User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 4:07 am, 23 August 2024 UTC [refresh].

Driver Booster copright

Hi, I understand why release notes had to be deleted, but why Windows 10 ones are on Wikipedia (and are copyrighted), while driver boster can't? Thanks 82.202.116.145 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If you see other copyright violations on Wikipedia, please feel free to remove them, or post a note on the article talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant wiki page Windows 10 version history, its content is copied from windows update history or windows blogs. 82.202.116.145 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's already tagged for copyright clean-up and has been since December 2015. Please go ahead and clean it up if you have the time. — Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Windows 10 comes up clean. I have to go to work now. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issue for "Nuclear power in India"

I received a note from you stating that my additions to the "Nuclear power in India" violates copyright. Since the information was taken from publicly available information, my assumption was that it will not violate any copyright issues. However if it does any copyright issues, thank you for reverting back the additions. I have added some information this time making sure that it does not violate any copyright issues. Please let me know if it does, so that I can edit it again. Monster eagle (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC) monster eagle

The material was copied from The Hindu, a copyright newspaper. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Future Directed Therapy and Future-Oriented Therapy Continued

Thank you Diannaa for your attention,

However, this redirect can be very misleading to the public, regardless of whether or not the Future Directed Therapy article is accepted for publication. Future Directed Therapy is an active treatment being conducted at Emory Healthcare as part of our treatment resistant depression program. Future-Oriented Therapy is not a treatment model that is in use anywhere. The similarities of the name are confusing, and having a redirect to this page is potentially a great disservice to people suffering from depression who are seeking treatment. We are requesting that this redirect be removed.

Thank you kindly for your assistance with this matter,

lhaddad1

Hello Diannaa,

Several months ago, there were some issues regarding Future Directed Therapy and Future-oriented therapy. A previous article on Future Directed Therapy was merged onto Future-oriented therapy. The material of Future Directed Therapy was removed from the merge due to the content being entirely different from Future-oriented therapy. The redirect from the former to the latter is protected, so the new draft that I am creating for Future Directed Therapy cannot be added to Wikipedia until that redirect is deleted. Do you mind accessing the Future-oriented therapy page to delete that redirect of Future Directed Therapy to FOT? Once again, the two therapies are completely different, and I am in the process of having Future Directed Therapy having its own article on Wikipedia.

Thanks again so much, and hope to hear from you soon.

lhaddad1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaddad1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This can be done if and when your draft is accepted for publication. — Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaddad1 (talk • contribs)

The place to go if you wish a redirect to be deleted is WP:Redirects for discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Thomas Rosica Wikipedia Article

Dear Dianna,

Thank you for your efforts with Wikipedia: for moderating it, keeping it balanced, clear, within correct bounds and unified. Obviously I am not core Wikipedia expert, and I contribute in-frequently. I wish I had time to do more. I have learned about many subjects and popular opinions on persons and events thanks to Wikipedia, and I love that about Wikipedia.

What surprises me regarding the Thomas Rosica wikipedia article is how easily all content is being removed without being reviewed, adjusted or modified. As you can see, there have been many attempts to make the article on this individual detailed, balanced, referenced, and fair. There is a plethora of references to a detailed biography on Thomas Rosica out there in the web, he has authored countless articles, and been introduced with similar introductions and summaries. There is only so much I can do in paraphrasing and re-writing what this individual did factually based on the wide array of references available. The proximity of words to original articles is un-intended and coincidental, and cannot be helped in some cases in the efforts for being concise and factual. Please indicate precisely where the copyright issues are.

I have seen and read many other Wikipedia articles that have been far more poorly sourced, or written, and they do not undergo this degree of modification and wiping. I would hope that some admins and moderators would be open to being more constructive in adding, editing, or adjusting the article rather than removing all content, leaving it with a skim sentence about the person in question, and one section lending undue weight to a controversy.

The fact the article has often been reverted to this form several times regardless of many efforts to add information and balance the undue weight to a single controversy, leads me to believe there is a bias or carelessness on the part of some admins. If my gut feeling is wrong about this, please let me know. I would like to request other admins to weigh in on the history of this article over the last 3 months and see for themselves. Please keep the "Free" in the slogan of Wikipedia being "The Free Encyclopedia".

Thank you for your consideration,

Where_he_spoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where he spoke (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The content has repeatedly been removed because it's a copyright violation, copied pretty much unaltered from http://saltandlighttv.org/about/rosica.php. The content was removed in its entirety because the violation is pretty much total. All material you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words please. Alternatively, if the copyright holder of the source website wishes to release the material under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Hi Diannaa, I've noticed at ANI you seem to be the goto person for image copyright issues. I was on IRC in Wikipedia-en-help and there was a question about trying to figure out if an image that was taken by the Iranian Government would be in the public domain similar to what we have in the United States. Any help would be much appreciated :D --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Verheyen Vincent: was the user with the question. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598 and Verheyen Vincent: Just jumping in with a little information. According to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection, there are no official copyright relations between Iran and the United States. The general protection for most works lasts until 30 years after the author death for deaths before 22 August 1980, otherwise 50 after the death of the author. For photographs and film, it is 30 years after date of first publication. Maybe Diannaa will be able to find information specifically about government works in Iran. I haven't found anything else. When were the photos taken? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: I've poked Verheyen_Vincent on Irc and they will follow up here. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598 and Nihonjoe: The image Shahram Amiri (شهرام امیری).png was adapted from a Creative Commons Attribution-licensed video which published on 26 May 2012 on the YouTube channel "VOA Farsi" (used interchangeably with "VOAPNN" & "VOA Persian"), which is the Persian language branch of Voice of America (the official external broadcast institution of the US federal government). However, the original source of the relevant footage was recorded in a studio Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (the Iranian state organization regarding domestic and external broadcasting), in Tehran, Iran. This footage was either recorded, broadcasted, or both (not so clear to me) on 17 July 2010 (according to AP Archive). It seems relevant (assuming the footage is likely to be created by IRIB) to understand whether or not the Iranian government considers content released by IRIB [abbreviation of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting] as "free" or not, since Wikimedia Commons asks for the following:

Images must be free in both the country of origin and the United States in order to be free enough for Commons.

— Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Commons#Differences between Wikipedia and Commons (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

@Cameron11598 and Nihonjoe: Article 11 of the Official English translation of Iran's Copyright Law (communicated to Unesco by letter of April 20, 1970, of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education), with regards to the copyright law dated 12 January 1970, might be of interest:

Reproduction of works protected by this law, as mentioned in Article 2, section 1, and the recording of radio and television programmes are permissible, but only for private and non-­commercial use.

The above was translated from the originally Persian passage:

‌ماده 11 - نسخه‌برداری از اثرهای مورد حمایت این قانون مذکور در بند 1 از ماده 2

و ضبط برنامه‌های رادیویی و تلویزیونی فقط در صورتی که برای‌استفاده شخصی و غیر

انتفاعی باشد مجاز است.

— Islamic Parliament Research Center (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

@Verheyen Vincent: None of that says anything about whether government content (images, etc.) is considered public domain or something else. That's what needs to be found. If it is not specifically addressed in the law, then we must default to the general guidelines for how long the copyright period lasts, which I mention above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Please note that "public domain" might be a concept which can not be found as such in Iranian idioms (therefor, it might be interesting to look for characteristics of works which can be considered "free", particularly in the original Persian text). Article 11 at least mentions the the right to redistribute television programmes, under circumstances. Another article which catches my eye is Article 8:

Public libraries, documentation centers, scientific institutions and educational establishments, which are noncommercial, may reproduce protected works by a photographic or similar process, in the numbers necessary, for the purposes of their activities, according to a decree to be issued by the Board of Ministers.

The above was translated from the originally Persian passage:

‌ماده 8 - کتابخانه‌های عمومی و مؤسسات جمع‌آوری نشریات و مؤسسات علمی و آموزشی که

به صورت غیر انتفاعی اداره می‌شوند می‌توانند‌طبق آیین‌نامه‌ای که به تصویب
هیأت‌وزیران خواهد رسید از اثرهای مورد حمایت این قانون از راه عکسبرداری یا طرق

مشابه آن به میزان مورد نیاز و‌متناسب با فعالیت خود نسخه‌برداری کنند.

— Islamic Parliament Research Center

I think that both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons can certainly be considered documentation centers, and the image in question is certainly produced by a photographic or similar process. Nevertheless, I understand the relevance of your reply though. I seem to have to accept that, if no Persian reading person could find new information, the future of the image on Commons is not looking very bright. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

@Verheyen Vincent: That would be sort of fine for Wikipedia (though it might still get deleted), but would not be acceptable on Commons. To be on Commons, the image must be free for any purpose, not just non-commercial purposes. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems to me this hinges on the legitimacy of the CC-BY licence on the VOAPNN video. If they had authorization to release the video under this free licence, then an image derived from it should also be free, assuming proper attribution. The status of the original work only matters if the CC licence is invalid. Is there reason to believe the channel is careless of permissions? Or is it assumed they would ignore Iranian copyright in the absence of a treaty? If in fact VOAPNN had no right to license the material, I agree there’s nothing to indicate it would be free under Iranian law. There seems to be a common misconception that all government works are PD, but the US federal government is actually quite unusual in this regard. Most countries (and individual US states) make a few exceptions for things like laws, regulations, and public notices (although there are often non-copyright restrictions instead), but reserve copyright on everything else to the state (or the Crown). I also agree that non-commercial and educational-only permissions are not acceptable: although the WMF projects themselves would qualify, policy requires our free content to be reusable for all purposes; in other words we are not only publishers, but also distributors.—Odysseus1479 19:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified the existence of this section at an identically named section on Wikimedia Commons, namely: at the talk page of the file "Shahram Amiri (شهرام امیری).png". I have notified all users who participated to the above discussion during the creation of the mentioned new section. I would like to propose that the discussion be continued on the mentioned Commons talk page, as this discussion seems now to be centered around that mentioned file. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

Copyright issues for article Draft:Bernd Kortmann

Dear Diannaa, thanks for you comments on the "Bernd Kortmann" draft article. I have added some changes as requested. Is it ok to keep the "publications" part the way it is? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.91.86 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Lists are almost always okay form a copyright point of view, as long as they are "simple, non-creative lists of information". So yeah, you can leave that part as-is. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues for article Cayman Islands Cricket Association

Dear Diannaa, thanks for you comments on the "Cayman Islands Cricket Association" article. My questions:-

1. How will I come to know that copying material from their (for that matter any particular) website is a copyright issue?
2. Is it okay if in Wikipedia page of Cayman Islands Cricket Association page, one provides link to Cayman Islands' History page and does not copy the extract and paste on Wiki page?
3. Is it okay if I take a prior e-mail approval from them before picking the information from their website and pasting on wikipedia?

Best Regards, Vikram Maingi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikram maingi (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very briefly:

1. Always assume material is protected by copyright unless there’s an explicit licence or release saying otherwise, or it’s so old that the copyrights have expired.
2. Yes, you can generally use a citation footnote (following a summary or thorough paraphrase in the article body) or the External Links section.
3. No. Permission to use material on Wikipedia is insufficient: it must allow anyone to use it, for any purpose. To be accepted it must also go through the OTRS system for verification and recording: see WP:Donating copyrighted materials.—Odysseus1479 04:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues for article The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

Dear Diannaa,

What makes you believe the section removed from the page is copyrighted? It seems to me a clear case of a backwards copy.

• Here is where the "paradigm shift" phrase is first introduced, containing "it makes the reader to": [[1]]
• This is the only hit I can find that uses the original phrasing: [[2]], which was established in July 2012, so it's possible it copied from Wikipedia - the other book descriptions on that page have google hits, so they look copied too.
• Then there is the part where the phrase is changed to "it helps the reader": [[3]]. After that, many many hits show up. This strongly implies that Wikipedia was repeatedly copied by external sites.
• The final change in phrase is the addition of "i.e.": [[4]]. Again many hits show up.

In conclusion, it looks to me like there is a gradual change in phrasing, documented on the page history, and repeated backwards copying from Wikipedia to many external sites.

Do you still have reason to believe the content is copyrighted? Do you have an original source that is not an external website that could have copied the Wikipedia article? GoodStuff~enwiki (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much the "paradigm shift" paragraph I was concerned about but the summary that follows of the seven habits. Looking back, although it has been edited heavily since then, we have had a version of that summary since 2003. It looks like the material has been removed and re-added a couple of times, which is what triggered the bot report. Looks like you are right, it was a false positive. Sorry about the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

COI issue at Draft:Silvio Laccetti?

You had raised a Copyvio issue regarding Draft:Silvio Laccetti. The discussion at Draft talk:Silvio Laccetti seems to indicate that the editor who has create the article works for a public relations firm that owns the rights to portions of text that had been added. Perhaps the OTRS process may address the Copyvio issues, but it now appears that the bigger issue may well be WP:COI. Do you see this as an issue here? Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it may be a paid editor, as there's an unrelated article creation at Danielle Sheypuk (which is actually a copy-paste of Draft:Danielle Sheypuk, but that's another story). I will notify the user about the relevant policies. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio on MS Kungsholm (1928)

Hello. The material added in this edit is copied verbatim from the source ( http://www.30thinfantry.org/history_docs/john_ericsson.doc ), so could you please revdel it? Thomas.W ^talk 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Y Done; sorry for the delay. I had to go to the city to help my mom with something all morning. — Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't feel any stress, we're not getting paid so real life always takes precedence. And enjoy being with your mom while you have her, one day she'll no longer be there (I lost mine a few years ago). Thomas.W ^talk 21:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

CaptainHog sock/SPI

I thought I would make you aware of yet another CaptainHog sock. The sock has been blocked, just trying to fish out any sleepers. I've alerted DeltaQuad, since she ran the checkuser in the last SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26 on August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio on Draft:Urban informatics

Thanks for checking this draft article under review. You removed 2 definitions from the page. I had another reviewer check this out on 7 Aug 2016 and he confirmed that the direct quotes do adhere with Wikipedia policy as listed here Wikipedia:COPYQUOTE - the definitions use the quote tag and so are clearly visible as direct quotes and attributed to the original source. The material does not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted either. The quotation are useful and aid understanding of the subject, since they are concise definitions of the subject. I have undone your edit. Can you please comment and confirm? Thank you! sunday9pm (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the quotes because I think they are too lengthy, failing our WP:NFCC. I have no intention of edit warring with you about it though. — Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Unigma

I am user CorbuleacM and I am the author of Unigma wiki page. If you believe this url: http://www.bsminfo.com/doc/public-cloud-monitoring-management-is-now-easier-unigma-0001 is a clear copyright infringement you should have it removed from Unigma wiki page, but not the entire page. I believe that based on all partnerships Unigma has: with Autotask, Kasyea, AWS and those were proven by using accurate URLs, Unigma is significant, it is a top player on the cloud management market based on its features and benefits. Let me know what I need to provide more to prove its importance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that in many instances the copyright violation can be removed and the article rescued. However I did not think it was worthwhile to do that in this instance, bacause the article also failed speedy deletion criterion A7: "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)" and it was deleted on that basis as well. By the way I did not deleted the article, I nominated it for deletion. The actual deletion was done by administrator User:Y, and another version of the article was deleted back in January by administrator User:Liz, in which instance the speedy deletion criteria were A7 and G11 (worded like an advertisement). — Diannaa (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your promt reply! Please let me know what I can do to rescue the article because I believe that its importance is proven based on the fact that big managed services companies like Autotask and Kaseya agreed to partner with it even though it is a young company, founded in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In order to meet the notability criteria as outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), you'll need to provide multiple in-depth coverage of the organization in sources independent of the subject. We like to see a minimum of three independent sources that give detailed coverage (not just brief mentions). I'm just not seeing that at this time, so the subject does not meet our notability requirements at the present time. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Beside the ones that I mentioned here are 3 recent sources published after Unigma released an API-based multi-cloud cost calculator. There are only few multi-cloud costs calculators out there and for that you may check:

http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/unigma-helps-it-departments-evaluate-public-clouds-with-new-tool

http://www.findmyhost.com/webhostingblog/unigma-offers-it-departments-service-providers-first-capability-to-compare-and-select-public-clouds/

http://cloudpost.us/2016/07/hostingcon-spotlight-kirill-bensonoff-founder-of-unigma-talks-cloud.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you believe you have adequate material to establish notability, I suggest you start a draft using the Articles for Creation process. There you will have the assistance of people experienced is assessing sources and notability. — Diannaa (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dianna! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, I believe this is a copyvio Space Dev Steering Committee (copyvio report). I would appreciate you looking into that. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The http://whois.domaintools.com/zeably.com shows a creation date for that web page of June 2012, and we have had the content since 2008. Our earliest revision states the organization did not have a web page at that time. I had one other tool but it's gone 404 on me so that's all I've got. Odds are that we had the content first. — Diannaa (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Erick Thohir

Thanks for the information and currently I am trying to improve the contents of above page accordingly. With regard to the picture of him in Wikimedia Commons, it is not possible to use the picture as in his official twitter account? Please advise. Thanks NaidNdeso (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If an image has been previously published elsewhere online, we need the copyright holder to release it under license. There's instructions how to do it at WP:donating copyrighted materials and a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If I change the copyright into {{|tlxGFDL-self}}, would it solve the problem and prevent the picture from deletion? NaidNdeso (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No. The reason is because the photo is already in use elsewhere online. We need a permission email from whoever took the photo, because that is who holds the copyright. If you took the photo, you are the person who needs to send the email. If it was someone else, get them to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Neuron

Hi Diannaa, could you please compare Neuron#Overview with this book starting on page 17. As far as I can tell, parts of it are verbatim copying and parts are very close paraphrasing. The section in the article has existed in one form or another for a very long time, but this update in 2010 rewrote it in the approximate state it's in now.

The book seems to be licensed, I think appropriately for Wikipedia's use, and given some of the refs in the book, it may be our article included the text before the book, but even if it's not infringing, shouldn't we at least source the section (there are zero sources)?

Anyway, I don't want to do anything drastic. I figure you'll know what to do, if anything. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The book is a collection of Wikipedia articles. Have a look at Page 1, which is a copy of Neuroscience. And so on. Look at page 100, they state that these are Wikipedia articles and provide attribution. Sourcing medical articles is a task best left to the experts, as there's WP:MEDRS to be followed. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't want to source it myself. Heaven forbid. Should I at least tag the section as unsourced or just let it go? I don't read science articles of any kind much, but the subject of neurons came up at home a little while ago, so ... --Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, tag it for sourcing; I will also ping User:Doc James to have a look and maybe work on it if he has time. Also, I meant to mention, there's a template we can place on the affected Wikipedia articles: Template:Wikipedia mirror. I don't have time to do that myself, too busy with my copy vio work. — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Book extensively references Wikipedia[5] And that is the Pediapress layout. They do a nice job. I have ordered Wikipedia books from them beforeDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up

Can you follow up on some of these [6] They are using their own work which is a COI issue but the work has been previously published and they likely do not own it anymore. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Amazonian motmot into Blue-capped motmot. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, there is an attribution link provided on the talk page.....the AOU split the species, so each one links back to the Amazonian motmot page......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What you need to do differently is state in your edit summary at the destination article when copying/moving material from one Wikipedia article to another. The talk page templates are optional; the edit summary is not. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. — Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

About Action of 17 August 1779

That was fast, wasn't it? As I couldn't have a single word about it, let me tell you: I got those two paragraphs from HMS Ardent (1764). Yes, I made the mistake of forgetting to say it, but it could be easily resolved if someone asked me first, now I won't lost my time to write again. So, instead of accusing me of a copyright violation you people should point yours fingers into another direction. Nick 264 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. I don't see any point in restoring it though, as all the content is still present at the source article. — Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW the external source, The Nautical Research Journal published in 2014,[7] appears to have copied from Wikipedia by lifting text I wrote in the HMS Ardent article in 2010.[8]. Not proposing a page restoration, but I don't think this is a copyvio, or at least not at an en-WP end. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a case of unattributed copying within Wikipedia, which is technically a copyright violation, but not as serious as copying from external sources. I do look for this when checking the bot reports, but it's not always evident. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually just expanding my comment to acknowledge that very point when we edit-conflicted. I suppose also to ensure the copyvio removal didn't inadvertently extend to my 2010 text, which is the original material. Agree that the new article didn't add anything to what already existed on the Ardent page. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Iratrofimov and User:KaiStr

You might want to have a look at Iratrofimov (talk · contribs) and KaiStr (talk · contribs). I asked KaiStr if he/she is Shootingstar88 (talk · contribs). Iratrofimov is receptive to KaiStr, and is being reverted by Doc James for copyright issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it appear they may be copying from their own work. As the publisher is closed source it looks a bit like both a COI and a copyright issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

if anybody is interested in details - it seemed that KaiStr used my text from my paper (contacting me on it, prior to posting, I didn't mind it) - Doc James pointed to the copyrights issue (thanks), so today I edited (paraphrased) the section that was a simple copy. I can, of course, deposit my whole paper on the Wiki, its draft version and format before it was published (the publisher only owns the copyrights for the printed format, the packaging of the idea in the image that can be seen when looking at their journal but not the actual phrasing/text - this belongs to author, i.e. to me), but I just wanted to resolve this issue faster. I looked at the donation of the text page procedure - emailing, then waiting for a permit for an uncertain time - it is easier just to edit the text... I am open for suggestions, if it doesn't work for some reasons.Iratrofimov (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that while you may self-identify as being the original author, we can't take your word for it. We have a system in place for authors who wish to release their material to Wikipedia under license. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for details of how to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution - Sandridge Park

Thanks for your note about copying within wikipedia. I am aware of the rules and did place the relevant template on the talk page with this edit within seconds of the edit to the article.— Rod ^talk 06:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I did not check the talk page. However, the talk page templates are optional; the edit summary is not. If you could provide attribution in your edit summary at the destination article when you move the content, that would be perfect. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Timiryazev

Hello, The text I copied into Timiryazev's article came from the article Tverskoy Boulevard. In view of your action the boulevard article may also need attention as it is all attributed to «"Great Moscow 850: Guide", E. Efimova, 1997»--Johnsoniensis (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. What you need to do please in the future when copying from one Wikipedia article to another is to provide attribution. This is done by at a minimum stating in your edit summary at the destination page where you copied the material from. I have undone my edit and added the required attribution. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The Tverskoy Boulevard article has had the content about the since 2006 so it looks like it's us that had it first. — Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

John Littlejohn

WRT https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KenThomas/Rev._John_Littlejohn&action=edit&redlink=1, I no longer remember what exactly was on this page as I do not check WP frequently. WRT http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.littlejohn/482/mb.ashx , Ms. Lyne (a personal acquaintance who *prompted me to create this article*) appears to be quoting from the Kentucky Index of graves, and a separate source. Such small quotational uses of larger copyrighted works are fully protected by fair use. As well, your quick deletion (why is this necessary, again?) has resulted in the removal of a stub about a notable, if very neglected key figure in US history. KenThomas (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)