User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 2:49 AM where this user lives in Alberta. ⁽⁾

Copyvio

Thanks for finding the additional copy-paste sections at Kishwaukee River. It seems that user IvoShandor did this at a number of articles. –dlthewave ☎ 22:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. If you could please clean or add tags to the one's you've located so far that would be great. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Floyd McKissick Jr.

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at the content added by Llj221. The first edit made by the account was a pretty major expansion of the McKissick Jr. article, including lots of detailed content which might have come from somewhere else. I reverted the edit and encouraged the Llj221 to discuss things on the talk page, but there might be a possibility of a copyvio. I tried Earwig and got a 55.6% result, but I'm not sure if that's an indication of a serious problem requiring a revdel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The large blocks of unsourced prose had to have come from somewhere, likely directly from the subject of the article. But I couldn't locate any copyvio using Earwig's tool or manual spot checks. The high result using Earwig's tool is from the lists of awards and job titles so I don't think revision deletion is warranted for this case. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Lots of content added to an BLP article completely out of the blue with the very first edit made by a new account did seem suspicious to me, but I couldn't track down where it came from either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

This needs to be suppressed.

Article text: Western intelligence sources have told The Guardian that the Saudi monarchy has paid for up to 60% of the cost of Pakistan's atomic bomb projects and, in return, has the option to buy five to six nuclear warheads off the shelf.

Source: According to western intelligence sources ... the Saudi monarchy paid for up to 60% of the Pakistani nuclear programme, and in return has the option to buy a small nuclear arsenal ('five to six warheads) off the shelf if things got tough in the neighbourhood.

There's possibly more but I can't make the call because it also carries some quotes. Thanks. 39.57.204.13 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A user re-added the first violation, stating that "quotations are allowed", so I made the content identical to the source and added the required quotation marks. For the second instance, I kept two brief quotations and removed the surrounding copyvio prose. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Dear Dianna,

We appreciate your interest in our additions to the Wikipedia articles on the fovea, foveola centralis and Stiles-Crawford effect and the rapid processing of our contributions. We did not realise there would be a problem with copyright on this information, as “Interested researcher” is the corresponding author of the Peer J article. We checked with Peer J and were informed that:

“All PeerJ articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (see each article for the exact CC BY version used). With this license, Authors retain copyright, but allow any user to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing to provide additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.”

Our article is published under CC-BY 4.0, which we see is a licence compatible with Wikipedia.

If we understand it correctly, the licence means that we can submit the information as we did originally? Or do we still have to paraphrase it – despite it already being in our own words.?

Many thanks for your help.

Interested researcher (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Interested researcher. I have checked the source webpages and found you are correct; the articles are released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is a compatible license. I have restored the three edits and added the attribution. In the future, when copying from compatibly licensed materials, please be sure to include this legally required attribution as part of your citation. This can be done manually like I did here, or you can use the template {{CC-notice}}. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

Thank you very much for restoring our three edits. We were not well acquainted with the Wikipedia copyright and licencing rules, so this has been helpful for us. We know now to check in future if our articles are compatibly licenced, and also to include the attribution in the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interested researcher (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa: "We appreciate", "our additions"; "our contributions"; we did not realize", etc. etc. etc. Role account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

He is one of several authors of the paper - I don't read anything further into it, at least not at this point. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 23:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

English Patriot Man

IP 2.97.225.31 appears to be EPN. I've reverted their edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was him. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that BMK. Just arrived in Canmore, no access to teh tools, or I would block for a while. If you could monitor and report at AIV if the activity continues that would be great. I will be back Friday night, — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 23:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Algchris

Hi there. I see you blocked User:Algchris for copyright violations. I've been looking though several of the images this editor uploaded, and most are likely from Google streetview. I added a speedy delete to an obvious one, but others appear to have had some sloppy photoshopping to remove the Google watermark. There are only a few images. If you get a moment to look at them and possibly delete it would be appreciated. Or would you suggest I just tag all as speedy delete? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Bwcooper02.jpg: Building was torn down in 2014. File:Fischer Projects.png: Building was torn down in 2004 at the latest. These might be okay to keep. I don't think they're Google street view copies. I have nominated File:Bandalg1950's.jpg for F11. File:Mardigrasind4.jpg is not a Google Street view image. I deleted the lower quality copies of that one and the blurry pixellated images that are very likely screen shots of Google Street View. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

At File:Degaullemanor.png, is that the "G" and "l" of "Google" at the bottom of the pic? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that one did not appear on Special:ListFiles/Algchris because you edited it. Are there any others? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that's it. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Shark Night redux

Hi Diannaa, this probably needs rev/deletion again, and a lock on the page. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:E944:EA6A:CEDE:919E (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright of fake artworks

Hi Diannaa. Apologies for treating your Talk page here as if it were "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Copyright", but I wonder could you clarify how copyright works for an image such as File:William Nicholson - still life with water jug and pairs.jpg. It seems that it is "uncertain" who painted the original and when it was painted, i.e. it is regarded as a fake? Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If we don't know who the author is or when it was painted, we can't keep it, because it's impossible to determine the copyright status. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks. How very ironic. We have to treat it as if it were painted by someone on a certain date, in case it was? But after Jan 1st 2020, no-one will care? If it had been certified as a genuine work by Nicholson, who would hold the copyright? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No one will care?? the funny things you say. The copyright expires on that date if the work is genuine. Current copyright holder is the heir(s) of the original copyright holder if the work is genuine. Please see the Commons:Hirtle chart. We can't host the image at this point whether it's an anonymous fake or a genuine work. If it falls under the category "Never published, Never registered works" by an unknown author with an unknown date of death it does not become PD until 120 years after its creation. (Have a look at Commons:Publication for how "publication" is defined in various countries). We don't even know the creation date for sure, or the citizenship of the artist if it's a fake, which makes it impossible for us to host this image for many years to come. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hilarious for you, I'm sure. But many thanks for the advice and links. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

p.s. would you mind if I copied the above exchange over to Talk:Fake or Fortune?. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to copy it; a wikilink will suffice. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. As you wish. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny

With the edit count from all these reverts I'll an Exuberant Looshpa in no time. SlightSmile 12:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked - thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Spyridon Louis

Diannaa, I pinged you from the DYK nomination template Template:Did you know nominations/Spyridon Louis‎ a short while ago because the nominated article has a number of passages that are identical to those in a copyrighted source, olympics.com. What complicates matters is that the material has been in the Wikipedia article since its creation on June 9, 2004, over fourteen years ago, and I don't know whether the International Olympics Committee website has been around that long, or (at least) that their article has. I have links on that page to the Earwig copyvio report of the current article against the current olympics.com source, and to the Wikipedia article as it stood back in 2004. Thank you for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I am unable to give a definitive answer as to who copied from who, as the oldest version of the source webpage saved by the Wayback Machine is dated 2016. One solution in cases like this is to presumptively remove or paraphrase the overlapping material just to be sure. Sorry I couldn't be more help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it's far more than I could have done. Your advice to paraphrase or remove the affected material makes a great deal of sense. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Undoing an image deletion

Hello Diannaa, I ask if you can help me undo an accidental file deletion from Wiki. Another editor kept removing a valid file, and after the last one the Wiki deleted it before I could restore. If you are not the person, please point me to whom I should ask. Thank you. Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The person to talk to is the person who deleted it. I presume by your post elsewhere that you are talking about File:Do17z 20mm.jpg. Therefore you should ask User: Explicit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Someone else removed image link in article, and then it was removed automatically 7 days later (I thought it was 30 days) I read Admins are undo the delete, so looking for someone with that power to undo deletion. Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

To reverse the deletion your first stop is the deleting administrator. The deleting administrator was User: Explicit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flightsoffancy: I took a look at the article in question Dornier Do 17. Although I deleted it under F5, it seems to be that it should remain deleted as this easily fails F7 as it is replaceable by free alternatives. ℯxplicit 00:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit:, not replaceable, otherwise it would be replaced long ago (Film frame of Dornier Do 17Z from KG2 mounting a 20mm cannon. Film taken in mid 1940.). The argument BilCat posted is flawed. I am going to replace it with a better quality image from a new scan, but the entry was "deleted", although I think just hidden or archived. Thanks for helping. PS, should we move conversation to your talk page? Flightsoffancy (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flightsoffancy. The problem is that we don't accept non-free images where a freely licensed alternative is available. See WP:NFCC for details on the non-free content policy. In this case, there's already several high-quality conmpatibly licensed photos in the article, so we can't add a non-free image for that reason. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: you are making an incorrect assumption on the image status, in several ways. I have said I am replacing/updating the image several times, and I am saying it again. Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's a different image, there's no reason to restore the old image. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What content, and where was it copied from?

Hi, I got a long note signed by you stating that content I added was removed because "as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder" Huh? What was it copied from? The history page for the article has the edits slashed out, so I have no way to look at them to see what you are talking about. 139.88.195.244 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello D. This Deep Space 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the article in question and the removal was performed last November. Hopefully this will save you some hunting. Cheers' MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Glima

I saw you were editing the page Glima. I was looking at it a couple of months ago and reverted to an 2014 version of the page because someone had rewritten to fit a certain and very un-mainstream interpretation of Glíma. I missed it when they reverted back to the dubious version. I would like some help to protect the page from these edits. I explained my reasons on the talk page but the person who reverted my changed neither replied there nor explained their change. --Óli Gneisti (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be too concerned, because the problem has not persisted and the page is stable. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned because the current version is the very dubious version.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content one way or another. If you think it needs fixing, please fix it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it earlier this year and it was reverted. I didn't see when it was reverted but I've repeated it. The page has had issues since 2014 when somebody started changing it to fit a very unhistorical philosophy of someone teaching something he calls Glíma. I can't keep going in a tug-of-war over there. The page needs protection so it can be updated and fixed.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Pages are not protected for this reason. If you want to get a second opinion, please file a request at WP:RFPP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Marketing

Hello Diannaa, could you revdel the latest addition by User:Achumbachijiokee based on [1] please? A copyvio from a job portal. Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Carmen Yulin Cruz

Hi Diannaa, could you please revdel the edit made by IP 67.50.226.50? It appears to be a copyvio. CataracticPlanets (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Martin and Lewis page

am i to understand that i may not use obituaries as citation source or only that i must paraphrase content. additionally i used books for citation which you deleted whether i paraphrased content or used a small direct section or quote. i am re entering content as you have gutted the page and it now makes no sense whatsoever. i will add duplicate citations for each line is that is your requirement. Anarchistemma (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anarchistemma. It's okay to use obituaries as sources. The problem is that you've copied material directly from your sources, which is a violation of copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. Some of the material was removed for that reason. A second problem is that you added material without providing supporting citations; I removed some content for that reason as well. Please provide citations for everything you add, at least one citation for each statement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

martin and lewis

im afraid i dont understand. it is permissible to copy directly from a source, in a small amount with quotes as long as you cite the source. everything cannot be paraphrased. how else would you cite a quote. are you saying i can only paraphrase from a cited source? (somehow i don’t think the author would find that permissible.) if i cite something you remove it and if i don’t cite it you remove it for no citation. there doesn’t seem to be a way to win. Anarchistemma (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchistemma: Wikipedia articles are not a series of quotations. Our non-free content policy only permits quotations if absolutely necessary. You shouldn't need quotations at all to improve this article. If you don't understand, you need to stop editing until you have read our copyright policy and non-free content policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

the rule at WP:NFCCEG is Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. the words "absolutely necessary" do not appear there. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." That's what was happening here, in my opinion. But I see what you mean. The "policy only permits quotations if absolutely necessary" is not correct. Thanks for pointing that out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations on Pakistan Coast Guards

Hi Diannaa, Can you please take a look at the Copyright violations on Pakistan Coast Guards at this version ([2]). I have reverted the version but it might need deletion from history. I have also left a warning on the editor's talk page. Please check if I missed something. Also, can you check this image File:Pak Serzameen Shaad Baad music sheet.jpg where the editor has claimed CCAS-3.0 but there are no such permissions under the Copyright of that website expect this "This file may be printed and performed freely, but should not be digitally copied, shared or reproduced without permission.". Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80. I've completed the revision deletion on Pakistan Coast Guards. Thanks for the report. The image qualifies for F11 speedy deletion so I've gone ahead and got the ball rolling on that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

remove for what?

this is true Tina Turner awards GoodWrite009 (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's too much detail. Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your addition has been challenged twice. Your next step is to go to the talk page to try to make a case as to why these trivial awards and honors belong on the list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Large scale copyvios at WMO

Hi Dianna. I hope everything is well with you. I also hope I am not overloading you with this request. I found some large-scale copyvios at World Meteorological Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If you have the time, you can check it out. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Doing! Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dianna. Take care. Dr. K. 22:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you retrieve the deleted text

Hi Dianna. Much of the actual text of United Nations Framework Classification for Resources is not copyvio. Since this article refers to a freely available UN standard, it could be possible some of the descriptions appear to be copyvio. However, it could be edited. But can I see the hidden text for this? Tharikrish  19:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tharikrish. I have double checked the licensing on the source webpages and they are not released under a compatible license. For example this document is marked as "Copyright © United Nations, 2013. All rights reserved worldwide", which means it's not okay to copy it to Wikipedia. Sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok understood. Some sentences could be verbatim copy from this source. There is a lot of text in the pervious versions, where are not verbatim copy, but written in my own words. I need this text to rebuild the article, specially the structure of the document and some of the citations etc. Some of the text is based on current developments, which I got from many other sources. I have not saved the text anywhere, so can you provide text so that I can copy it to the sandbox. Or can you send it to me through private messaging? Tharikrish  20:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You can't copy it to your sandbox, because copyright material is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. I have sent you a copy of the material via email so that you can work on it online. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Got it! Many thanks! Tharikrish  21:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will try to edit Tina Turner again

thanks for information but I will trying to edit Tina Turner award again GoodWrite009 (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible COPYVIO Pass Christian, Mississippi

Hello Diannaa,

The History section of Pass Christian, Mississippi appears to contain a high probability of copyright content based on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. But not able to determine if 'the source' is a mirror site of Wikipedia due to lack of references. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine shows that the external webpage had the content first. There's content added from other websites as well. I will clean it now. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Diannaa will already have noticed, but just in case ... there's some from here too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I almost missed that one - thanks for the note. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Israel Basic Laws

Why did you remove the full texts from Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, but not (for example) Article Four of the United States Constitution, or Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution? They all clearly fall under fair use of material in the public sector. Moponoly (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible revdel needed

Would you mind taking at look at Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018? There were numerous instances of creative language copy and pasted from lots of different media sources. I've tried to reword most of it and indicate the sources in the edit summary. At least some of these seem to have been added by the article creator, so I'm not sure how far back the revdel needs to go. There is also a large match with Quora but I couldn't figure out if they copied from us or the other way around. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

As said article creator of said article, I frankly find the suggestion of "a revdel" frivolous, and I find the insinuation that I would have copied text from Quora insulting. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)