User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 7:45 AM where this user lives in Alberta. ⁽⁾

Mark Paul

In regards to the recent AE you were pinged to (closed as "No action taken (without prejudice to another admin taking action)..."(unrelated users)[1], since ". Personally, the matter is too complicated and too much tied to content disputes for me to feel comfortable taking action; AE is beetter suited to relatively straightforward cases of misconduct"[2] (and I understand Sandstein's sentiment here - evaluating the claim is difficult, and does require some expertise (e.g. reading the sources for the misrepresentation, or copyright/plagiarism expertise for that claim). Could you please look into WP:PLAGIARISM and copyright - not of the citations which you've commented on - diff) - but at the prose itself?

Note Tatzref had previously - [3] - 01:42, 22 May 2018 Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 (not so long ago in terms of edit count - he's only made 216) - copy-pasted from a Paul work (which is easy to prove), and has used Paul as a reference - so it's not a "one time" association with the source.

The edit in question is this, this google search illustrates how I got to the PDF in question (basically pick any set of 2-3-4 sources (possibly adding page numbers - the google link there is without - just sub-fragments of the source name) - and you'll get to a Paul PDF - some of these works are very-very particular and have a very low citation count (e.g. in scholar)), and this is the alleged source.

I've prepared a page with the relevant text (attributed to where I copied it from):

1. over here - the page is with references.
2. over here - just prose.

Some claims in the text do not appear in the cited sources - the simplest one to prove in this regard is that "Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed" does not appear in the two cited sources (two very local histories by Kopciowski - each contains data of one courthouse (and applications only) - 240 in one and 291 in another (there error is Tatzref's - both Paul and the original source says 291) - there nothing remotely resembling "thousands" in them. I have the English PDF for Kopciowski2008 on hand, and I have looked at the Polish text for Kopciowski2005 (and can send it) - this is easy to prove for this sentence specifically since he cites only two pages.

The citations match from Paul (same order, mostly same style, same page numbers, etc.) - that's easy to check, but you indicated at AE that's possibly not a violation. The prose is not a verbatim copy (though it is a very close paraphrasing with some fragments copied) - but if it isn't paraphrasing that is "too close" - I am certain that the prose fits the bill of "Summarizing an unacknowledged source in your own words". Thank you for your time - whether you take this up or not. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to look at this case right now. I'll get to it later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problems - Karl König

Hi Diannaa, i would like to bring the Karl König listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 31 to your attention. I had made the report concerning potential copyright issues, but the author has subsequently freely licensed the content. Could you please verify that this is compatible for Wikipedia's use and close the listing? Thank you. Radiphus (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WEA Sydney

Hi Dianaa, Could you please give your opinion of WEA Sydney? Using Earwig copyvio tool a 51% Violation Likely result was returned. I've placed the copyvio tag on the article but not sure how to proceed. Be grateful for any advice you can give. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for your help. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Men – Tyva Men

This has the full lyrics and a translation of a new anthem. I don't know if it's copyright free or not. (I just realised that it could be copyright free as I was typing). I'm not sure how to find out. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Tuva has been part of Russia since 1944. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia states that government symbols are not subject to copyright. However the English translation is of unknown copyright status, and needs to be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I thought you might know the answer! Doug Weller talk 19:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and WP:REVDEL modification request

Thank you for protecting Wikipedia, such as from potential copyright infringement at United States energy independence with your WP:REVDELs.

If you could, please don't strike over my edits when possible, as collateral damage. Being able to "prev" helps retrace what I have done. X1\ (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment from 99.110

Thank you! I have removed all my previous uncited and unrefed contributions and have reverted each page to the previous state. Sorry for the trouble. 99.110.183.132 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.183.132 (talk)

Public Domain Source Material

Diannaa, I greatly appreciate your feedback on the new advocacy content I added to the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network's page. I wanted to confirm if the two sentences without a resource cited are the statements that you've flagged as copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain. I've drawn that conclusion only because the rest of the advocacy statements cite their sources. Please let me know because I want this important content to be in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines and available to the public, since 80% of pancreatic cancer research funding comes from the federal government. Thank you so much! Patricksteven77 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The content I removed came from https://www.pancan.org/get-involved/advocacy/advocate-for-federal-research-funding, a copyright website, marked as "©2019 Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. All rights reserved" so it's not okay to copy here, as our copyright policy does not allow us to host copyright content from elsewhere. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I paraphrased all of the statements that referred to content on https://www.pancan.org/get-involved/advocacy/advocate-for-federal-research-funding to avoid any copyright infringement. Please let me know if they are in compliance. Thank you, Diannaa. Patricksteven77 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That version is better. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for cleaning up my expeditionary energy economics draft, Diannaa! I now have to figure out how to publish my first wiki page :) Best regards and thanks again! Thymmons (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Information

Hi Diannaa,

Can we know why the information have been removed. For example, all those achievements and involvement in organizations are valid and verifiable with every organization and government agencies. Also, the family history is correct.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrteamrevilla (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The material that I removed was copied from elsewhere online, and that's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Your edits also removed a lot of well-sourced negative information about the person, which I restored. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Anthem of the Seas

Could you do the revdel on this please Lyndaship (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for edit and request to review

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for reviewing and editing the page Cambridge Centre For Alternative Finance. I have included your suggestions following the copyright rules and properly paraphrased the content. I am updating the page on behalf of CCAF. Can you please review the page again and please if you could avoid strikethrough on the previous version that will help in making updates. Pankajeshkr (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have once again cleaned copyright material from the article. Please stop adding copyright prose copied from the school's website or anywhere else online.

A 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) 01:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Gerald Loeb Award winners for Magazines

Hello again Diannaa, Earwig picked up this article for copyvio with 81% Violation Likely, I'm pretty sure it is the names of the pieces that have won awards that is setting it off but could you please take a look too? I've placed a copyvio tag on the article anyway and let the user know what I think and that someone else with more expertise would be taking another look. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The list is okay to copy, and the prose is not copied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yamada Denki

Hi Diannaa. I came across this article while working on something else. It appears from this edit made way back in November 2006 that a large block of content was translated from ja:ヤマダ電機 and added to the article. I think the edit summary which was left back then is probably OK for attribution purposes, but not sure. Also, I'm not sure how much of the content which was added was revised over the years. There was some in-article attribution added for Japanese Wikipedia in the "Sources" seciton, but that didn't seem the right place for it; so, I removed it. Should it still be there or should something be added to the article's talk page instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. There's a template, {{translated}}, for the article talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. I was aware of those type of templates, but wasn't sure if it made sense adding one after all of these years. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Curious to hear your thoughts

Was looking into the history of the Miss Tony page and saw that it's been previously deleted through AfD and then by speedy deletion. Was curious if you think a better rewrite and coverage in some recent sources would make it notable enough for inclusion at this point. I was thinking of a rewrite using the Baltimore Sun obituary, this article in FACT magazine, this feature from Vice, and this mention in an article from SPIN. Let me know what you think. ceranthor 15:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not very good at assessing notability.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian Americans article

Hi,

just received your message. Well, I did not made an entire "copy-paste", I used close pharaphrasing, merging and restructuring more information, copy-edit etc., just some fragments as is could have been identical partially that as far as know did not fulfill copyright violation if the whole sentence is not a direct copy-paste, but if I am wrong or there are new regulations, please tell me. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC))

There's no new regulations; adding copyright material to Wikipedia has never been allowed. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap, which is more substantial than you may have realized. Regardless of the copyright issue, this website doesn't look like a reliable scholarly source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Uline Arena - Edits with a bulldozer

You want on an absolute rampage on the edits of the Uline Arena! You removed not only parts that were "copyrighted" (you didn't even look at it based on your edits) but removed other sections that are not on the page you accuse me of copying. I did the research on primary sources! Fixing with a bulldozer like you did is sickening! You have no respect for the time and effort that was put in this! Shame on you! I am going to try to fix your disastrous edits tomorrow. Your behavior makes me sick!

Hello Blazingliberty and thank you for the feedback. I actually spent quite a bit of time on that, re-wording and trimming and trying to leave in as much as possible. Sorry you were not pleased with the result. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa You deleted stuff without even looking at the comments I put in. I had edited the intro and you revered all of that in the process. I now have to fix several sections to revered the heavy-handed damage you did! Look at the comments before going on your copyright crusade! There were edits to the Beatles section, the intro, the very end, etc. All of this came from news articles completely separate from the one you are accusing me of copying. You didn't even look at the sources! You even removed the picture which is on Commons and used on the main article. Stop using whatever automated tool you are using as it is indiscriminate in its edits. I am enraged by your lack of respect for the work I did. I spend hours researching and editing this article. There was information that had never been published elsewhere and you just go in with a wrecking ball. No one would be pleased if someone had completely trashed hours of work with their carelessness. The worst part is that I now have to fix your damage manually as it seems it can not be reverted automatically. So I am going to go line by line and make sense of all the mess. I take pride in my articles because it is my neighborhood, my home that I want to share with others and seeing this kind of damage is getting kicked in the face! It's disgusting! (Blazing Liberty (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC))

What I did was paraphrase and remove copyright content copied from https://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2012/11/28/bob-dylans-greatest-pic. I removed "The concert did not seem to have been reviewed by the Washington Post. This was surprising considering the artist was already well known at the time." I changed

"However, the concert was immortalized when the picture of the Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits cover picture was taken. The Life magazine photographer Rowland Scherman lives down the street from the Coliseum and went to the show with his wife, Joan. He was not assignment at the venue but brought is camera and used his press pass to gain access to the back stage. While security guards tries to keep him out, he brushed them off shouting 'I'm from Life' and was able to get close enough to Bob Dylan to take the shot"

to read

"The concert was immortalized when the picture of the Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits cover picture was taken. The Life magazine photographer Rowland Scherman and his wife Joan lived nearby, and attended the concert. Although he was not on duty, brought his camera and used his press pass to gain access to the backstage area to take a few photos."

I changed

"After the show, the photographer developed the photo and showed it to John Berg, art director at Columbia Records at the time. John Berg was dating scherman's sister at the time. He offered him $300 for the photo and the offer was accepted. Berg along with Bob Cato used the photo for the album cover in spite of Bob Dylan being opposed to the idea. It won the 10th Annual Grammy Award for Best Album Cover, Photography in 1967. The photographer's name was misspelled on the award in 1967 and remains misspelled to this day on the Grammy Award's website"

to read

"He brought the image to Columbia Records art director John Berg, who bought it for $300. Berg along with Bob Cato used the photo for the album cover. It won the 10th Annual Grammy Award for Best Album Cover, Photography, in 1967. The photographer's name was misspelled on the award statuette and remains misspelled on the Grammy Awards website."

That's all I did. The remainder of your edits were not touched. Some of your edits were hidden by the revision deletion, but they were not removed. The photo was removed by a bot with this edit. And here you can view your edits from Feb 11 through March 1. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry I unfairly accused you of this. You are correct. It looked like a lot more had been deleted based on the history and I do see the bot deleting the picture. Once again, I am sorry.Blazing Liberty (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove the picture, there is a rational. Look at the file page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bob_Dylan_-_Bob_Dylan%27s_Greatest_Hits.jpg Blazing Liberty (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay yeah, I see that now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Books Nash again

Hi Diannaa. Sorry, I know how busy you are, but it looks like blocked editor Books Nash is back. He appears to be using a range of IPs to input multiple edits of copyrighted material. The pages needing the most attention are Welborn G. Dolvin, Leonard K. Carson, Claiborne H. Kinnard Jr. and John F. Thornell Jr. There's already a copypaste notice up on Thornell's page. Kinnard initially comes up fine using Earwig, but when you submit a comparison with the veterantributes.org page, there's an 81% match. This is like playing whack-a-mole! Roam41 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert. Please see results of investigation at User:Diannaa/sandbox. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was a ton of cleanup. Thanks so much! Roam41 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for being there Lyndaship (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology

I'm referring to your deletions from this page of material directly copied from their website. I also see your advise to the editor in question. The institution has provided an OTRS permission for one of their webpages but you have suggested leaving our their own prose. I will just copy and paste the current text from that page into the ticket and thank them for them license that prose. Whether any of it get used or not is a different issue and I suppose I don't need to address its use either. Your thoughts. ww2censor (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't look at the ticket as I am not an OTRS clerk so I don't know which specific page they gave permission for. They had copied from two different pages. Most of what I removed is unsourced accolades copied from their own website, not suitable for inclusion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You can see the page here: https://www.lji.org/about-us/#history ww2censor (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

There's some usable stuff on that page. If you could add the OTRS ticket to the talk page I will add some stuff back into the article tomorrow. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done ww2censor (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

All done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes and Draft:List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes? The draft was submitted via AfC for review, but it was declined because it contains some copyvios that needed to be cleaned up. One of the editors working on the draft then apparently decided that he/she couldn't wait until that happened and did what looks like to be a copy-past move of the draft's content (copyvios and all) onto a redirected page. I asked the AfC reviewer who declined the draft about this at User talk:Robert McClenon#Draft:List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes, but have gotten a reply yet. In the meantime, others have started editing the article, and they might not be aware of the issue; so, I thought it would be a good idea to ask someone experienced in dealing with copyvios to take a look at this sooner than later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like all the episode descriptions are copied from copyiright sources, for example from here and here. Content in the draft was added to the draft on March 3 and removed from the article List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Adventures episodes on March 4 and added to the article List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes on March 5. Note the difference in titles: the source article and says "Ultra Adventures"and the other article and the draft says "Ultra Legends". I don't know which series these episodes belong to ("Adventures" or "Legends") but we definitely don't need a draft loaded with copyvio that already exists in article space and was copied from yet another article that's loaded with copyvio, so I am going to delete the draft. All the episode descriptions are likely copyvio, so I am going to list both articles at WP:CP as I don't have time to clean them today since there's still 76 copyvios reports to get through today and I already spent an hour on this just to do this research. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do all of that checking. I didn’t realize there were other articles involved as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Series of articles with copyright violations by several new accounts

Hi Diannaa, I'm referring to:

• Camorra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marco Di Lauro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Contini clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Di Lauro clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All appear to have multiple copyright violation issues derived from recent edits by several new accounts. The sources are both English and Italian--the latter were translated into English, and those translations were then pasted into the articles. At least that's what I found by comparing several using Google translate. Might be a bit of rev/deletion necessary. Whenever you have the chance. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Copy right issues

Hi Diana! Thanks for your feedback. Took another pass in my own words at the political views section for Chrissy Teigen. Does it look ok? Thanks!

Khv422 (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks okay from a copyright point of view. Just as an aside, you shouldn't start each sentence with the word "Additionally", since each and every sentence contains additional info. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Posting in my name largely erased 1

Dear Editor. Recently, the Wikipedia posting in my name was largely erased even though it had been online for a considerable period of time without challenge. The references and attributions in the text are meticulously detailed. I am re-posting the content with full attributions and references. If it is to be challenged, in the name of transparency and equity, the rationale and specifics must be provided. Thomas d’Aquino Eadiec (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Posting in my name largely erased 2

Dear Editor. Recently, the Wikipedia posting in my name was largely erased even though it had been online for a considerable period of time without challenge. The references and attributions in the text are meticulously detailed. I am re-posting the content with full attributions and references. If it is to be challenged, in the name of transparency and equity, the rationale and specifics must be provided. Thomas d’Aquino Eadiec (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2019 (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 fact that this problem was not detected immediately is beside the point; it's a violation of our copyright policy, so it was removed as soon as it was detected.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference

Rianna, thanks for your comment.How to reference my editing cause I lost everything I have edited. Sepadis (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Content you added appears to have been copied from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/bapedi-kingdom.htm. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick question on copyright

Hi Diannaa, got a quick questions for you, if you have a moment. I was reviewing this new page, and realised that most of the text is a direct copy paste from this Wiki. They link to the creative commons licence, which says that anyone can use the content for any purpose, provided they give appropriate credit. My thinking is that, since we are not giving credit, this is a copyright violation and should be deleted - am I right? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can give me. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Dharmapedia is compatibly licensed and we can use it as long as it is properly attributed, but the bulk of the prose was copied from http://www.srichinmoy-reflections.com/kapali-sastry and http://www.srichinmoy-reflections.com/kapali-sastry. So I have removed those parts and added attribution for the compatibly licensed material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are making a difference. Thanks Tomnhz (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you,— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Clontibret edit

Hello Diana, I see you have removed my large edit from the Battle of Clontibret page. I actually wrote the blog for the Ancient Clan O'Neill page and the full text is available on my academia page at https://www.academia.edu/25677752/_Wonderfully_altered_from_their_Irish_manner_of_arms_the_Battle_of_Clontibret_27_May_1595 . It is my work and consent to have it used to improve the wiki page so please return the edit. Many thanks Dr James O'Neill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallowglas1598 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Also I see you deleted my additions on the comments from the Lord Deputy ans Norreys which were cited and in quotation marks. What for? Trying to make a poor page better

Hello Gallowglas1598. 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. A second problem is whether or not your own unsourced blog post can be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia. I would have to think not.

The only thing I removed that was in quotation marks was an unsourced quote Sir Ralph Lane noted the attack ‘was so rude, that they both were unhorsed’. Lord Deputy ans Norreys was not mentioned in the sections I removed, and there were no other quotations removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Extrapolaris block

Just as I feared he/she fell foul of copyvio again. My interest is in the Aircraft articles/stubs that he/she is generating. I patrol them closely and so far have not seen any noticeable copyvio, I am more than willing to act as a go-between, vetting his/her aviation output before mainstream, if that will help redeem him/her. Is the block in regard of his/her other paleontology articles? I fit is then I do not have the background to effectively patrol those articles. Whilst the aviation articles are stubs and unlikely to progress further than start class, they are still welcome as they help fill in the many gaps in coverage. I would like to see him/her continue as a contributor and look forward to helping rehabilitation, if that is possible.--Petebutt (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Alex Harvey (country musician)

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your keen interest in my draft on Alex Harvey (still in its very early stages). Typically when I write drafts, I gather some general information and then add in citations later. I don't move the article to mainspace until everything is properly cited and good to go. I noticed you deleted a section of my draft because it is unsourced. I am a bit confused about this, because at this point, there are no citations in the draft whatsoever. Isn't it okay for drafts to lack citations since they are in draft space? I am somewhat new to Wikipedia so I would really appreciate if you could clarify this for me! TaskManager (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A better way to do it is to add sourced content right from the beginning. For example, what's your source for the stellar list of names of artists who have recorded his songs? IMDb is not a reliable source, because it's a wiki. Right now it looks like a whole lot of name dropping without anything to back it up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nanaimo Daily News

Thanks for your feedback regarding the deletion of my recent edits to the Nanaimo Daily News page. I had obtained permission from the owner of the website (Nanaimo Community Archives) to reuse content from their page, but I didn't realize that it is more complex of an issue than that. I understand that I need to make more of an effort to paraphrase the content rather than reuse it directly, even with permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanIslander1234 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a couple of ways you can go: you can either re-write the content completely in your own words (not just a bit of an effort to paraphrase), or you can get permission from the copyright holder. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure to get documentation in place if you can get permission to use their prose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Government College University (Lahore) EDIT

Hi! Thank you for your feedback regarding Government College University (Lahore). The thing is that I am a student at the said university. The portion about CASP I added is in-fact, a real department in the university. Proof of its existence doesn't exist on the college website as I'm writing this response (guess they forgot to update the website). But it's reference/citation/proof of existence (whatever you may want to call it) is present in the form of a printed brochure. To quote the person above me, "...I didn't realize that it is more complex of an issue than that. I understand that I need to make more of an effort to paraphrase the content..." .
Anyways, the thing is that this department is state of the art research center, one of its kind in Lahore, so I think it should be present on the university page. How do you suggest I add it there? Any/All help will be extremely helpful !

SIDE NOTE: I'm not that comfortable with the Source Editor here, I'd really appreciate it if we talk via email, if that's okay with you? -- ASStoroid ; (mail) —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What you need to do is completely re-write the content using your own words. Don't include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks!! I just have two more followup questions: <1> Can any other user view my sandbox? What I have in mind id that I'll summarize and create a draft of it in my sandbox, then you, or any other user, can check it. <2> As I stated above, there exists a rather explanatory brochure/pamphlet of the said department in physical form. How can I cite references to a physical copy? -ASStoroid (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Everyone can view your sandbox, and the same rules apply there regarding copyright. See if there's a copy of the pamphlet online and use that as your reference. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. 🙏 Atta Ullah 10:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASStoroid (talk • contribs)

Cannabis in the United States

Not sure where to start.... copyvios wmflabs.--Moxy (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. The problem originated with a recent massive addition by a new user, she of the 2 edits. I will restore a version immediately prior to that and warn the user. This edit was likely done as a school assignment. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bernarda Ruiz

Thanks for your message. I understand your concern. The passages in question are ones I wrote myself for Photo Friends and for which I retain copyright. I will request the copyright form or rewrite the paragraph. Windsong0425 (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, this was my first editing attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windsong0425 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

They are back.... despite your warning

Pls...see here.--Moxy (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moxy. Thanks for the report. Could you do me a favour, in the future when removing violations of the copyright policy could you please state in the edit summary where you found the source? rather than me having to re-do that work. It also helps keep a better record for the future— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fun fact: History 379 is a course offered at the University of British Columbia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for what you do!

Regarding the recent email (that I just lost :P ) Merci! - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Phone!! :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Philosophical counseling

Thanks for the advice. --Hades7 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Reporting possible copyright violation

Good morning Diannaa, I hope all is well. I was looking for sources on the article Forward to forward contract and I think it is a copyright violation of this 1997 book, which by the way, is the only source I could find on this topic anywhere on the Internet. I know that the preview only shows the beginning of the sentence, but that's not an auspicious start, is it? Regards, RetiredDuke (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but Google is not letting me view any of the contents of that book so I am unable to help with this case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

So it's a magazine, not a book. I found another way to see it in full here. Copy-paste. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for speedy deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Belgrade Fortress-Kalemegdan Park

Hello. I wrote the text which I moved from BF to KP cause I think it suits there better. So I guess the attribution wasn't needed. Though someone tried to confuse me before with the same thing when I moved my own content and they couldn't explain to me why is attribution being done at all. I have no time nor wish to read about a zillionth rule on Wikipedia, as there are much more important things, both in Wikipedia and real life. In an encyclopedia open for everyone to write, this type of attribution is meaningless anyway and smells on vanity and future limitations and bans. A good thing would be to abolish a pointless rule. It would make things easier for both the editors and the administrators. Cheers. PajaBG (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

PajaBG: Sorry for the unneeded notification. Regarding the attribution requirement: Attribution is required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license, so the rule is not pointless or a vanity thing; it's a legal requirement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Social media and the effects on American adolescents

Hello Diana,

The sources I used for the edits were credible sources and I paraphrased them and cited them also. So I was wondering why it got deleted even though I paraphrased and cited them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.merchant1999 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello N.merchant1999. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap from one of the sources. Looking further, I found that everything you added had already been published elsewhere online, and is therefore copyright material. None of it was paraphrased very much, and most was copied verbatim, and therefore all your additions had to be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried paraphrasing a lot of it, some of it I didn't change because it'd change the whole impact of the quote. Would it make a difference if I put quotations after? How exactly can I use that information without it being plagiarised?