User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 1:02 pm, 12 July 2024 UTC [refresh].

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. [1]
• 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. [2][3]
• You can now see statistics for pageviews per wiki per country. You can see this on maps or in a table. [4]

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. [5]
• 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. [6][7]

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. [8]
• 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftytoone (talk • contribs)

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. I did not remove "also known as nurse anesthesiologist"; that was done by someone else. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Draft:African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research

Dear Diannaa Thank you for your notification on African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research draft copy. I am a staff of http://academicjournals.org/. You can verify from the email address I used in opening an account on Wikipedia. Academic Journals is going forward and wants all her journals and the company to have a page on Wikipedia. I will be glad if the content is not removed because i intended placing the other journals draft copies for review. Thank you for your time and consideration.--Samson at AcademicJournals 13:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson at AcademicJournals (talk • contribs)

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) 13:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiwand.com violating Wikipedias copyright

I noticed this website has copied many of Wikipedias articles Investoa (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Each of their articles has a notice at the bottom providing the legally required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Shivendra Singh Dungarpur

Hi Diannaa, can you have a look at this promotional article? I suspect there's a lot more copyright violation content than I found so far. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Spot checks don't reveal anything egregious or obvious but I will make time to do a more thorough look later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. No need to bother for the moment--has been deleted. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Although St Edmund's School Canterbury may need a little rev/deletion again for persistent copyvio. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyright question

Hey, Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Ken Selzer, specifically the most recent additions? The following pictures may be eligible for deletion as well: File:KenHeadshot.jpg and File:Ken Deb Farm 2.jpg. Thanks, Corky 17:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Prose was copyvio, but I can't find the photos anywhere online, so they look ok. Removed one regardless, as there's no room for 3 pics on a stub. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, File:Ken_Deb_Farm_2.jpg is in use on the candidate's web page, so I am nominating for deletion at the Commons. If you see the other pic online anywhere you can do the same. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the quick response! I was just getting ready to show you the link for the farm pic! If I can find the other one, I will certainly nominate it. Corky 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Searchtime5

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Norristown State Hospital

Hello, You removed my content from this page. I am the author of both articles, wikipedia and Asylum Projects (my name is idetical with Asylum Projects), which are fundamentally different and composed for different purposes. Asylum Projects is interested in the the physical apparatus of the campus, not its broader social context. For that reason the content I created is different as it has a different audience. Moreover, a simply cut and paste job would not require so many edits as documented in the page history, nor would there be any public utility to such an article.

In terms of the question of intellectual property, I released this information to Asylum Project as part of a deal through NSH Historical Society. They do not possess the copyright to my work, nor is that work identical to what I provided them with.

In short, I have no idea why you removed my work. I understand that the article needs to be better tailored to the purpose I outlined above, but it is a work in progress. Please restore this page to its amended form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbiePocket (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Since you added it to the other website first, and that website is not released under a compatible license, I can't do that. We need to have documentation that shows that you are the copyright holder and 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) 18:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see that you're more knowledgeable about this process, but it does seem deeply circuitous, as I would also need to get both Asylum Project and NSH-Historical Society involved as well... and they are not speedy with such inquiries. Particularly as the latter meets only twice a year. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to remove the content you believe is in violation of site policy, rather then simply throwing everything out? Much of the content you removed had nothing to do with Asylum Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbiePocket (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything I removed was copied from the source webpage, so I won't be able to restore. If the Asylum Project and NSH-Historical Society are copyright holders of some or all of the content, we need their permission too. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Diana, that is simply not true, and it is documentable that it is not true. There's no reason to be obtuse. I will take this to higher site official if needs be. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbiePocket (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:HerbiePocket - I don't know what you mean by taking this to higher site officials. What site? Do you mean Wikipedia, or the Asylum Project? If you have an issue with Diannaa's administrative actions, you can request the advice of other administrators at the administrators' noticeboard, but that will probably result in a decision that she acted correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Diannaa - If you want to add anything to my closing remarks at the dispute resolution noticeboard, go ahead; the editor's talk page is probably the best place. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention Robert, but that is not the nature of my dispute. My grip is this- yes, some material was taken from Asylum Project, but it rested in the minority. I understand that you have concerns with copywright. That much is clear. However, it was not the Asylum Project material that was removed. Everything was removed, which is not a matter of site policy, nor of intellectual property, and that it is what I am asking to have restored. You will see quite clearly in comparing the two documents that this Wikipedia article has several sections that have no parallel to Asylum Project (ie. List of Superintendents, Popular Culture, Modern Hospital). I am NOT disputing the site policy on copyright.

I have already contacted Asylum Projects and personally removed my content from there site until this issue is resolved.

Hello HerbiePocket. I have re-done my work in a slightly different way, which means that the List of Superintendents, Popular Culture, and some other content has now been restored. I removed some additional overlapping content from http://www.asylumprojects.org/index.php?title=Norristown_State_Hospital&oldid=34418 . — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

435th Security Forces Squadron

Hi Diannaa, this needs you rev/deletion magic again. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

79.70.158.48

Thanks, I didn't even think of geolocating the IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to watch more Pokemon ! Gotta catch em all... — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio on Saadat Hasan Manto

Hello. Could you please take a look at this edit on Saadat Hasan Manto? Copied verbatim from the source by the looks of it, by an editor with a troubled past here (blocked four times so far, for edit-warring, disruptive editing and POV-pushing...), who now seems to have branched into making copyvios too. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed, rev-deleted, user warned (second warning). Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Blog used as reference

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)

Thank-you Diannaa, very kind of you - best Josezetabal (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nurse Anesthetist

I understand your concerns regarding COI. However, that is a guideline and it shouldn’t be enforced when the information is irrefutable and cited. I only added facts from information that is readily available to the public and has no copyright infringements. Nothing I added is controversial or inaccurate and can be found with a simple search which makes it common knowledge.

The fact is, the Nurse Anesthetist page is inaccurate and out of date. How is one supposed to go about updating it? Who has that privilege? Isn’t it the goal of Wiki to have its pages up to date and accurate for the edification of its readers? Fiftytoone (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)