User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 12:45 am, 21 October 2024 UTC [refresh].

Possible copyvio in Chatham Granite Club

Hi Diannaa. Could you take a look at Chatham Granite Club as well as Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 February 2 and make I did everything correctly? It appears that quite a bit of the history section was copied-and-pasted from the club's official website. I'm not sure how far back it goes who who intitially added it, but the content has been there for quite a while and has just been moved around a bit is some recent updates. I think it goes back to content added by IP 70.24.45.213 in September 25, 2015 at 22:49 (I'm not providing diffs so as to not create any more cleanup). This might mean that every edit since then will have to be revdel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You did everything perfectly. Thank you for your interest in helping with copyright clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with a move

Hello Diannaa, ILoveCaracas has been moving some pages without first seeking consensus or discussing it in the article's discussion page. I left the user a message yesterday on one move with which I do not agree, this one since, that means, that, for the sake of consistency, other articles on Spanish cities or towns would also have to be moved to indicate the province instead of just, in this case, Zaragoza, as it appears in Spanish wiki. I could live with it, but this recent move, today, is not, in my opinion, correct. As I just explained to the user, there were several "Cortes de León" in different years, some more relevant than others, but this one, the one in 1188, was particularly important and has its own separate article also in es.wiki (there is also a general article for Cortes de León). I am not sure how to go about it, reverting to the previous title. Could you please help? Also, perhaps you can tell the user that before he makes any move, he should first seek consensus or request the page move so that there may be some discussion before the move is made. Many thanks, Maragm (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

In cases where the redirect has not been edited, it's possible for you to move pages back to their original locations. This can be done using the "move" feature. You should be able to do this yourself. There's nothing much I can do to help with deciding what these pages should be titled, and you've already explained your concerns. What articles are titled on the Spanish wiki may not be relevant to this wiki, as we have our own manual of style and build a local consensus as to how we want to do things. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

How to resolve the copyright issue

Hi Diannaa, so you recently edited the Randal Bryant page, and I wonder how can I see changes between the current and prev version? Also, the image was added from Prof. Bryant website. If there's no claim of legal license, can I contact him personally to ask for permission? How can I show the legality to wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieswj (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the prose, click here to see what I removed. Regarding the photo, we need to have documentation that shows the copyright holder has given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see this page for an explanation of how to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

required attribution

Hello, I really don't get the difference between your edits and what was there before. In my last edits I said that the material was from Tunisian cuisine, what am I supposed to do more ? Also, the content isn't exactly just copied, it is readapted (and often shortened) to the context in which it is used from its references.Asmodim (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The latest one I spotted was his one about literature, not one about cuisine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Asmodim, to further expand on this point, when you give attribution to a page that's already on Wikipedia, you need to give a specific link to that page, as well as the "version" that you copied from. It's generally okay to say "the 1 February version" or similar, but you can also use diffs. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia gives information about what we have to do and why we have to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New cat

Tony just created Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters. It's probably different enough from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests to not be considered overlap, so I thought I'd point it out to you. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters

Just an FYI to you and stalkers that I was looking over WP:CV today, and noticed that there wasn't an easy way to identify admins who were comfortable working in copyright, even though approaching an admin individually is often the easiest way to handle copyright issues for people who aren't that familiar with the policy. I went ahead and created the category to try to help. Thought you and anyone else who follows this page might be interested in it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Too slow! Primefac (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Now Diannaa knows twice TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans. Added :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

North Dakota State College of Science

Hello Diannaa, the usual--looks like nearly all of the history section was copied. Rev/deletion? Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

US-Asia Institute

And lots of the same here. For when you have a quiet moment. Best, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Also done. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is kind of obvious

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		But so very much deserved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ~! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Haywood Patterson

Hi, I suspect that most of this article is a copyright violation, because it was copied from here, 88% match to current version (it's PBS but it's still copyrighted, I believe) and the last clean version is this 13 November 2012. I wasn't sure what to do, so I contacted you because I saw you active in the copyright sections. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You came to the right place; I've done lots of these. I've removed the copyright violation and done some revision deletion. Thank you for reporting this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Confectionery copying and attribution

Hi Diana, Thank you for letting me know about Wikipedia attribution policy, which I did not know about. I have now implemented a link to Sugar candy. I am not sure how to carry out any other requirements that there may be, and would welcome your help. I am logging off now and may not be in touch for a few days. So please feel free to make any necessary attributions. 81.131.172.217 (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I already did. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. 81.131.172.217 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and coyright - "Healthism"

Dear Diannaa, I am writing about the modifications I recently did in the article about healthism. Thank you very much for your message and sorry for the absolutely involuntary infringement of the copyright code that Wikipedia adopts. Actually, I wrote the introduction of a special issue of an academic journal devoted to the topic of healthism and I thought to publish on Wikipedia a shorter version of this article, whose aim is to provide a map of this concept. Since the article is published under an open access journal (Eä) and then published in HAL, which is a French open archive where each author keeps their intellectual property rights, I would like to ask you, if I can release my intellectual property rights and publish on Wikipedia. Best regards, Mauroturrini (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Mauroturrini

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, you cannot add your own research to Wikipedia. Since the material you want to add is your own analysis, you should not add it. See WP:No original research for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I try to revise the text according the copyright policies, and I would like to ask you to check it if the result (in particular the first two sections) could be publishable. Thanks. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauroturrini (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Danna. I have just finished the mast section. I hope it will also be fine. -Mauroturrini (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I am unable to view "Healthism: a new conservatism?" because it is behind the paywall, but I am not seeing any issues with your other additions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Didier Stainier Portrait.jpg

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your message. I actually want to delete the file but don't know how and could not find any information on this. The image is already available under the name "Didier Stainier, PhD.jpg" on the German Wikipedia and this is the one I used when creating the article in my sandbox. I will be happy to delete it if you point me in the right direction. Thanks! Scairp4 (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scairp4. Thanks for the message. Only administrators can delete files or articles. I have deleted it for you, as there's a copy at the Commons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Accelerated Learning Laboratory

Hello, Diannaa, here's one that requires repeated protection against copyright violation. More rev/delete fun. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Helpful Primefac has done the rev-del. It looks like he's got it watch-listed too. I am gonna add some page protection. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Terrific. My thanks to you both. Shortly I'll settle in to watch a bloated cultural extravaganza, whose outcome is meaningless. And I'm not referring to a Congressional session. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I never watch the Superbowl - especially this year. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Head Transplant" deletions on the basis of copyright

This is User:Moscowamerican.

I used my "right to disappear" Wikipedia:Clean_start to change my user name because of the treatment that I was receiving. I have not edited this article or any other since I changed user names.

I would like to formally dispute the deletion of Head transplant material. I was thinking about a formal request for comment. WP:RfC.

But maybe, just maybe (cross my fingers), we can resolve this here amicably without a formalized process.

Thoughts ma'am? Infinitepeace (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Right to vanish means you don't edit any more at all! Regardless, there's zero chance I would permit the restoration of material you copied from Discover magazine or the Seattle Times. Copyright policy trumps local consensus, whether there's an RFC or not. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Clean start: "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Tanstaafl

Had an old 'watch this page' link to your page, found this icon (button?) and copied it. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of my all time favorit books. Cheers! Shir-El too 23:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh me too. I've read it many times. It's really held up well. It would make a great film! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Kelly Robert Savage draft page you deleted

Diannaa, earlier on Sunday, Nihlus moved this from the published status to draft status which indicated it required review. Which might take 2-3 months. But now, at approximately 0240 UTC 5 February, you have simply deleted it with no explanation per your note on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martha.Savage/sandbox/Kelly_Robert_Savage (I do not know the proper way to reference a deleted page to you here). Does this constitute a review, with zero feedback? I Billspindler am not the original author, that was Martha.Savage . She added the original COI tag. I reviewed it and agreed to publish it as I do not have a similar conflict of interest. Can your explain and suggest a path forward? Thanks... Billspindler (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The page was moved to Draft:Kelly Robert Savage. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it is there now. Thanks.Billspindler (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald B. Smith redux

You scrubbed a stretch of the history of this article for copyvio, but I see the same IP restored text in this edit not long after. Am I being too cynical in suspecting it was substantially similar? If I should post this at some noticeboard, please let me know; I came to the article as a result of an AN/I report, and I'm not sure it's just the IP. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it was. I've revdel'd. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Duh?

I really should have thought of that. the "ampersand" nbsp thing. You'd think after all those years of computers and webpages that I'd get something so simple. Sigh - guess retirement isn't all it's cracked up to be. Oh well - Thank you very much Diannaa — Ched :  ?  — 19:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome; glad to help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing Comparative Advantage

Hi Diannaa, I am a PhD student working with professors of international economics (from SIS, American University) to improve the quality of the page on comparative advantage, which is often consulted by our undergraduate students. I do not understand why you deleted the latest iteration of the section on "Deardorff's general law of comparative advantage", as it is simply a summary of a seminal article that needs to be mentioned in the page (we also had changed the wording of this summary based on your previous feedback) and as we cite the said article. I do not also understand why the section on "natural experiment of Japan" has been partially deleted and the adjacent figure removed: it does no longer make sense. The owners of the graph (Profs Daniel Bernhofen and John Brown) gave permission for this graph to be used on Wikipedia. I totally understand concerns about copyright: in this regard, would you mind being specific when you refuse an edit? Again, we are simply trying to improve a page that is often consulted by students and that currently does not reflect the nature of the academic research and debates on this issue. All best, Manreiii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manreiii (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot (twice) as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. All material you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please. We don't accept copyright content. Also, we can't take your word for it that the copyright holder of the content on Japan has given permission for their work to be added here. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 1.0 not compatible with Wikipedia?

Hi,

I've been looking at the Creative Commons website (specifically, here and here), and they both say that CC-BY-SA 1.0 text can only be reused under CC-BY-SA 1.0. Unless I'm much mistaken, this makes it incompatible with Wikipedia (because it uses CC-BY-SA 3.0). Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright lists CC-BY-SA 1.0 as compatible, but provides no source to back it up. Is there a problem here? If I'm right (and I hope I am not!), Template:CC-notice needs to be updated, and there may need to be a mass copyright cleanup operation. I really do hope this is a false alarm, but the way I'm interpreting what Creative Commons says, I don't see how we can use CC-BY-SA 1.0 text on Wikipedia. Am I missing something? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

And I've just also seen this, which says: The version 1.0 ShareAlike licenses require that adaptations be made under exactly the same license as applied to the original work. Can someone (Primefac, TonyBallioni?) please tell me I'm an idiot who has got this all wrong? Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Adam9007, we are bound by the English Wikipedia copyright policy because we are not lawyers. The local policy is stricter in the law in places (our fair use policy, for example), but it always conforms with the laws of the United States, and in the past WMF counsel have given opinions on compatible licensing. As you are not a lawyer, you do not need to worry about what the law is. You only need to worry about English Wikipedia policy. The FAQ on that policy is clear. CC BY-SA 1.0 is compatible. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Do you know if the WMF legal team have declared CC-BY-SA 1.0 compatible? There are certainly discrepancies between Wikipedia copyright policy and what Creative Commons says. I don't think one needs to be a lawyer to notice them. If Wikipedia copyright policy is not in line with the law, it could cause big problems. I find it hard to believe that there has been such an oversight, so I must be missing something... Adam9007 (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Adam9007, it was added by Moonridengirl (who was our resident volunteer copyright person for ages, and now is a senior employee at the Wikimedia Foundation) with this diff. Given the edit summary, I am assuming that WMF counsel has reviewed this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks goodness for that! It still beats me how it's compatible, but then again I'm no expert (hence this thread). Adam9007 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Robert Vancina page edit by Diannaa

Good day Diannaa Just received notice of deleting one edit I done on the page - Under Section of Scientific Publications I added to my own publication one picture and added two sentences describing 10 years of my research in it. That has nothing to do with autobiography as you claim, or violating authors rights - I am the author. Can you please read what you deleted and realize that has nothing to do with person on the page but in two sentences summarize work that has been done through out 10 years of research. Sorry if I misunderstand it and delete this note, thank you. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvancina (talk • contribs) 04:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, you cannot add your own research to Wikipedia. Since the material you want to add is your own analysis, you should not add it. See WP:No original research for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Jaiswal

Hi Diannaa I humble request to you. can you check the data in article Jaiswal Brahmin. There is maximum data without reference. Can you please remove unsourced data. Atrisomkshraj (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone else has taken care of this problem. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Angshuman Kar

Diannaa, there was apparently significant copyvio on this article. Given how much of the article has been deleted, I'm guessing that a number of revisions should be hidden. Can you please take a look when you get the chance? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thans for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Assam

Good morning, Diannaa, recent edits appear to have introduced copied content, and may require the mysterious magic of rev/deletion. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done; thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thank you

Can you delete the hymenectomy article so that I can get it right? I don't know what the problem is. This is the second time in two days that I've caused a copyright problem. I'm going to rework it offline to get it right and take more time in editing. Then I will re-create it. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 16:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Appreciation! Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfair use?

Hi, Diannaa, it's been a while! I though you might be able to give a quick answer to this: what do we do when we get a complaint that a fair-use image (this one) is being used without permission from the copyright holder? The file is taken from here, and has a large "copyright" watermark across it. My own feeling is that we should respect the rights of the owner if there's been an objection, but I wondered if this has come up before, and if so, what the outcome was? For reference, OTRS ticket 2017073110012929. Thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! good to see you. I did find this article which shows there's precedent for removing fair use images if the copyright holder requests it. I found a different image from a different website to replace. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa! My correspondent was quite upset, so I'm pleased to be able to go back and report this result. On a quite different topic, I posted here too late for anyone to take any notice of what I said (and I was anyway probably in the wrong place to say it). However, I see that as a possibly fairly major cause for concern. I don't know what ought to be done about CCI in general – even the requests process is stalled (in case you missed it, which I don't suppose you did, the most recent addition may be of interest to you). One thing's for sure, though – the current system isn't dealing with the problem. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's not enough people interested in helping with copyright cleanup to do all the required tasks. I do CopyPatrol and look after maintenance of WP:CP and clean up the occasional listing there. I also try to keep on top of cleaning pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations and am currently locating and cleaning pages with a copyvio/core template that were never added at WP:CP. Unfortunately that leaves no time for other things, including cleaning up the older copyvios at WP:CCI and some of the other tasks I used to do, such as re-writing articles for GA and the like. I was not consulted about the unblock of that newly listed person and decided to trust that the admin that unblocked would monitor and make sure they stopped adding copyvio. Perhaps I should have monitored myself, but I did not at the time feel it was my responsibility to do so, as I was not the unblocker. (Right now I have about six contributors that I monitor daily and prolly about the same number on a less frequent rotation.) The CopyPatrol system is for the most part stopping repeat copyvio offenders from getting established, other than a few like this one that fall through the cracks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

US-Asia Institute, redux

Hi Diannaa, same COI account returned for same promotional and copyright violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Images of Disney content

Hi again, Diannaa. I went to The Walt Disney Studio Licensing website, which tells users to ask permission and contact them for quotes (or somethig). I can assume that licensing any content belonging to Disney requires a fee, which is what Getty Images has done. How would this affect screenshots and posters, like Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) and one screenshot at The Golden Girls#Cast and characters? I thought about taking one of them to FFD, but I'd like to contact you first instead. George Ho (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

People can get a license to use Disney images. I am pretty sure we don't need to do this because we use their material as fair use. That's my opinion only, I am not a legal expert. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio at Paraiyar

This edit is copy/pasted from, eg: here. Please can you do the honours. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries - Sphilbrick has just done it. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition of material followed by immediate removal by same editor - why?

While I don't think this is a recent phenomenon, I happened to notice in the last few weeks a number of items brought to our attention as a possible copyright issue. An editor adds material which appears to match some source and then immediately removes it.

addition, followed by removal.

While it doesn't result in the addition of copyrighted material to the article, it does require some investigation in order to determine whether revdel is necessary.

If it happen once or twice, I wouldn't bother mentioning but I probably seen it a dozen times over the last couple weeks so I'm just curious whether you or any talk page stalkers know why this occurs?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

We do have a person who for years (since at least 2016) has been copypasting material from articles into redirects to those articles and then immediately removing it. It's typically done on articles about financial services companies. See for example this redirect or this redirect. The IPs geolocate to the UK. There's data on this in my sandbox and at User:Chrissymad/IPBlanker. These edits are all copying without attribution and a violation of the terms of our license. I think I have all his active ranges blocked since I haven't seen him for a few days. This case you mention however is not the same guy, as the IP geolocates to Toronto. Why does he do this? there's nowt so queer as folk. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

I think this edit might warrant a revdel. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Obviously made-up, but still. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Charles Paul Conn

Hi Diannaa, I have concerns that passages of this bio are not only a bit promotional in tone and derive from COI accounts, but closely paraphrase a source. If you have a chance, could you take a look? Thank you very much, 2601, or 73.159.24.89 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This one is done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about statistical results in Wikipedia articles

I have a question about the passage you recently deleted from Placebo that I thought you might be kind enough to answer. Let me preface the question by noting that my intent is not to defend the passage: in fact, the passage's author Brisawhite has only made two edits to Wikipedia to date; I reverted the first and you reverted the second (which I'm now wishing that I had done myself), so we would agree that Brisawhite has not demonstrated superb editorial judgment to date: "o-fer" as they say in baseball. I'm asking because the deleted passage raised a theoretical question in my mind that I don't know how to answer: Is it copyright violation to cite, in Wikipedia, numerical data from a study? There were three sentences in the deleted passage, none of which appeared verbatim in the cited source. The first two sentences were basically reporting statistical results: "66% of respondents felt" x, "84% of respondents felt" y, "82% of" respondents who felt y also felt z. The third sentence defined the terms used in x, y, and z. I can see that some of the phrases in x, y, and z should have been in quotation marks because they came from the cited source. But the numerical figures themselves shouldn't be changed, of course, nor would it have been wise to change the phrases in x, y, and z much, if at all, as that would have misrepresented the results of the study. So, was the solution in this case (assuming the passage was kept, which I'm not advocating) simply to add quotation marks to the phrases in x, y, and z, or should this kind of numerical data not be reported in Wikipedia at all? Again, I'm not defending the deleted passage, just interested in the theoretical question for future reference. Many thanks for your tireless work on copyvio, by the way. Biogeographist (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. I've double checked the edit using that tool and manually, and feel that the passage was inadequately paraphrased and was indeed a copyvio. Some of the content is indeed verbatim from the cited source. If the person adding the prose is unable to paraphrase the content well enough that it's not a copyvio, perhaps it could be presented as a quotation. As to whether or not the data should be added at all, that's an editorial judgement best left to the people who edit medical articles. I know they have pretty strict sourcing requirements - see WP:MEDRS. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be the case that, as you said, Brisawhite "is unable to paraphrase the content well enough that it's not a copyvio" and that such material "could be presented as a quotation" instead. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your help, please...

See this diff by IP as it may need redaction. Also look at contributions of IP which are problematic. He has been adding to the comments of other users, and adding (copyrighted) incorrect information to articles and I'm thinking it requires an admin's attention. Thank you in advance ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done the revision deletion. I note the IP's user talk page is blank. I will talk to them, though this does not require advanced permissions :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• LOL* I hear you re: TP discussion. While I typically AGF, and will not hesitate to offer a helping hand to GF editors, I'm far more cautious about interacting with problematic IPs. I've had my share of unwelcome experiences with IP trolls, and I've also seen what a few other editors I've collaborated with have endured in far worse situations. Chalk it up to my WPTSD (Wikipedia Troll Stress Disorder). Fortunately, I've had more good experiences with IPs than bad, so I think it's best to hand the tough situations over to an admin who is far more conditioned for handling such matters.^{Atsme📞📧} 15:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can learn to do this, using the simple instructions at Wikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values ~! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Starfish

Hello, there is a copy-vio at this page with this edit. It seems to be a direct copy of this web page. It came to light when the editor concerned came to the help desk with a ref error question. I fixed the ref and pointed out the copy-vio to the editor both at their TP and the HD, asking them to rewrite it as soon as... They have not done so and I believe they have probably seen one or other of the messages as I received a 'thanks' notification (for the edit). I have not as yet removed the offending text. Should it now be 'revdel'd'? It's a seemingly newish editor who might not understand about copy-vio. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the content and done the revision deletion. I also let the person who added it know what's going on. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RE Anna Braude Heller article

Hi. I am genuinely sorry about the article. I really did remove and reword as much as I could and thought it was satisfactory. I haven't been creating articles for a while and have been concentrating on maintenance, so maybe I am rusty. I would to rewrite the article as I believe the subject is notable. Perhaps I can keep rewrites in my sandbox pending your review(s). Sorry, again. I know I have been editing long enough to know better and I hate being a disappointment. Thought I had sufficiently reworded it but evidently not. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you review this version in my sandbox. Thanks. Quis separabit? 15:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The sandbox version still has quite a bit of overlap with the source webpage. Did you know, there's a tool you can use to check this yourself. Like this. Content has to be completely re-written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible (not always possible with chronological facts). Summarize rather than paraphrase. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio in translations

Hi Diannaa. I've tried asking Primefac about these questions, but he seems to be away right now. I wonder could you provide any guidance? Perhaps there is a handy exposition somewhere, linked from WP:COPYVIOCITE, to which Primefac already directed me. But I can't find anything. Many thanks for any help you can give.

1. Can a translation of a passage into a foreign language always be assumed to be a copy-vio? I mean, other languages use totally different words don't they, and express things in a different way, with different grammar?

2. If one doesn't know a language (like I don't know Esperanto, for example) how does one judge if it's copyvio? Is a machine translation (like GoogleTranslate) good enough to determine this?

3. Can links to what may be copyvio material never be used at Wikipedia, off article main space, for the purposes of discussion or illustration?

Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Translations: the content guideline at WP:NONENGPLAG says that translation alone is not enough to assure that the material is free of copyvio. It need to be re-worded and re-worked into the editor's own words so that the rights of the original author are protected.
2. Presenting the same material in the same order using similar wording and unique expressions is still considered a copyvio. Google translate can offer clues but can't be assumed to be definitive. You'd have to go over the content phrase by phrase to tell for sure. Knowing the language would definitely be helpful for this but a person could probably do it without.
3. Copyright violations are not permitted in user space, drafts, talk pages, the whole shebang. So I would have to assume that even though WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER don't specifically cover this point, that it is not allowed. I've seen such links removed from (for example) ANI, so no. Don't do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my problem is with where WP:NONENGPLAG says "direct translation". How does one judge that directness. How does one know how good an automatic machine translation is? I have no idea, for example, how epo does its translations, do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clear advice. So en.wiki has "no responsibility" for the content of other language wikis, does it? I must have read that quite a few times in the 11 years I’ve been here. So what about all those other language links on the left-hand side of the page for most articles? How do we know they are not chock-full of copy-vio? Who’s job is it to check the content of all of those constantly? Quite an onerous task, no? Or maybe those links just get added "automatically”, so no-one is actually “to blame” for knowingly linking to something that might be a copy-vio? Maybe there’s some kind of “corporate responsibility" for this risk to "Contributory copyright infringement." I’m now somewhat curious. At any given moment I guess there’s all kinds of copyright violation going on in these 5,568,817 or so articles. Doesn’t Wikipedia have some kind of "can’t be held liable" get-out clause somewhere? I can’t recall ever hearing about Wikipedia being prosecuted for violation of copyright. Perhaps this just goes to show that the system is working. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You raise some very good questions but I don't know the answers. The risk is primarily to the editor who adds the content, as they are the one releasing it under license when they are not entitled to do so. The Foundation itself is not responsible for the content, but does receive and act upon DMCA takedown requests, per this article in the Signpost. Inter-language links are added via Wikidata. Articles on other wikis are just as likely to contain copyvio as ours. Perhaps even more so, if they are not well policed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Well I personally suspect they are not very policed at all. In fact, until I got a nasty and overbearing warning on my Talk page from User:Fram, I must admit I'd never thought of it before at all. In the past I've added many links to other language wikis never thinking that I could be engaging in "Contributory copyright infringement." One last little query for now - if I want to use a link to something that I suspect may be copyright, say for the purposes of illustration or discussion at a User Talk page, can I just remove the "http://"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I Do It... 'Til I Need Glasses? I wouldn't do that, and I'm not going to tell you it's okay. Better you should just tell people in general where to find it. For example, googling "Steele dossier uploaded by Buzzfeed" points to the content without the need to provide a url or partial url. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough. I wish there were clearly written rules about this. As there seems to be some variation in the position taken by different Admins. Some are stricter than others. I try to add links only to things which I personally consider to be not copyvios. It's not always possible to tell, is it? But YouTube links can be tricky. I must say, with regard to YT, that this so-called risk of "contributory copyright infringement" seems to me a bit nonsensical - surely YT is 100% responsible for what they publish, whether it infringes copyright or not. And again I never hear of YouTube being taken to court - I imagine if they get what they consider to be a copyvio claim, they just take it down. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding: User:Mdennis (WMF) (Moonriddengirl, in her private-editor-incarnation) knows a lot about copyright and might be a good person to ask. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Diannaa. I probably will try and ask her, when I have a moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Jani Babu Qawwal

If you have time can you please check this article? Jani Babu Qawwal. I removed a copyright violation to imdb, but I don’t know how to remove the copy vio from the article’s history. Can you help? Thanks. Donald1659 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to do revision deletion. I've done that, as well as added a bit more data to the article. (Should the article be at the title "Jani Babu"?) You can post revision deletion requests here or use the template {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping. Donald1659 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Blog used as reference

Hello Diaane, on the Near-death experience#Cross-cultural aspects, the following blog site "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences: Cultural Differences" is used as a reference though there are peer-reviewed journal review articles dealing with the same topic. Do you agree there is no issue replacing it with the better sources? Your thoughts? Josezetabal (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The place to ask this kind of question is the reliable sources noticeboard. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Auschwitz

Hi, why you reverted my edition in Auschwitz? The article concerns Auschwitz - something that was - and is not (exists) anymore.

So an infobox should show the old location or if it is a more favorable location, it should be noted.

Auschwitz is not today. One of the things is that the Auschwitz Museum and Museum is located in Poland, but the camp was in Germany. This infobox is about the camp, so you must have it either in the old location (Germany) or in a more current location, but the current one should be noted because infobox concerns past. We can not combine the present and the past in one template

--Swd (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your addition does not make any sense, because it implies that the camp has moved. The camp still exists, though it's not in use as a camp any more; it's now a museum and UNESCO world heritage site. I suspect English is not your first language, so you may have to take my word on this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Diana, look it have sense. Because infobox is not about museum and UNESCO world heritage site but about somthing in the years 1939-1945. In fact, there should be two infobox there - one for the camp and the other for museum. In the other way we moving Former object from the past to actual localisation. Camp not excist anymore. It's same like battle was in the period of time and not excist anymore:

[1] Date 23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943 (5 months, 1 week and 3 days) Location Stalingrad, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union like you moving battle in the Soviet Union to Russia.

So if the infobox is about The Camp, should be location from the time of its activity. Former camp is former location, and of corse UNESCO and Museum location is in Poland. Look how we did it in the polish Wikipedia. Infobox about Camp is with former data, and about Museum with actual. Maybe should be in english "silver star" article similar. Location Former for camp, and acual for UNESCO and Museum. I hope you will be understand me better now. For my english I'm sory. ;)greetings --Swd (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand you better, but I still don't agree with you that this should be changed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

deleted page

Hi!

Why have you deleted Draft: David Urankar

I am David Urankar and owner of linked page: www.davidurankar.com

Best, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterd1 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi David. In addition to what Diannaa posted above about copyrights, I suggest you take a look at the following pages if you're trying to write an article about yourself: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyrighted information on multiple articles

Hello Diannaa, I noticed you removed a whole lot of copyrighted information on Hoa people and I've noticed the same source has been used on multiple articles about the ethnic Chinese communities of Southeast Asia (Chinese Filipino, Chinese Cambodian, Laotian Chinese and Thai Chinese). Just wanted to let you know so you can have a look if there's any problem with the use of that source. Thanks. (120.144.30.158 (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC))

Thanks for the report. I located and removed copyright content from Chinese Filipino and Thai Chinese. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparent copyvio at Naptha article

Hi Diannaa, you might want to take a look at this apparent copyvio re-addition of content copied-and-pasted from the Eagle Petrochem website to the Naptha article. It looks like a definite copyvio according to Earwig's copyvio detector. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the user merged the content from Petroleum naphtha and the data at Eagle Petrochem was copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The user has done multiple undiscussed merges, all of which have now been undone. There's a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Vorpzn and big undiscussed merges / renames. Thanks for the alert. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)