web page, so I will not be able to restore it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

RSA Conference

Hi Diannaa. Although I suspect your prior interest in this article may have been purely for copyright purposes, I thought I would give you a friendly ping in case you were interested in reviewing a proposed rework of the article.[2] CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry but I don't have time to assist with that project. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

About a template

Hello Diannaa ! If possible, could you perhaps take a brief look at the last chapter ("death") in this article James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. The template there states the part to be "repetitive repetition of redundancy", but I don't agree. I did however improve that part with some new "inlines" (and also translation inside Scandinavian sources). I also have in mind to change (and move) the last headline and add a new one like "Prisoner in Scandinavia" or something like that. Could you see if the last part still needs improvements due to repetition ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am really pressed for time right now so I won't be able to check the repetition issue. But you should not put such extensive quotations inside your citations; it's not necessary, and it violates our non-free content policy, so sorry. I have removed them. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Understand, no worries. However I feel I must add, I only used a FREE Swedish citation, from 1880. (Just about his time at Malmöhus Castle. I'm also aware of the fact that encyclopedic sources generally are not good for details, especially not so old as this one. But this citation only meant to prove that also Swedish sources do support, him to have been some kind of prisoner there) Please also note - everything at Project Runeberg lack copyright, in English please see "is it legal ?" at [3]. Finally, about the Danish citation, this did I only translate, the text in Danish was there already. So I don't think I have done any crime here, at least. But I do indeed remember that you have have taught me about copyrights and length of citations and I thank you for that. But in this case did I knew it didn't apply to that particular source. So I can assure you, that your lesson on this topic a few years ago wasn't made in vain. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize the material was so old; I will put it back. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

National Bar Association

Given your comment on the relevant user's talk, I'm assuming you're the one who revdeld content from this article. Well, it's back in case you would like to mosey on over and zap it, although I have no expectation that it will stay gone. TimothyJosephWood 20:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Question Hello, I'm the one working on the page for the National Bar Association. Instead of deleting all the work that I am putting into this page can you pinpoint what sections are an issue? I have paraphrased, deleted all the pictures,cited references.Please let me know exactly which areas are an issue so I can be productive with this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kw1980 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The content was copied directly from the organization's website and thus is a copyright violation. For example the content on Webster is a copyright violation as it is copied from this page. For more information on copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing, please read through the material already in place on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

okay so if i go back in and rephrase the bios it should be okay? in terms of the nationalbar.org where I gathered names of presidents and affiliates I can get you a letter of authorization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kw1980 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not okay, for a couple of reasons. First, we don't normally include biographies of present and past presidents in our articles about organizations. And second, if you have a connection with this organization, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article at all. I am placing some information about conflict of interest on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Although putting in presidents is not something that's normally done, can i still do it? I understand it's not the norm but does really make it not allowed? How would you recommend I proceed? Also, I do not have a conflict of interest. thanks. Kw1980 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)kw1980

It's an indiscriminate listing of non-notable people, not the sort of content we are looking for. Please don't re-add it. Information suitable for the corporate website is not always the kind of material you would find in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. As to how to proceed, I suggest you learn more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before you contribute any further. Help:Contents is a good place to start. There's editors experienced in helping new contributors at the Teahouse.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a problem

Hello D. When you have a moment please take a look at what is going on at Hazara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It looks like there is copy/pasting going on from another article. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

what should I do?

Hello D. I feel like I'm being singled out and harassed by someone on Guy Gentile. Trying to discuss things civilly didn't get far. What's the best way to handle this? Trailmixers (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your first stop should have been to use the article talk page to discuss your proposed revisions. It's impossible to discuss via edit summaries, and to attempt to do so only leads to edit wars. I see there's a discussion with the other editor underway on your user talk page, so that's good. By the way the other editor is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, administrator, and member of the Arbitration Committee, so I recommend you give his suggestions and advice a fair reading — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Diannaa. I know you know how to value the comments below. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll move it to the article talk. This morning he attacked my entire post history after I commented on a page that was incorrectly tagged for deletion. Since then, he's labeled all of my contributions as garbage and ignored my requests for advise or discussion. I'm kind of lost at this point. Never had anything like this happen before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trailmixers (talk • contribs) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving text

For the most part, the B-17 entries that I moved to the new article were entries that I researched and entered in the original location.

Mark Sublette

Copyvio/Plagiarism concerns

Hi, I've detailed here (Talk:Ganj Dareh) why certain edits by an anonymous editor at this article (Ganj Dareh) are problematic, esp with regards to Copyvio/Plagarism. The editor claims that the issue is resolved with his recent changes to satisfy these Copyvio/Plagiarism concerns - do his perfunctory changes actually resolve issues of Copyvio/Plagiarism? Thanks, Fraenir (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Source: "The phenotypic attributes of GD13a are similar to the neighbouring Anatolian early farmers and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers."
• My edit: "She phenotypically similar to the Anatolian early farmers and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers."
• Source: "She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but likely had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait."
• My edit: "The derived SLC45A2 variant associated with light skin was not observed in GD13a, but the derived SLC24A5 variant which is also associated with the same trait was observed."

The same user blindly reverted me 2 times 1, 2 for adding "unsourced" info. Then, conversely, have complained about "copyright vio/plagiarized straight from the article". So, by this, the user has admitted that, he did not read the source while he was reverting me. Anyway, I accept that previous version was copyvio and fixed it. Only thing that I have done is fixing the previous source misrepresentation and expanding the info. And, I don't know why but I think that the user Fraenir, for some reason, just don't like my revision. 85.107.24.161 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)