User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 12:17 AM where this user lives in Alberta. ⁽⁾

Rowland Laugharne: Query Removal of Cited Source for Current Content

Hi Dianna,

Sorry about that, the offending text has now been removed and the passage reworked restoring some earlier content which was a collateral casualty of your edit.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just discovered that you have also removed the source cited for my revisions as they now currently remain - please see below

(not cur prev 12:30, 23 June 2020‎ Diannaa talk contribs‎ 14,897 bytes -2,214‎: remove copyright content copied from http://battlefields.rcahmw.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Laugharne-sieges-Gildas-2013.pdf - not released under a compatible license thank:

May I ask on what grounds and under which Wikipedia policy that citations to this site and its internal links are not permitted? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Look in the lower right corner - you will see a link "Non-commercial Government Licence". Clicking on that link reveals that the content cannot be used for commercial purposes. That's not a compatible license, because Wikipedia's license permits all uses, including commercial uses and advertising.— Diannaa (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sony E-Mount LA-EB Adapters

Sorry for copying the sony page, but we could have reworked the edit to fit wikipedia standards rather than delete it all.Apha9 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Apha9, (talk page stalker) I didn't look at the edit in question but I do handle a lot of copyright issues, and I am very aware that it may look rude to delete it all rather than to identify the problem and fix it. However, there are a very small number of volunteers who take on the generally thankless task of investigating the reported copyright issues, and there are literally hundreds of reports every week, so as much as it would be easier on you if we spent a lot of extra time trying to reword the content, given the volume of reports and the number of volunteers that's just not a feasible option. Your willingness to volunteer to help improve Wikipedia is appreciated; I guarantee that if you stick around for a couple years and get involved in copyright issues, you will have a deeper appreciation of why it was handled this way. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay will impove for next timeApha9 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reason to delete Shu-Liang Bob Wu biograghy

Dear Diannaa,

I found that my biography "Dr. Shu-Liang Bob Wu" has been deleted by you with the reason which the article copy the following webs

https://rocafes.blogspot.com/2019/08/ (TW)）

I did write that article with Chinese in 2019. I have the right to copy or redirect the article to any places I want. the reference that I put in is the public record in UCLA Ph.D dissertation. Is any reason that the reference can not find?

Please reinstate my article. Thank you very much.

Shu-Liang Bob Wu, Ph.D, 06-26-2020

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the phabricator report

I have house guests for the weekend, so haven't been paying close attention, but I did notice that there seemed to be a lack of new reports.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

MusikAnimal is already working on it but I decided to file a ticket anyway, to hopefully get more help and a fast resolution.— Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We are all caught up as of now, so here's a chance to work on other tasks and feel refreshed by doing so. — Diannaa (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Shirabad Waterfall

I have deleted the Shirabad Waterfalls section which was apparently copied from https://www.itto.org/iran/attraction/shirabad-waterfall-khanbebin-golestan/ on 6 November 2019‎ by an editor who is no longer active.

Please could you revision delete the copied material. TSventon (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812

The statement isn't copied; it's a close paraphrase that was intended to be an indirect quote of the cited material. If it's too close though, I will work on either rephrasing it or quoting it directly. Elinruby (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty identical. Please see the bot report (click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap). That's not okay.— Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just went in to address this and the text I thought we were talking about is still there. Is the removed text this part here, as it appears from the diff?

" After 1814 the natives, who lost most of their fur-gathering territory, became an undesirable burden to British policymakers. The latter now looked to the United States for markets and raw materials. The United States further disrupted trade along the northern border by prohibiting British fur traders from operating in the US, whereas before the war, both populations had freely moved back and forth across the border"?

References

If so, I did not write that, and don't know who did. I thought we were talking about the text I added about the treaties, which is indeed from PBS, but that's still there. The bot may need retraining? But I know you have been doing copyvio stuff for a while, so the confusion is probably mine, but please explain. Elinruby (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

PS, I did *edit* that text yesterday. I remember changing fur-gathering to fur-trapping, and adding a wikilink, plus some linguistic quibbles. That may be why it's only a 75% match. But anyway, if in fact the issue is with the PBS text, let me know and I will make it just a direct quote, because I think that needs to be in the article. Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I've undone the revision deletion so we can have a closer look. This is the edit that the bot reported. It's definitely your addition and not something that was already present in the article and it's not something that is still in the article. This is the edit where I removed the overlapping content. The text that was copied was But Tecumseh was mortally wounded, and his death and defeat marked the end of the native campaign to drive back white settlers. On a larger scale, the American victory cleared the way for the U.S. claim to the native interior of North America with more treaty negotiations following, resulting in numerous removals of most of the eastern woodland Indian communities to the west. It's the same as that identified by the bot and the same that I removed.— Diannaa (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I wikilinked eastern woodland, did something with "to the west", possibly changed it to "westward" and laughed sarcastically at "negotiations". I believe I deleted it and changed "treaty" to treaties. Incidentally, I never use that reference format, which I hate with a passion. The text can completely go away as far as I am concerned. I find the tone of self-congratulation offensive, am editing the article for this sort of NPOV pushing, and considered deleting the whole thing as repetitive, since the article says this over and over again. Please do delete, in fact. The text I wanted to include is the one with the PBS reference. Meanwhile please let me know if I can assist you with this. Elinruby (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't do it right now but I have decided to make the text I added a direct quote. The bot does appear to be somehow confused but I can't rule out that it may in fact be talking about my paraphrase from the PBS citation, and I want those facts in the article. I will take care of this this evening Pacific time. Meanwhile I am somewhat curious and would appreciate if you would let me know what you find out. Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought I already answered your question. So I guess I don't know what your question is.— Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't remember!

A new editor has asked me about copyright checking tools. In my Tools menu, left margin, I have Earwig's CVDetector (1). It was years ago that I imagine I deployed it. Or is it standard for all editors?

I'd love to tell them how to deploy it and I just plain have no idea! I just use it because I use it.

Just got back here after a few years break, and I remembered you know more than most folk about copyright issues, so I thought I'd ask. Please can you point me in the right direction? Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Anybody can use this tool. It is currently located at https://copyvios.toolforge.org/. I can't find a documentation page or how-to guide for this tool.— Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Welcome back.— Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the info and the welcome back. Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Revdel request

This edit is copy/pasted from this copyrighted source. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Done— Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

COIs and draft articles

Hi Diannaa, do you know if COI editors that create or edit draft articles are under the same restrictions as those who edit in mainspace? The draft in question is at Draft:Airflow (company). It also appears to contain copyvios of this webpage. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The copyvio has been deleted. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure COI and paid editors are under the same restrictions in draft space as they are in main space. I am not the best person to ask though. — Diannaa (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: If I may hop in, I review at AFC (I've just returned to the addiction after a burnout break of some years) and am reasonably experienced. There are two topics here, COI and Copyvio. Of those Copyvio is treated identically in articles, sandboxen and drafts. It is shot on sight.

COI is accepted in drafts with declaration, even paid, up to but not beyond the point of acceptance. Part of WP:AFC's purpose has evolved to counter COI editors' attempts to force adverts on us. By reviewing and pushing their work back the process introduces some discipline. It seeks to force neutrality on the COI editor. Fiddle Faddle 11:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Tim, good to see you around again. (I took a few months off late last year due to burn-out also.) And yes, I realized there were two issues involved when I posted. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: you just let me realise I sounded slightly patronising over the two issues thing. My apologies. Fiddle Faddle 19:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit, but no worries. That's why I added the :) - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission

Professor Ray has requested me to ask you, Diannaa, to contact him directly on his email to inform him of what he needs to do in terms of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. His email address is: (Redacted)

PuedaHacer (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I will not be corresponding directly with Ray. Here's what to ask him to do: follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.— Diannaa (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in advance

Dear Diannaa. First of all, thank you for your help. I have edited several wiki posts. Horacio Gutierrez' post has been vetted, edited multiple times, and approved for many years. Graywalls seems to continue to delete and find issues with the post even after the vetting and approval by multiple editors. My concern is that there may exist some inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez (Hispanic) by trying to delete great pianist attribute. Many wiki posts of classical pianists contain the attribute. I am not sure if Graywalls is a colleague, or critic, or? One of my strengths in editing wikis is finding appropriate sources to document statements. I tried to resolve the current issue with additional references and citations. Mr. Gutierrez' career, body of work, discography, awards is well documented. If Graywalls deletes great pianist from his post, then there are many others he has left great pianist with lesser documentation as part of the wiki and not deleted. I consider myself a novice, but I am willing to help make every post better. Thank you for your help [[User:maryphillips1952|maryphillips1952] Maryphillips1952 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for guidance for LAC info

Diannaa, thank you for your helpful edit and revision on the HC LAC page. I wasn't as aware of Wikipedia's guidelines around some information that fell under commercial use. In the upcoming days that section will be updated to be in compliance with the guidelines you sent me. LiberalArtsCollegeEditor (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Florence Rose

Hi @Diannaa: This seems to mostly copyvio although the references say it is public domain, but it has been copied wholesale without alteration. It almost all the same. scope_creep^Talk 22:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi scope creep. The article contains material from a webpage that is released under a compatible license. It's okay to copy it, as long as proper attribution is given, which it is.— Diannaa (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for that. I wasn't sure. scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

We've been getting quite a few of these lately that are sourced to the Smith College website, so watch out for that.— Diannaa (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Revdel request for a large-scale copyvio

Hi Dianna. We have a large-scale copyvio from http://www.thesecrettruth.com/obama.htm. The edit is here. Thank you. Dr. K. 00:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Dr.K.,  Done Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 01:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Thank you very much, Moneytrees. Take care. Dr. K. 01:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Game of the century

I'll add the PGN without the comments. That way it will contain no extra information that is not already in the page. PS: Can you cite a source that says that comments on chess moves fall under copyright ? Garo (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, i added it as a link to lichess. (But I still assume the comments are not copyrighted) Garo (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Have a look at some of the links I placed on your talk page for more info.— Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Pings

Hi, Diannaa - have you getting the pings regarding a copyvio? Please advise. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa - In this diff [1] ^Atsme asked Moneytrees to to rule/see if a partial transcript (in this diff [2]) of a person's 2015 answers & talk (of which no one seems to hold a copyright to), and was uploaded onto some random youtuber's channel, plus it was also reported in several other RS, is a copyvio.  Moneytrees ruled/said it is not a copyvio [3] so I guess Atsme is wanting a 2nd opinion from you.  

For background: as Atsme knows, the full-partial quote in question was never intended to go within the article and no editor ever intended youtube to the source for the article.  The partial quote in question was introduced on a talk page solely as informational tool for Atsme so she could see with her own eyes and hear with her own ears that she was mistaken on some things.  

Here's what I mean, Atsme had deleted an edit (which Beyond My Ken reverted here [4]) Among other things, that edit included info from that 2015 answer/talk session and whose source is an RS (not youtube). The deleted edit's RS provided partial quotes from the 2015 talk/answers but Atsme complained that the RS has a paywall so no information from that RS can be included. Other editors pointed out to Atsme that several, several other RS (roughly 16 RS) also reported the same/similar info from the same 2015 talk/questions. Atsme said none of those other RS can be used either due to: spin, clickbait, cherrypicking, opinion, & about 14 other allegations of WP violations.  At one point, Atsme accused several, more than one, of the RS of basically being dishonest and claimed they "contain sensationalized clickbait opinion" so Atsme said those RS cannot be used. Atsme also said none of other sources can be used because, according to Atsme, they were reporting an "allegation in a single source that was repeated by other sources citing the original."  Which took it full-circle because that "single source" is the original RS that Atsme said could not be used because of the paywall (much like the Wall Street Journal). 

Because Atsme rejected all the other RSs (plural) and because Atsme had the incorrect impression that the RSs were repeating opinion, spin, allegations, clickbait, etc. To show Atsme proof that the RS are not reporting opinion, I put the partial quote on the talk page along with 4 sources: New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Politico, and some random person's youtube channel. But then, Atsme got concerned about copyvio so then asked Moneytrees to see if the partial quote is a copyvio and needed to be erased from the talk page. Moneytrees said no violation so did not erase the quote.

I understand why Atsme may want a 2nd opinion, but at the same time I feel this is kind of silly since Atsme also knows full well that the partial quote was not intended to go inside the article and was only put on the talk page as an informational tool so Atsme could see/hear factual information since Atsme had rejected all the other sources. If you disagree with Moneytrees and find it is copyvio, so be it.  My question though would be this: since the original paywall RS printed parts of that partial quote and so did roughly 16 additional RS, would it be copyvio to put those parts of the partial quote on the talk page so Atsme can have the proof needed showing the deleted edit is not "allegations, spin, cherrypicking, sensationalized click bait." BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Atsme, I am not interested in getting involved on this issue.— Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem on 474th Tactical Fighter Wing

Diannaa, Thanks for the feedback. I'm new at this and thought if I referenced the source I could reproduce it. I will rewrite it and reference the source. Aardvarkrocket (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Aardvarkrocket, Hello, you can take a look WP:COPYVIO. Thanks Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

AN OTRS inquiry relayed to Copyright

@MER-C and Moneytrees: Wikimedia received an inquiry via OTRS involving this edit

You are probably aware that we treat OTRS inquiries as confidential, so I can't say much more at this time. I have requested permission to share more information, and normally I would've waited for that response before contacting you, but I see the copy patrol is currently halted so it seems like a good time to ask a copyright question.

As you can see, some of the material in that edit is attributed to this site. however, while properly attributed, it isn't written in the editors own words, it is a straight copy from the source material, which is clearly a problem.

I don't really need your help in determining whether there is a violation of copyright policy, there clearly is. I do have a couple of questions:

Some editors, when seeing material exactly matching a source, will suggest to the editor that they should look into getting the copyright holder to license the relevant text. I've done that on occasion, but I don't do it as a matter of course. It's my opinion that some copyright holders, notably owners of museums and some other nonprofit organizations do an acceptable level of writing about a subject in a neutral way, so that if we could cure the copyright problem, the text would be appropriate for Wikipedia. However, it is my observation that many corporations write material that is understandably intended to burnish their own image, and might be acceptable, but often is not sufficiently neutral, so I tend not to encourage the editor to investigate that option. This is leading up to an obvious question — do you have views on when it is appropriate to suggest such an option, and you think this particular situation qualifies?

As a second question, I know some editors are reticent to do revision deletions when it wipes out a substantial portion of the history. The good thing about copy patrol is we typically catch things fairly early. This edit is over a year old, and revision deletions would hide two thirds of the edit history. I think that's necessary but I'd like some feedback on whether you think this should be treated as an exception, and if so how.

As my third question, while this edit is over a year old, it obviously occurred well after copy patrol was established. Do you have any thoughts on why this might not have been picked up by copy patrol? I realize we have occasional outages, and I'm not completely clear whether turning copy patrol back on picks up at the time of the outage or at the time it is restarted, so one possibility is that this edit slipped through during an outage. Another possibility is that it didn't get picked up for some other reason, and should be shared with the copy patrol developers to see if it's a one-off issue worth ignoring, or helps identify needed tweaks to the software. Any thoughts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't even bother trying to clear permission for promotional text. My default action for dealing with promotional articles at WP:CP is deletion. I may also block indefinitely the copyvio adder depending on how badly promotional the text is or whether I suspect they are a WP:UPE spammer. If text does not belong in an encyclopedia for other reasons, you shouldn't permission clear it either because it will be removed.

I just obliterated the entire edit history of several foundational copyvios. The question is materiality, and the threshold is subjective. MER-C 19:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of the claims such as "the world's first organism foundry capable of complete automation of organism strain engineering" require independent sourcing. Allowing wholesale copying of corporate websites is seldom if ever appropriate and often I will not re-add such material even if an OTRS ticket clears it - I will undo the revision deletion but that is all. (The suggestion to get an OTRS ticket is indirectly embedded in both template:uw-copyright and template:uw-copyright-new.) As to how much revision deletion is appropriate, it's a judgement call. I tend to omit doing it at all on heavily edited articles on controversial current events. But for material copied from a corporate website, I would be far more likely to do it, even if it covers quite a bit of time or a lot of edits. I don't know why the CopyPatrol system did not pick up on this particular case. Cases that occur during an outage are not stored anywhere; the bot operates in real-time only. iThenticate sometimes misses obvious stuff that Earwig's tool finds easily; I don't know why. I think I've covered all your questions; if not please let me know.— Diannaa (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, Thanks. I didn't know, but I'm not surprised to hear that the bot works in real time only. That's useful to know. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MAG Lebanon

Hi there — yesterday you removed some copyvio content from MAG Lebanon, but it has since been added back by an IP editor. As I don't have any rollback etc. rights, could you please return to the article and do your magic again, when you've a spare moment? TIA, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for your work! You always beat me to the copyvios :). Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for your interest in copyright clean-up.— Diannaa (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

linking to sound files on library of Congress website?

Hello Diannaa Could you advise me please? I'm working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Caruso_discography and I want to include links to sound files (from audio disk records Caruso made early in the 1900s) which are held on the Library of Congress website. From a copyright point of view, would this be permissible? --Thank you for considering. Best wishes. Stuart1900

Yes it would. In addition, the copyright has expired on any recordings made prior to 1925.— Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

thank you. does that mean that linking to a youtube soundfile of the same pre-1925 disk would also be permissible? user:Stuart1900 —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably.— Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 175.33.167.9 (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

—Stuart1900 Stuart1900 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Assistance with broken references

Hi Diannaa, about two years ago you removed some copyright violating content from Saint Luke's Health System. Unfortunately this left a bunch of broken references, which I can't fix because I can't see the deleted revisions. Would you be able to repair those references please? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the mistake, what a mess.— Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

About a Copyright on Bartholomäus Bruyn.

Hi, i've asked several times about some information on that article, but haven't got any Further coment yet. Thnxs. FydelJ (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know you had left me a message. Answered now.— Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what i did, i used my own words. I know what copyright is and thats why I ask, if you compared the two texts because it wasn't a copy/past at all. Infact whenever i use a text literally i put quotes with the source on it. In any case if i was copying i woudn't put the source as i did. FydelJ (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

FydelJ. Barthel Bruyn the Elder. Your addition:

The Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid owns three paintings, a Nativity and two protraits that share the same blue background with a marble ledge and lighting that enters from the left, characteristics that suggest that the two sitters are a man and wife, while the coat-of-arms on the man’s ring, bearing a black trefoil, identifies him as a member of the Weinsberg family.

Source webpage:

They share the same blue background with a marble ledge and lighting that enters from the left. All these characteristics have led to the suggestion that the two sitters are a man and wife, while the coat-of-arms on the man’s ring, bearing a black trefoil, identifies him as a member of the Weinsberg family.

— Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, its first, not a copy/paste of the entire text and at the end of the sentence i put the reference of the link with the source. FydelJ (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you cite the source or not. It's almost identical, and thus is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

EFU Life

This article should be renamed to EFU Group.

Reference https://www.efulife.com/aboutus/efu-group/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulaymān Hercules (talk • contribs) 09:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan International Airlines

PIA Head Office being shifted to Islamabad

According to the Aviation Division, the finance and engineering departments and situation room are currently present in Karachi, whereas marketing, procedure bureau, central reservation control, revenue management, HR and security and vigilance department have been shifted to Islamabad.

https://profit.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/03/04/pia-relocating-its-headquarters-to-islamabad/

I would like you to add the above information to the PIA Wikipedia Page fulfilling all the Wikipedia requirements.

I will research it properly first and see what I can do.

Thank you for your feedback (: Vallentunar (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority

A delinking process to distribute Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) into two separate divisions regulatory and service divisions has been started. The new division would be called Airport Services of Pakistan (ASP).[6]

I would like you to add the above information to the PCAA Wikipedia Page fulfilling all the Wikipedia requirements.

https://arynews.tv/en/authorities-start-delinking-process-of-civil-aviation-authority/

EPM?

Do you think that these reports are enough to file an SPI on Maximajorian Viridio (5508 edits) as a possible English Patriot Man sock?

• Comparison with Sein und Veit, the EPM sock with the most edits (749): [5];
• No. 2 sock, Windows66 (617 edits): [6] (note the edits to "Marriage" outside of the normal subject area);
• No. 3, JackRussell962 (335): [7] (note "Sri Lanka");
• No. 4, James Joseph P. Smith (322): [8]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Beyond My Ken, another CU checked a few years ago. Per the CU log, they’re on the wrong continent. Also, hope you and Diannaa are staying safe. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for that. Yes, we're doing fine here in NYC, hope all is well with you, and with you Diannaa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Everything is great here, lows case counts and rainy weather. Good to see youse guys.— Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Check my edits

Hello, I noticed that you tagged 1981 in Bulgaria for speedy deletion for copyright infringement and I appreciate it. I reworded it in my own words so that it shouldn't be infringing anyone's copyright anymore. If there is still an issue with the page, please tell me before deleting it so that I can fix it and possibly save the page. Thank you for notifying me and sorry for the trouble. Best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Dantheanimator, I am going through your other year-in Bulgaria articles and have found many others with problems so far.— Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me the exact issue for each one and I'll fix them. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, which year pages have issues? Dantheanimator (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is word-for-word copying from https://www.timelines.ws/countries/BULGARIA.HTML in the "Events" section of the articles. The full list is on your user talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed all the pages you listed. There should be no copyright issues now. Again, very sorry for the trouble. I was grossly unaware that I was violating any copyright and I'll make sure not do repeat the same mistakes again. Thank you for notifying me. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

All clear now. Thank you for taking the time to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Hello again. I received a message on my talk page regarding my copying of text from one wiki article to another and I greatly appreciate it. You are right, I did copy the text from the article onto the new page. I add the internal link to the article I copy from within the sentence I copied. The specific article you mentioned I re-worded in my own words and gave credit in the edit summary. Again, thank you for informing me about this, I'm still new and learning so any info like this is always welcomed. From now on I'll give credit in my edit summary to whoever I am crediting. If you are looking over the wiki stubs I've made, which it seems you are, I would appreciate it if you actually expanded them and/or improved/edited them to make them better pages instead of solely notifying me of the errors/areas in need of improvement. Also, after I finish making the rest of the missing pages, I plan on going back an expanding/fixing/editing each page greatly, so it is not like each page I make is a final project. I also have to fix the formatting so each page has the same formatting. If you have the time, me and other Wikipedians in and outside the Wikiproject Bulgaria would appreciate it if you dedicated some time to help expand English Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria and it's history. Again, thank you for informing me. I'll make sure to give credit to the respective Wikipedians. Also, I noticed that you aren't a member of wikiproject Bulgaria. If you have any expertise that can help us at wikiproject Bulgaria, I strongly urge you to join. You do not have to know how to read cyrillic to join or be Bulgarian/of Bulgarian descent to join. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Dantheanimator. Unfortunately I am too busy with my copyright cleanup work to do much regarding improving articles at this time. — Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hessam Abrishami wiki

Hello Diannaa,

All the content on other websites in reference to me, Hessam Abrishami, was written and provided by myself. I am the artist an i hold all the copywrites.

Feel free to contact me should you have any issues.

Hessam Abrishami— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessam11 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ragnar Kjartansson (performance artist)

Hello! I believe some revdel is needed at Ragnar Kjartansson (performance artist). Large promotional sections that included copyvio were added by the I8 Gallery (contribs). I removed some material that looked like OR before realizing the copyvio problem (see Earwig on an earlier version). The version to be rolled back to is, I believe, here. While you ar at it, perhaps a promotional username block for that account? They have not edited in years. Thank you!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report. There's no need to block that inactive account unless they resume editing.— Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Message from 118mate

Thank you for informing me of the attribution policy re copying from other WP pages. I’ll make sure to add that if it hasn’t been already within a couple days. Best regards, 118mate (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted contributions from editor with short history

Hello, I saw your talk page comment, and wanted to let you know that I was quite unsure how to welcome this user. More importantly, as I wrote here, the user falsified superficially legit-looking source citations to create an apparently well-sourced section detailing a recall of this car due to recent, extensive fires. This seems to be an especially sinister form of abuse of Wikipedia, since it could potentially convince a wide segment of the public that such a fire risk and a recall was present, when it is in fact not. Apart from the revert + photo remove, should further action be taken with regard to this blatant abuse of Wikipedia - which could potentially have been financially motivated? Lklundin (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The content he added was copied from https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761067/nio-es8-electric-suv-recall-battery-fires-china and the source they offered was https://www.nio.com/news/nio-announces-voluntary-recall-4803-es8s-battery-safety-concerns. Both of these cover a recall of cars due to fires. So I'm not sure why you are saying he added false information?— Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Now I am baffled. Following your links, I do see now the story on the Verge, with the author that I remember as cited yesterday in the now-removed addition. But I swear, yesterday I followed the link and I ended up on the nio.com page without a note on the recall. Maybe this was a mistake on my part, then. In the meantime, all three edits that I undid are now inaccessible via the article history, so I cannot double-check - and if need be self-revert. Is that because it was a verbatim copy of text from the Verge? If so, I guess it can all be explained by an inexperienced editor with no understanding of copyright. If so, I will update my posting on the Talk page. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct, it was verbatim copied from the Verge piece.— Diannaa (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Punjabi Suba movement and Singh Sabha movement

Hi Diannaa, I made the amended edits to the Punjabi Suba movement and Singh Sabha movement articles yesterday. I hope the amendments remedied the problem.

After I made my edit to the Singh Sabha article, another user re-added a large amount of irrelevant content directly lifted from what appears to be an opinion piece from a website that seems based on user submissions (it is linked to in the edit itself). I had previously reverted the same spam on July 2. It appears to have avoided bot detection both times, if there is such a bot. I can't revert it as another edit prevents that and I don't have rollback, so would you mind rolling it back to my version, if there are no issues with it? Thanks. Sapedder (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad news, it looks like you put quite a bit of work into the new version. But it's not okay to simply substitute a few words while keeping the existing sentence structure and most of the wording. The content has to be completely re-written in your own words.

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 Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have reviewed the links. In regards to the Punjabi Suba edit (I will focus on the other edit after this one is concluded), I have again been redrafting and summarizing the edit to make it more suitable. But I also don't think that the bulk of the revisions I made previously were simply cosmetic, and I approached the edit with some conservatism, as I neither wanted to omit details, nor reword phrases in a way that would either change the meaning too much, introduce spin, or sound stilted or unencyclopedic. I also don't know how much more the edit can be shrunk (though it should be noticeably smaller now), or how much more I can shuffle things around (though some things have been), as I included specific information from the source that were relevant in each section, and, as history, is better presented chronologically IMO as it is in the source; it wasn't a haphazard copypaste. Much of the material in the source was already quite straightforward.

But anyway, would it help to send you the edit this time, before I make it? I'd rather not risk another reversion if I can rather ascertain which phrases in particular are problematic (the bulk of added content is in just a few sections: one paragraph in "Background," the new "Slogan Agitation," and a direct quote in the "1953" section). Sapedder (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just "reword phrases"; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. Chronological material does not have to be presented in a different order, but it can be difficult to re-work, as can direct clean prose. But if you can't figure out a way to re-write the material, you can't add it to Wikipedia. Here are some examples in Punjabi Suba movement. The source says:

The main driving force of the Punjabi suba movement was that the Sikh leadership saw a separate political status for the Sikhs as essential to preserve an independent Sikh entity.

and your version says:

The primary impetus of the movement was that the Sikh leadership deemed the securing of a distinct political status and unity for the Sikhs, as a national minority, as being crucial for safeguarding an independent Sikh body politic.

So you can see you presented the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. Then you include the same quotation from Tara Singh. Then the next sentence from the source:

The Akali Dal presented itself as providing this critical organization, the Khalsa panth, which elicited allegiance from its Sikh constituency.

and your addition is strikingly similar in construction and sequence, with only a few of the words changed:

The Akali Dal presented itself as providing this essential political organization, the Khalsa panth, eliciting strong support from its Sikh base.

What you need to try to do is distill it down to what the primary topic of the paragraph is and work from there. The whole gist of this section is that the author of the thesis posits that the leadership of the party believed that the survival of the Sikh faith in the region required the formation of a political entity as well as a territorial entity. Hence they believed that in order to ensure Sikh independence in the region, the religious, political, and territorial issues all had to be tackled contemporaneously, and the Akali Dal presented itself as the political party that could achieve these goals.

The next section of the source says:

On the question of participation in politics, the Akali Dal claimed that the Sikh community acting as a single political group was imperative for the existence of Sikh religion. It was argued that participation in politics by the Sikhs acting as a community was built into Sikh religious ideology, for Guru Gobind Singh established the Khalsa panth in order to organize his religious followers into a political community. Apart from this he hardly made any other changes in the doctrines formulated by the first Sikh master, Guru Nanak. Thus, the Akali leadership drew on an interpretation of Sikh history and traditions in order to enhance and legitimise their authority in the struggle for critical political leverage. The Akali leaders believed that it was essential to provide the Sikhs with political leverage in order to preserve an independent Sikh entity. This could be possible if the Sikhs had a territorial unit in which they were the dominant population. By this logic the Akali Dal came to identify itself with the Sikh panth

And your version again is quite similar but it is different enough that it could be accepted. So please use this as an example of what we are looking for:

On the matter of political participation, the Akali Dal considered the continued existence of the Sikh religion as predicated on the community acting as a consolidated political unit, which could only be possible if it had a territorial unit. It posited that Sikh political participation was an integral part of Sikh theology, as the Khalsa]] had been established to organize religious Sikhs into a political community, one of Guru Gobind Singh's signature contributions to Sikhism, and that the panth was coincident with the Sikh polity itself.

— Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Soshin Chikazumi

Hi, Diannaa! You rightly deleted the article due to non-compliance with the rules. However, is it possible to rectify the situation if I'll use some facts of Chikazumi’s biography from the indicated source (protected by copyright), stated in my own words, to save the Physicist-stub about the scientist? Topp (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly how Wikipedia articles are written.— Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding Story & Reception

Can you please add the story & reception for the page Where Willy Went, it will be nice if you do so! Randomtransmans (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your erroneous claim of a copyright violation

The text you deleted from Texas cichlid as a “copyright violation” of an aquabid.com posting from 2018 was NOT an instance of me copying from Aquabid, actually, Aquabid copied that text from an older version of Wikipedia. If you will look at this version of the Wikipedia page from March 10, 2009, that predates the Aquabid.com posting by NINE YEARS, you will see that the Aquabid.com website copied this text from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_cichlid&diff=966818306&oldid=276314010 Some time between when Aquabid copied this text and now, the text was removed from the page, though it was good information that was properly sourced. I really wish you’d be more careful when removing something as a copyright violation and then warning the editor, because this is the SECOND TIME you have mistakenly claimed something I wrote was a copyright violation this year (first was on the Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones page). Whatever bot or tool you are using to find potential copyright violations is obviously flawed and you should be wary of using it without double-checking from now on. 74.213.48.38 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. However, since there's anywhere from 75 to 125 copyvio reports per day, and I usually do a high percentage of them, it won't be possible time-wise for me to check all the old revisions for each article on each report that I assess. One way you can help prevent this type of error on my part in the future is to leave an informative edit summary when restoring material from an old revision. Thanks.— Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Claim of a copyright violation

We made some recent edits to Bernardo_Fort_Brescia page that you reverted. We are not only the originators of the added content, we have sole permission to include the text in the biography. The information is not FALSE. All information that was added to the page is true to his history and we wish it to be revived. There are other past references to the Arquitectonica website on the page as well. (ARQwiki)(talk) 18:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, the material would likely not be accepted for publication due to its being worded like an advertisement.

Why are you speaking as though more than one person has access to your Wikipedia account? That's not allowed.— Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Nazi Party member number

Hello. I’m just wondering if you have a source that says it should contain a comma, because I think thousand separator in Europe generally uses a dot . and not a comma , like the anglosphere. Northern Moonlight 22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Agriculture in Sri Lanka

Hi! I just want a small help, How to find trustworthy sources in internet or online published newspaper. Avocado J (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)