User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 1:54 am, 30 June 2024 UTC [refresh].

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)

Thank you for doing that Diannaa. (121.219.8.166 (talk) 23:01, 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)

Thanks, you're the best. Carlstak (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rutter's

Hi Diannaa, this article has long been subjected to promotional editing by a paid account, who I've asked be blocked. But I also think that they've dropped in copyright violation passages that have since been removed. There may need to be a bit of rev/deletion. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Same problems at the editor's talk page [2], and perhaps at the article talk page as well. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the History section from the article as it was copyvio, added by an IP in 2011. I was unable to find a match online for the content at the article talk page or the user talk page (they are both the same material). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. For starters there's this: [3]. I suspect a lot of passages at the user's talk page, transferred to the article talk page, are similarly copied. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

And the gasoline business, from [4]. Probably most or all was similarly copied. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the content on the source website is in "frames", whatever that means!, and hence is invisible to Earwig's tool. I think it's all cleaned up now. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Diannaa. Best, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Permission for all the pics on Robert Jelinek (artist)

Hello Dianaa. Please have a look on [[Robert Jelinek (artist))] and stop the deeting process for all the pictures on that page. Volunteer Response Team Ticket here: [Ticket#: 2018021310008323]. Thanx! --Gantenbrink (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added the required {{OTRS pending}} template to each file. Processing your email will likely take a while, as they have huge backlogs right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanx! --Gantenbrink (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Harisal

Diannaa, the DYK review here talks about copyvio and copy/paste, and the article was tagged with the copy/paste template. I was troubled by the (false) assertion that a low Earwig score meant that there wasn't a copyvio, and I imagine that at least some of the edits should be hidden, given the examples in the review. Can I leave this in your hands? Thanks again for all that you do in this space. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Uploading profile picture

Dear Diannaa,

I have uploaded a new profile picture of Wim Naudé on his Wikipedia page. However, there seem to be some issues with the licensing part. I have adjusted now three times but keep receiving messages that still something is to be adjusted. Could you please assist? Thank you in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maastricht52 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but we won't be able to use this photo without the copyright holder releasing it under a compatible license, because we don't accept fair use images of people that are still alive, since a freely licensed image could still be created. If the copyright holder is willing to release the photo under license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Some revdels and checking

So I was looking through Special:Contributions/Rashid.ali and was cleaning up some of the copyvios he introduced - need some revdels: of

• 762108520 to 825944338 on Libyan Civil War (2011)
• 762115666 to 82511212 on Khalifa Haftar
• Some in the House of Representatives (Libya)'s history that got reverted and reinserted
• Same in politics of libya
• And in Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan Civil War with copyvio after "The results of the 200 seats to the GNC were"

The copyvios are generally cited to the copied from source. Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

These are all done. I left another warning on their talk page in case they decide to return. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lolita Fashion Copyright Advice

Dear Diannaa,

Thank you for your message, I will take a deep look into these information sources you gave.

The most copyrighted material would be the style definitions, because they are definition from the academics itself, you mention "direct copy or too close paraphrasing" and you are right with your statements. Moreover I understand that Wikipedia use CC BY-SA and that the copying text of copyrighted material is strict forbidden if it is not compatible with CC BY-SA.

Probably the solution would be, to make a general statement about the different kind of styles, because then it isn't own research, but also not directly copyrighted, because only some words are used from the text and every word is refereed to the author.

I will solve the translation attributions as soon as possible.

I will take a look at the licenses of these documents.

Yours Sincerely, --Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi, I am wondering if I would be able to access the deleted revision of my sandbox page. I had an article I was working on there. Thanks Jk956 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the same content that was deleted yesterday at Food security in Mexico as being a copyright violation, so I am unable to comply with your request. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Need assistance with copyright violating content at Edward Rubin

Greetings. I come to you only because I saw your recent copyright work on Libyan Civil War (2011). I came across the Edward Rubin article today, and found it horribly non-neutral and violating copyright. In particular it was taking material directly from [5] and [6]. Earwig's copyvio detector found 70.7% and 58.1% confidence on those two hits respectively. I looked into the article's history, and the first introduction of the material began with User:Solntsa, a user who hasn't edited in >4 years, in 2010. I edited the last 'clean' version of the article, adding in some citations, category fixes that had been done, and wording changes to bring the article to date with his position now. Everything from this to this, inclusive, needs to be rev del'd. Could you assist please? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk)

 Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Dear Diannaa Thank you for your email about my contribution to the article about Sacadura Cabral. I used only material that I own the copyright together with my collaborators. Of course I took it from the our publication that I put in the references. Is there any other article that you found similar? If that is the case, please send me the reference, because I own the copyright of the text I have used. Thanking you in advance, I remain, Yours sincerely, Jorge M M Barata (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I did notice that your username was among the authors of the source paper. All copyright holders would have to be willing to release the material under a compatible license for you to be able to add it to Wikipedia. We need to have documentation in writing. 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) 22:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mount Tabor Indian Community

@Diannaa: The following I posted following the information you posted on the Mount Tabor page. This is a problem, it is explained below.

@Diannaa: Since I am the one that originally wrote it, and copied by someone else and added to the site mentioned, and we are talking about a legal treaties that are on file at the Texas State Archives in Austin, there is no copyright issue and it should not be removed. There is no copyright instances on anything I have written except documents which are public from the 1840's and not subject to copyright. As a historian, genealogist, I may be lacking knowledge in Wiki, but not history. Nor as a former CFR judge would I determine any copyright of my original information. Please contact me before you start removing things. I welcome, tweeking to make it more Wiki friendly, as I have a lot to learn, but this nonsense has happened to me before about the Mount Tabor Indian Cemetery, where I put it on Wikipedia, only to have somebody say it was on another site and remove it. YES, information of mine on that site. Same on the Treaty of Birds Fort, where somebody took it off, only to have somebody else put it back up later. Suggestions is better than removal in this instance.

Terran57 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Terran57Terran57 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: a second thought those treaties were OUR treaties, my tribe, my people, my family of which I am the elected Chairman. That in it's self states you have no right to remove them. You may not understand tribal sovereignty, but this is a violation of such. Also, show me ANYWHERE on the net referencing the Treaty with the Fredonian Republic!

Terran57 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Terran57Terran57 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Terran57 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Terran57Terran57 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Double checking, I discovered that the content appears in an old revision of the Wikipedia page Timeline of Cherokee history. It appears that the external website copied from there. Not sure how it might be possible that you recently wrote identical prose, or perhaps you added it to that other article long ago? Regardless, I have restored the material and added the required attribution. For future reference: while you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you for revisiting this. No I didn't write it recently, in fact it was first put out there on an MTIC website in the 90's. The words are mine verbatim and were initially seen by me on Wikipedia on the Battle of Salado Creek page, but that has since been changed. I have seen them or very close renditions on a number of other websites and Wiki pages over the years. I have no problem with people using my words, but I want to use them myself! I actually got that comment from a Texas State Representative over 20 years ago, who said basically the same thing, thus I jumped on the "never abrogated by Congress" and used that in briefs dealing with our state recognition as well as our thoughts of reopening the case for the Bowles Treaty that we last lost before the Indian Claims Commission in 1953 (I wasn't born yet to be there!). My contention was and is that the reason we received an adverse outcome in 53 was that Birds Fort treaty was not included. Anyway, that's why I know that statement. Since it has been rehashed dozens of times, I don't know if the author of the Cherokee page would know where they got it. It has been on there for a while. Again, thank you for your response. I have already had to fight about this site when one gentleman listed it fr deletion as fraud. He never bothered to look, but later apologized, but I am till learning Wiki and I have had things changed and removed, that should not have been, only in one instance for somebody else recreating it. Please forgive me for being touchy about this. My knowledge of comprehending Wiki [[ ]] or {{ }} is at this point beyond me. I am attempting to adapt as fast as I can at this point. About 15 years ago when Wiki was very new, I created several pages. I have no idea of the username I had then. I started Terran57 about 10 years ago, but due to health and changes I did not keep up with, I have been left long in the dust. Working on it. Never knew anything about signatures until 2-3 days ago! Believe me I have tried repeatedly to get others to build this page. I am supposed to be writing a grant for the next fiscal year right now rather than this, but I felt it imperative for reasons too long to go into, that it had to be done now. Again, thank you for your input.

Terran57 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Terran57Terran57 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Old copyright violation

Hi, Diannaa. I have identified a seven-year-old copyright violation in Gregor Mendel Institute and would like to request some revdels,

• 424692196 to 820696751 - the group descriptions were copied from the institute's annual report, also present on their websites, e.g. [7]
• or possibly 424687216 to 820718889 - the history section added by the same user - the formatting and style strongly suggest a copyright violation, but I couldn't locate the original source and it was subsequently modified by an IP user, so I leave it to your discretion.

Thanks! Rentier (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I decided to hide only the material that's provably copyvio. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement.

Thank you, Dianna for the information you provided.

But I would like to object that the photo I provided is in the public domain, as I did add a citation. The portrait is owned by the State of Tennessee on display at the state Museum, portraits owned by the state are allowed for public educational use.(http://www.tnportraits.org/811062-dury-george.htm) This same domain use is allowed for Governor, state legislator or other state owned portraits. That this portrait being part of the state collection is open to public use.(http://www.tnmuseum.org/Visitors/Photographic_Policy/) As well I have direct permission from the person who took the photo for the state.(Which I could supply in written forum.) I did crop the photo from it's original size to Better fit the page.

(As well as the other citation from the gallery I wrote that myself on Dury.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin.P.L (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but that license is not liberal enough for our purposes, as our website permits reproduction for any purposes, including commercial use. The fact that you included a citation or cropped the photo has no impact on the copyright status of the photo. The photo is at the Commons so you may wish to comment at Deletion requests/File:George dury.jpg. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Diannaa, I happened to look at this, and saw that you'd removed a lot of copyvio. I've just declined the draft because it seemed to me that most of what remained was copied from here. If I'm wrong about that, please freely revert; if I'm not wrong, a further revdel (one revision) is probably needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I thought I ran it through Earwig's tool, but I guess not. Rev=del complete. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Earwig's tool is marvellous, but I don't find it infallible – it seems to me that it skips some sites in search mode, even if it can then search them in comparison mode. Who knows why? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Copy right issue in page Department of Agriculture Development & Farmers' Welfare (Kerala)

Thank you, Dianna for the information you provided.

The original content of the article is taken from the official website of the Government of Kerala and it is not a copy right web page. The site http://www.justkerala.in/kerala-govt-departments/agriculture-department has copied the content from the official website. So they have no copy right on the content (the right vested with http://www.kerala.gov.in). So I think there is no copy right problem with the content. But even if you are not satisfied with my explanation, I will try to re-write it.

Expecting your reply. Sanu N (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Govt of Keralacopyright policy says that the material "has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" which is not a liberal enough license for our purposes, since our license permits any usage whatsoever. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

on the Daniel Zwerdling entry

Dear Diannaa,

I very much appreciate your point of view here. Please allow me to address your points, and another point that is independent of your recent edits.

First of all, without identifying myself (I assume that's a Wiki policy?), I should say that I am NOT Daniel Zwerdling. I'm a scientist and longtime chairman of a science department at a major university. However, as someone who believes that journalism truly is the 4th branch of government, I have followed his career for a very long time. I am NOT in the news, media, etc business.

My first set of edits were triggered by my having visited Wikipedia out of curiosity to see what was there for Zwerdling, since he has recently retired. I was shocked to see that someone (several different usernames actually) have made edits that change the nature of the Wiki entries from being factual and informative. Instead of what was there previously (for instance, before December 2017 when I last looked) there was a section about allegations of sexual harassment etc. These allegations are slanderous, biased, and there has been no due process to address them. I make no assumptions in the motives of the people(s) who have made the Wiki changes to add the allegations, however these allegations are all unsubstantiated, vague, and except in one case, anonymous. In my humble opinion, these kinds of things, until proven, have no business in something like Wikipedia, and accomplish nothing other than to serve as someone's way of "punishing" something they believe needs punishment. That is not how we do things in this country.

I am therefore asking your advice as to what the right thing to do is. I'm not sure of the correct process here, and I do not want to get into an editing war, however I feel very certain about this. If you think I should contact the person who made the edits today (2/18), then I'm willing to do so. Note that the username of that person is "StopEditingYourOwn", indicating that they believe Zwerdling is doing the editing, and clearly they are trying to punish him for what in their mind they believe to be true.

Now to the edits that you made to what I had done on Feb 17. I appreciate your email describing Wikipedia’s strict rules. They seem designed to help ensure accuracy and protect copyright infringements. That’s how I interpreted the links you sent, as well as your statements about not being able to quote more than brief passages from other sources. Perhaps I should explain what happened to prompt my editing on Feb 17. What I used for my information was material that I asked Zwerdling to give me. I did this on my own initiative, and he sent me the bio that was at one point on the NPR web site, plus some recent awards mentions. I edited the material and placed it in the Wiki page.

I believe that the material prior to when the slanderous edits about sexual harassment was made was itself inaccurate and so far from being the kind of comprehensive information that Wikipedia is known for that I felt that I had to fix it. For instance, previously he was referred to as a "reserve" broadcaster, when in fact he was one of NPR’s senior on-air personalities and one of the nation’s leading investigative journalists. I know, because I’ve closely followed and admired his groundbreaking reporting at NPR for almost 40 years. He has had a career that has had about as much impact as you can have in the journalism world, winning awards, and breaking stories that had national impact and resulted in changes in policy (from food to organic farming to PTSD and traumatic brain injury). As to the details of your edits, you cut the quotes by the directors of the Alfred I. duPont awards, one of the most coveted awards in journalism, calling him a “legend” in public broadcasting. I will review the Wiki rules but wouldn't this quote be appropriate if I noted a reference?

What I propose as far as the contents of his page is for me to go to the links that you provided, read up on what Wikipedia requires, and try to come up with something that conforms. I can then send it to you before posting, just to keep from having the page bouncing around, however I would very much like for you to restore it to what it was after your edits (16:12 and 16:06 today).

Please reply, and many thanks for all of your work. Wikipedia is a national treasure (as is Zwerdling!!!!).

Visitorfromthefuture (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Visitorfromthefuture, the long and the short of it is that if you write out the content in your own words, there will not be any issues with copyright. We of course want to make sure that Wikipedia contains neutrally-written, well-sourced information, and if there is factually inaccurate or unverifiable information it should be removed. Primefac (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker – please do not ping on reply)

Cleaned up an article

Dear Diannaa, Just wanted to let you know that I have cleaned up the content of the former page "Food security in Mexico" that was deleted and will be posting the content on my sandbox. Thanks, please let me know if there are any problems. Jk956 (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I found some copyright violations using this tool and removed them. Please review before I perform revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it. I have reviewed the revisions and added a bit more to the 'Introduction' section. I just wanted to let you know that it is ready for revision deletion. Thank you, please let me know if there are any other issues to address.Jk956 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your new wording comes up clean. Hopefully you have learned a lot from this process and will do much better with your copyright compliance in the future! Thanks for your patience, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was the reviewer that initiated the copyright investigation of this article, and it came up on my watchlist as having been republished. Earwig gives it a clean bill of health, but I can still find what seem like copyvios of for example this site and this one by searching for certain phrases. Are you happy with the present version of the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I will look some more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cwmsymlog

Some years ago I already had contact about the drawing. The reaction was: "nice picture by the way". It is done by my late wife in 2001. I am her widower and made the photograph in 2001. We lived nearby in the house Tanyfoel (Below the Hill)Romeinsekeizer (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issue for MidshipmansPrayer

Dear Diannaa, We greatly appreciate your help, particularly from a senior editor. Unfortunately, the last time we worked on our Midshipmans Prayer article, we could not figure out how to communicate with you in order to relate that the prayer is not copyrighted and was created by my Grandfather, Chaplain Thomas, when he was Command Chaplain at the US Naval Academy and under the employment of the Federal Government as a Navy Chaplain. We hope this resolves the issue. We did determine that the Lords Prayer and the Gettysburg address are in full text in their respective Wikipedia articles and presumably not copyrighted as is the Midshipmans Prayer. We look forward to your continued assistance as we are novices at this process. You might take look at William N. Thomas, Wikipedia article which we did as our first article which is replete with citations and credits. Our very best Richard Templeton and Sharon HansenEaward24 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If the prayer was written by a US Navy employee in the course of his duties then it's in the public domain and okay for us to use. I have re-added it. Please provide a citation for the inter-faith version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

We need assistance with a change to the title of the page. We would like it to read Midshipman Prayer. We have been unsuccessful in our attempts. Can you please assist? Richard and SharonEaward24 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a rule that people have to be experienced before they're permitted to move pages. I will move the page for you. Please don't share the Wikipedia account. One editor per account please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Dana L. Robert

Hi Diannaa, I've removed some copyright violation--article has a promotional history. Could you rev/delete where appropriate, and check for further violations? At your convenience, of course. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not finding any further copyvio. Rev-del done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-08

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The explanation of the abbreviations on the recent changes page could overlap with the list of changes. This has been fixed. [8][9]
• You can now see statistics for pageviews per wiki per country. You can see this on maps or in a table. [10]

Problems

• Linter is reporting estimated counts instead of actual counts for some wikis. This is because of performance problems. You might notice a false higher number in linter counts for some categories. This will be fixed as soon as the performance problem has been fixed. [11]
• Last week the way that Visual Editor displays references lists was changed. As a result, the references generated by specific templates like {{sfn}} are not visible in the references list whilst editing. [12][13]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 February. It will be on all wikis from 22 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 20 February at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 21 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The way edit summaries and log comments are stored in the database is being changed. In the future this will make longer comments possible. [14]
• Edit conflicts could be solved in a different way in the future. You can test a new prototype.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

• News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators

• Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back

• Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases

• Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain

• Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history

• Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks

• Humour: Impossible and unexplained traffic report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixing Carlos Gallardo, pianist Page

Hello Diannaa, Thank you so much for your help and suggstions. I was working to update the content in a correct format and valid contents with references. Please, coulld you check if aaverything is according to the Wikipedia Law in order to publish the page correctly? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestValladolid (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The new version User:BudapestValladolid/sandbox. Copyright material copied from https://carlosgallardo.eu/about-carlos-gallardo.html and http://eng.liszt.art.pl/?gallardo-carlos,133. This is not okay. Everything on the page was a copyright violation. I have removed it all. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How to identify PD sources?

Is there a way to verify if a source is in public domain? For example, how should we check if https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-archive-1995/pr112895.html is in public domain? I mean, other than ".mil are usually in public domain". Is there any easy way to spot a declaration on these sites stating "we are releasing this information in public domain, no need to get your lazy butts in a twist, you can simply copy and paste this stuff wherever you want"? Kindly ping when replying. Also pinging Megalibrarygirl as she is literally a librarian, and also, familiar with PD works. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• The particular page you use as an example has a link to a copyright statement at the bottom of the page. Many pages have such a link, and that should be your first source of copyright information on any given web page.
• In general: Works of the US Government and its agencies and departments are in the public domain.
• Most works of the UK Government are released under a Open Government Licence. Look for a link at the bottom of the page.
• Most works of the Australian Government are released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license. Look for a link at the bottom of the page.
• Works of the Government of the Philippines are public domain.
• Works of most other governments are copyright (India and Canada, for example).
• If there's no link or license at the bottom of the page, you have to assume the material is copyright, as under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. (Exceptions: US Govt and Philippines Govt webpages are always PD unless marked otherwise.) If copying copyright material or compatibly licensed material, attribution is required. This can be done with templates {{PD-notice}} or {{CC-notice}} or manually like this (for example): " This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Attribution 3.0 Australia Australia license." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(EC) OK Usernamekiran, my rule of thumb is that generally any work of the United States Government is in the public domain. So are most images and works published before 1923 in the US. However, there are details involved even in collections of public domain works, as outlined very nicely by Stanford U Libraries here. Creative Commons has a way for individuals to waive their rights to copyright. I've seen some images licensed this way CC0.

Another issue is that many sites don't obviously state that something is in the Public Domain. A good example of this is the Handbook of Texas Online. This site normally has a blanket statement about the copyright of the pictures which is very vague and reads: "Image available on the Internet and included in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107." This, of course, tells you nothing. When in doubt, I would contact whoever is in charge of the site. While I use PD works myself, most of what I do is with images. However, I would still recommend paraphrasing PD information in your own words for the article as often as possible. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, both of you. The CIA's website states: Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Central Intelligence Agency's permission. Which is really relieving, cuz who'd want to contact CIA, eh? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wallace Collection

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.chohan (talk • contribs)

Maria Curie-Skłodowska University

Hi! I`m just back from vacations and I see my content about Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin was removed due to some copyright problems, BUT I work at this University (my University has all the copyright for this texts) and it was my task to update this article. What can we do with this? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NataliaDer (talk • contribs) 08:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of 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 conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion on copyrighted material

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_and_memorial_controversies_in_the_United_States&action=history

I cannot find the text you are objecting to for copyright reasons. How do I see it? deisenbe (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the copyright violations from the page history, under the WP:revision deletion policy. That's why you can't view the edits any more. Content was removed from several of your additions dating back to October, from the following sources:

• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E2D9103EF930A3575AC0A96E9C8B63&pagewanted=all : Lincoln statue in Richmond
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/monuments-confederacy-remove-rename.html : Columbus Circle monument; Balbo statue in Illinois ; Hall statue in Massachusetts
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/09/the-columbus-day-holiday-is-under-attack-and-so-are-statues-honoring-the-famed-explorer/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_retro-columbus-715am%3Ahomepage%2Fstor : info on Columbus Day. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

African Lodge

Ok... did some revising... please let me know if this is enough to make it no longer a copyright vio. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There's still a ways to go; please check the copyvio report. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit perplexed... this article is a simple chronology of events, and there is only so much rephrasing that can be done with that. A lot of the duplication (as highligted in the report) are names and phrases that would be the same no matter what the source material is. I will try to do some more, but you might want to do some comparisons with the other sources that are now cited. They phrase the material in much the same way. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of overlap that's not just names or chronology. For example "It marked the first time that black men were made Masons in America" could be re-worded to "This was the first Masonic lodge to accept African-American members". "In 1847, out of respect for their founding father and first Grand Master, Prince Hall, the African Grand Lodge changed their name to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, the name it carries today" becomes "The lodge was re-named Prince Hall Grand Lodge in 1847 to honor Prince Hall, the lodge's first Grand Master". Please keep at it until all unique phraseology has been put into your own words in a similar fashion. I am going to the gym now, ttyl. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok... thanks for the feedback... me? I’m to bed. Will continue to work on it in the morning. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

African Lodge

Did some revising... let me know if I need to do more. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

See above — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nurse Anesthetist page

Hello, I don’t believe this is a copyright violation. The information I used comes directly from MY national association’s advocacy page. These documents were designed by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. The association allows its members, which I am one, to use these advocacy documents however we choose without concern of copyright violations. Bottom line, using the content of these publications is exactly what they were designed for. They are even referenced. Will you kindly restore the additions made to these pages?

Also, why did you remove the “also known as nurse anesthesiologist?” These changes were made by a board certified CRNA and member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Who better to authenticate legitimacy of the information?

The information on the OANA webpage, which is a state association affiliated with the national association, is the identical document produced by the AANA; a document that the AANA not only authorizes but encourages it’s members to use. We have full rights and discretion to use this information.