User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 9:35 PM where this user lives in Alberta. ⁽⁾

copyright in EU/EC documents

Hello, Diannaa. Thank you for your remark about the OGL on my user talk page and in the Animal Health Act 1981. You seem to be an expert on copyright, so I wonder if you might help me. Does the European Commission have a licence comparable to the OGL? Specifically, I would like to copy a figure from this document into wikimedia commons, and then into wikipedia. Is that legit? Magnoffiq (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What I have discovered is that the EU allows some but not all of their material to be copied, provided the source is attributed. You have to check each individual page for terms. The PDF you want to copy from does not have a copyright notice on it. For cases like that, I go to the parent webpage (in this case http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) and look for a link for "terms of use", "copyright", or "legal". For this page, there's note at the bottom that says "© 2016 EC JRC DIR.B" a link in the upper right "Important legal notice". Clicking through on that link leads us to the copyright policy, which states "(c) European Union, 1995-2018. Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged." Be careful, as they cannot release documents that are hosted on their site but to which someone else owns the copyright. However: Since you are planning on copying the image to Commons, you'd better ask your question there, as it is a separate website with different rules and different administrators. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and very informative reply. Magnoffiq (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Art Almanac

Thank you Diannaa for your paraphrasing of text on Art Almanac that had copyright issues and for your vigilance in picking that up, and for correcting the title of the magazine. It's very much appreciated, and has given me pause...I'll be more diligent! Jamesmcardle^(talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Colt Clavier Collection

Thank you Diannaa for indenting the material and your observations. I was aware that I was free to quote. I would appreciate an explanation how you made that footnote -- I am afraid I find much of the instruction for wikipedia editing incomprehensible which is why I restrict myself to small occasional edits.

I had absolutely no intention of suggesting the text of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport release was my own. Though it's a very important harpsichord indeed (and worth the money) I disagree with the Handel connection implied by the text. The release text confuses two things. Handel is shown at a single manual instrument in both print and painting (see the text on the score above the keyboard) of 'Morning Levee,' image ii Rakes Progress (1732-4). Second the Handel House has on loan from an anonymous owner a single manual Mahoon spinet of 1749 which is displayed in the composition room. What keyboard instruments Handel owned at the time of his death is unknown, they passed directly to his amanuensis J.C. Smith Jr. (Johann Christoph Schmidt, 1712, Ansbach – 1795, London; "My large harpsichord, my little House Organ, my Musick Books" item 4 Will June 1 1750) and were not included in the probate inventory (An Inventory of the Household Goods of George Frederick Handel, Esqr, Deceased taken at his Late Dwelling House on Upper Brook Street, St. George's, Hanover Square, 27 August 1759). Though Mahoon was appointed 'Harpsichord Maker to His Majestie' King George II,' this would have been for household instruments and the best available evidence suggests that Handel performed publicly on a two manual Ruckers (Flemish) -- at the time these were the instruments preferred by connoisseurs in England and Northern Europe for their superior resonant and balanced tone. Ornamental Peasant (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

How to make properly formatted citations: there's a little menu across the top of the edit window when you open up an article for editing. Click on the link labelled "Cite" and then on the drop-down menu labelled "Templates". There you will see a list of potential citation templates. For this one I used "Cite web". Click on that, and a box with a bunch of fields you can fill in will appear. Copy the url from the webpage you want to use as a source, and paste it into the url field. Click on the wee magnifying glass beside it, and the software will fill in as much information as it can glean from the metadata on the source webpage. Clicking on the tiny image of a calendar will add today's date as an access date. As you can tell if you are following along, I did some amendments manually to make a nicer citation, such as removing "GOV.UK" from the "Website" field and instead adding publisher=UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. Once you're satisfied, click on "Insert", and the software will add the formatted citation at the location in the Wikipedia article where your cursor is located. You can add to or fix the citation some more before you publish the finished edit. Preview the page before saving to verify that it's going to turn out nice. The attribution ("This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Open Government Licence...") is prepared text that I have available in one of my sandboxes.

Where to go for help: We have a series of help pages – go to the menu on the left and click on "Help"; this will take you to a table of contents listing a series of guides aimed at beginners. There's always willing helpers available at the WP:Teahouse, where you can get answers to specific questions from users experienced in helping new editors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Another India copyvio

Hi, the new prose sections in these edits are copied from the cited sources. I've removed them, with edit summaries, but they date to last July. Is it a revdel job? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. Thanks for the message, always a pleasure. Task is done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

International League against Epilepsy

Dear Diannaa, many thanks for your message. Of course, it was not my intention to post any material that may violate copyright. I just wanted to say that I got permission to post the material in the page by the president of the ILAE who also signed a wikipedia form (permission commons) which I report below:

I hereby affirm that I represent International League Against Epilepsy, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media attached to this email. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Samuel Wiebe President of International League Against Epilepsy 2019-01-15

In light of this, is there any possibility we can upload that material in wikipedia? Please, could you advice me on this matter? The ILAE is really interested in having such content appearing into wikipedia. Look forward to hearing from you! Many thanks for your help, support and assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolaMaggio (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a couple problems with the above permission. (1) You say he sent a permission email to the Commons? That's a separate website. The permission email needs to be sent to this wiki per the instructions WP:Donating copyrighted materials. (2) Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International is not a compatible license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Laurie Berman Article

I'm aware that "The source webpage is marked as Copyright © 2018 State of California". In the State of California any website is considered public domain aslong it says other wise. "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use."

Dillon251992 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What about that phrase "unless otherwise indicated"? The webpage is specifically marked as copyright, i.e. it is "otherwise indicated". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Grosvenor Park, Chester

Thanks Diannaa for picking up the unintended copyright violation on Grosvenor Park, Chester. I will put it right. JimCaligari (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahmed Adde

Hi Dianaa I was new to creating pages. That is why i can not differentiate the mant types, of references, cites and links you use. I will practice it and add more sources for references in the future. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed Adde (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved from userpage --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - my oversight...was falling asleep but good again this morning

Mercy11 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing in Salt industry in Syracuse, New York

I stumbled across this and did a duplication detector run. I'm flummoxed what to do. Could you take a look at my analysis on the talk page, and see what you think? The original source is no longer available (had to fix the maintenance tag), so you'll need to retrieve it from the wayback machine (link provided). Sbalfour (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There's also quite a bit of overlap with this article, which is dated 1998. The best thing would be to list it at WP:CP. I don't have time to clean it right now. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, this is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Nconwaymicelli, opened by MRG in 2014. As Sbalfour is discovering, it's pretty bad. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Permission granted, photos not restored.

Deleted photos after granting permission Ticket #2018121710006255[edit] Permission was sent and received (see acknowledgment below and reference number) on December 17th.......... photos were deleted as of Dec 27th 2018. I hope that they will be restored. How do I proceed from here? Copy of permission letter was resent to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org Thank you.

Please patiently wait until an OTRS agent handles the ticket. If an OTRS agent handles a valid permission, they will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing yet Diannaa, can you illuminate what is happening here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundrup (talk • contribs) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Kundrup, I'm not sure why you're asking here – weren't the files on Commons? Anyway, I'm afraid the OTRS backlog is 169 days at the moment. Tickets that have clear, complete and proper permission from the photographer of each image have a good chance of being handled more quickly; those with incomplete or dubious permissions may take much longer, as not everyone wants to deal with those. You could try asking at the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, but I fear that the answer will be "check back in 169 days". Sorry, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Kundrup, I am not an administrator on the Commons so I cannot restore the files, and I am not an OTRS team member, so I don't have access to their email. So there's nothing I can do to help. You are gonna have to be patient. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Copyvio revision history deletion

Hi Diannaa!

Please delete Re history: [1], [2] and [3]. :) Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I did the first two but not the last one, since the episode descriptions were transferred from Ushio and Tora, where they have been present since 2015. If you've got proof they were originally copied from somewhere else, please let me know. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problems on Programme for International Student Assessment

Hi,

No, I did not. I just cited. It was important to mention China and the other Asian country. Did I get a warning? Because it would have been harsh to get one. Christina (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not "anymore" and I am reading it again. Thanks for the info! I didn't do it on purpose. I tried to cite. Christina (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your hard work and careful attention to detail. Your fair treatment of editors is a credit to the Admin corps. Because of you, Wikipedia is a better place. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mobi Ditch for the barnstar and the positive feedback! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a well-deserved star (Mobi Ditch, I wonder if you realise just how much diligence, hard work and attention to detail Diannaa puts into copyvio control?). Anyway, I've been looking at md's CCI request, which I think we're going to have to accept, even if some of the copying has been from PD sources. Diannaa, you did some clean-up on Helena Artillery; I wondered, did you also look at this source, which as far as I can see is non-free (but maybe I missed something?), and from which there was extensive copying? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Justlettersandnumbers I only meant that I removed that particular violation. The remainder of the article remains unchecked. :( — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa, I thought that might have been the case, but just wanted to be sure – didn't want to remove or blank content that you'd already found to be OK! That's going to WP:CP, then, and I'll open the CCI too. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Split gene theory

Some of the content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.85.4.1129. 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. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa‬ , The content is necessary here to explain it in technical and moreover I have contacted Mr.Perianna, who is the author of this material (lives in Wisconsin, Madison, USA) and he agreed to copy the content to strengthen this article. If you still feel its copyright issue then I should remove it.

Thanks for pointing out to me! Regards, Ganeshmanohar (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2019 (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. If there's any copied material remaining in the article from any source, please remove it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Paraphrasing and citing to watchOS

Hello

Thank you for the message that you have sent me regarding to messing citations on the watchOS page. I know where the sources are and I actually wanted to cite them, but because of time issues, I have forgotten to do this. Hence, there aren’t any citations for the changes I made. I made those changes yesterday in only a mere 20 minutes so I didn’t have time to add those citations in. Plus, I just copied and pasted it from Apple’s website since it says “download info” for watchOS 2 and 3 edits and there are support articles for watchOS 4 and 5 release notes as well. In addition, it seems that I would need to paraphrase those before adding those in. I will try to do so when I have free time. Of course, I love to do citations so I will do so after paraphrasing as well.

I am a neophyte on Wikipedia so if you see any other issues regarding to my edits, please feel free to send me another message on my talk page. Thank you for reminding me about those citations and this kind message you have sent to me.

Thanks and sincerely, AppleExpert1214 (Greetings from Taiwan as well!) AppleExpert1214 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

AppleExpert1214, The main problem with your additions was that you added copyright material without permission of the copyright holder. That's not allowed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yugambeh

Hi.

I saw that problematical edit addition on this page, but given offwiki and some complex on-wiki work, didn't have much time for anything but to access the original source, Tom Petrie's book published in 1904, and re-source what the Logan site took from it, to the original text, which is I assumed by he date, out of copyright. So I was surprised to see you removing also my direct quote from Petrie 1904, together with the other material (use of which I would myself object to). Perhaps I've missed something, if so apologies, but surely citing Petrie 1904 is legitimate?Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the block quote (as noted in my edit summary) because the quotation lacks context without the preceding text. If you think the block quote is a good fit please go ahead and re-add it. None of the content that was copied from from here and here seems to have any overlap with the 1904 book, so that material will have to stay out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Rachael Runyan

Hi, Ma'am. Can you do me a big favour and take a look over Murder of Rachael Runyan‎ for problems? Thank you please. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What is it I am supposed to be looking for? I don't see any copyright problems, if that's what you mean. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, The uploader of the image used in the article says it is a "family photo", but it isn't - it's a newspaper cutting from the Runyan's local newspaper and I'm pretty sure that the newspaper and the photographer it employed that took the photo of Rachael still hold copyright to their work. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the version on Facebook (here), you can tell by the faint yellowed border that it's a scan of an old photograph, not a newspaper clipping. While the pic may have been published in the newspaper at some point, that's not what this particular version is. Someone owns the copyright to this image; it's here as a non-free fair use image and is tagged as such, so it's okay to keep. I will remove the supposition that it's a family photo, since we have no evidence to support that assumption. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Undelete for edit please

RE: National Defense Strategy (United States), I pulled one paragraph verbatim from what I believed was a US Government document and thus NOT copyrighted, but public domain. While it turns out it was not an official US Govt definition of what an NDS was, this is ridiculous. All of the history is gone. It was tagged for speedy deletion one minute, and 8 minutes later deleted, giving me no opportunity to remedy the page. The history is all wiped away and I must recreate it from scratch now. Blindly following bots is ridiculous and giving an author no chance to reply before a speedy deletion is exceptionally unwelcoming and does not promote the mission of Wiki, but serves to dissuade future contributions. Please undelete this page and allow me to edit it. I see the history is hidden from me as well, so I'd have to completely reconstruct it which is ridiculous. Please undelete. Echoniner (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I've sent you a copy of the deleted article via email. The first paragraph is the part that was copied; the second paragraph is okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made a new version of the article with what you sent. I appreciate it. Echoniner (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Taxation in South Africa

Hi Diaannaa. Thanks you pointing out the problem with some of the additions I made to this page. I will rework them and resubmit them. I appreciate your pointing out the issues to me as I am very new at this. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"An N'Egg and some N'Ham and some N'Onion"

Hi Dianna. Is a record released in 1924 still covered by copyright? I'm asking about a recording of the song "An N'Egg and some N'Ham and some N'Onion", by Ernie Mayne, issued by The Winner Records (Winner 4292), and re-published here on YouTube in 2012. Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Chances are good that it still enjoys copyright protection. Check the Commons:Hirtle chart; there's a section on "Sound Recordings Published Outside the United States". Good grief, the things that used to pass for entertainment before we had the Beatles :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah right, "1924 through 28 February 1989" = "In the public domain in its home country as of URAA date" = 1 January 1996 for most countries; see w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for the most current list"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC) .. so glad you enjoyed Ernie.

Copyright is hilarious as well, because accessing the Hirtle chart does not actually answer the question unless we know whether or not the recording was in the public domain on the URAA date. It's also possible that the copyright was renewed at some point. Hence my supposition that it's likely still under copyright. We have to assume that it is, unless we can prove that it's not. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, quite hilarious. Would the copyright be held by Ernie Mayne, or by The Winner Records, by both, by someone else? There's also a version by Clarkson Rose issued on Zonophone in 1925. So I guess I won't even bother asking about that one (although there is some interesting bio material there on Rose, who has no article yet). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The copyright to the song could be held by the author, the record label, or someone else (such as Michael Jackson) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. I could see Jacko closing his show with that one. Great with a moonwalk. Thanks anyway Diannaa. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio guidance

Okay, so there are the times when it's obvious the entire article has been cut and paste, and other times when only part of it has, and a simple revdel will do. But how about this article, Presentation of Colours, which gives a copyvio report of this. Obviously it's close paraphrasing, with some almost complete sentences lifted. Could you show me how you'd go about editing it. These types of copyvios have always given me the willies. The article is about a subject that I'm shocked hasn't been covered yet, so it's definitely notable, and I'd like to pick your mind on how you'd pare it down, if you don't mind. Thanks for any direction you can give.01:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, that's a good question. Normally I don't have time to edit/clean the articles myself any more, so I would list it at WP:CP. I see the user already has one warning re a copyright issue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew you would know what to do. I actually didn't know about WP:CP, but that seems like exactly what should happen. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blanked and listed that one, Onel5969. Ask away (on my talk-page if you like) if you have questions about how to do the same for other problem articles! Hi, Diannaa! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Justlettersandnumbers - will keep that in mind, instead of always bugging Diannaa. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request

The content of this edit seems to be copied from here or from some social website – copyvio report: [4] & [5]. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cyril Burt

removing copyrighted (though I have not seen the source so cannot say) material from Cyril Burt is understandable, to hid what is, obviously in the public domain, is not. Please explain your reasoning? With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 08:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It's okay to use the quotation, but it doesn't make sense to leave it in without the preceding prose, as there's no context. If you think the quotation is a good fit please go ahead and re-add it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Dianaa - I'm feeling a bit as if Kafka had just dropped by. You invited me to leave a message on your talk page, then deleted it immediately when I did. I hope this one doesn't suffer the same fate. What I asked you previously was to let me know the details of the edit you made. For reasons I don't understand, when I try to look at the edit I get this message: "You cannot view this diff because one or both of the revisions have been removed from the public archives. Details can be found in the deletion log for this page." I have no idea where to find the deletion log - but I just wished to see precisely what it was you felt I had added that was a copyright infringement. Having looked - without learning much - at the Wikipedia page on Copyright, I thought that quoting two or three sentences from a book of 156 pages was within the bounds of what was permitted. I'd appreciate an answer rather than a summary deletion, please. Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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. Our copyright policy is stricter than copyright law, as we don't permit any copying at all. Everything you add here should be written in your own words. Brief quotations are okay, but this wasn't a quotation, as there were no quotation marks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Dianaa Thank you for providing the link to the bot report and the deletions you made. I can now see that I cut and pasted rather more than I had supposed, and if that is in fact an infringement of the Wikipedia copyright policy that please accept my apologies. I know it will not do any good to mention that Dr Geoff Webb is happy for his blogs to be quoted in Wikipedia, since I have no intention of asking him to try to give the properly worded Wikipedia licence in a form that would satisfy you, for such a small excerpt from his work.

However, it is factually incorrect for you to say that "there were no quotation marks": a substantial part of the words flagged up by the bot were in quotation marks, and I believe they were properly referenced to their original author, rather than the website on which it was cited (though as I still can't see the pre-edit version I can't be entirely sure of the reference). And you'll also see that the bot flagged the words "Emeritus Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Cambridge" as having been copied. Can you think of a way that I might have written that "in my own words"?

It's a pity that I now feel thoroughly disincentivised to edit Wikipedia. I was trying to add balance to the article on Cyril Burt, as the views prominently quoted in it included those of Arthur Jensen, who believed that black people were born less intelligent than American whites, and J. Philippe Rushton, who headed the Pioneer Fund, a neo-Nazi organisation. Thomas Peardew (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct, part of what you added was a properly punctuated quotation. Job titles and names of schools do not need to be paraphrased. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just want to clear up a couple points. (1) User:Diannaa/Copyright is not my talk page; it's a page where I've stored pre-made messages that I use in my copyright work. You should not be posting messages to me there. My talk page is located at User talk:Diannaa. (2) I see you have had a Wikipedia account since 2009, but it might still be of benefit to you to learn more about how to edit Wikipedia. In particular, how to cite your sources; how to format citations; how to properly post a message to another user; and to not copy work that is the property of others. If you wish to learn more about how to contribute here, this page is a good place to start. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Dionysus

Thanks for taking care of the attribution on Dionysus. I suppose I should have done it myself, but I was hoping that the other editor would take the initiative there. Paul August ☎ 00:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The hint was intended for them as well — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed paid editing

Hi Diannaa. You cleaned up some copyvios from Panthera Group so I'd figured I'd ask you about this. Looking at the article as well as some of the other contributions made by Dopefornerds on both Wikipedia and Commons kinda of give the impression (at least to me) that these might be undisclosed paid contributions. So, I was wondering if you think this might be the case, and what's the best thing to do next if you do. Some of the uploads (like File:Gabriel-Barrazza.webp) claimed as "own work" seem questionable and more likely to be (professionally taken) PR photos, possibly submitted by clients trying either get new articles created or existing articles improved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't usually get involved in undisclosed paid editing - I think I would start by talking with them on their talk page or at a minimum using the {{uw-coi}} template, which goes over what they need to do if they are a paid editor. I've gone over the images and nominated a couple for deletion as copy vio — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and for the advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Question on image license

Hi I was wondering if you could help me with a image license question I had. The article Kathy Tran does not have a picture. I found one on the Virginia house website here, would that fit the description of government work to be usable on commons? Sorry if this is out of the blue you are just the best I know on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but the page is marked as Copyright. Individual states copyright their web pages, except for sometimes California and Florida. Look for the © symbol, or a link to "terms and conditions" or "copyright", to find the copyright status of webpages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well poo! I will remember that for the future. Thank you for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arms Newutopia.gif

Hi. Can you please return this deleted-as-copyvio file? With the correct tags it passes standard fair use in New Utopia. Replace whatever licensing it had with {{Non-free fair use}} and let me take care of the fair use rationale. Thanks! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not going to do that, as the image has no source information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Almost certainly the official website, which had (click "products") the image around the time of deletion and still has it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you need me then? Just start over. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine. I initially assumed the metadata wasn't garbage. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential COPYVIO Wilmington insurrection of 1898

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of copyright content in Wilmington insurrection of 1898, which is a rather lengthy article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There are several large quotations in the article that skew the results. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Diannaa, thanks for your tireless efforts in checking and removing copyright violations. Woodlot (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for help from Philip Sutton (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa

I see that you helped me by inserting the following attribution in the Climate change page. But I can't work out where that information ended up. It seems it didn't go into the main page. Where/how did you insert the information? Via which tab on the Climate change page?

13:38, 1 February 2019‎ Diannaa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (108,894 bytes) -68‎ . . (→‎Study of past climates: Attribution: content in this section was copied from Paleoclimatology on January 30, 2019. Please see the history of that page for full attribution.)

The edit summary is the attribution. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for details — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hindsight Bias

Yup. Got lazy. Problematic content totally rewritten Regutten (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Peter Attia Podcast

Hello, Diannaa. Thank you for spending so much of your time reading other people contributions and taking care of copyright rights on the Wikipedia. But the mention of names and titles can't be under copyright law, and avoiding naming the podcast episodes is clearly an over-extension of copyright rules. Check Petter Attia podcast to see how he clearly names his podcast episodes. He even use this naming in the <title> tag of every episode website. — Diego Cerdán (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I thought about that, but decided these are more like episode descriptions than episode titles, so I took them out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Kondele

Hello Diannaa, (talk). You recently copyedited my article Kondele and made sweeping deletions citing copyright violations. I have tried to access the deleted sections through the Kondele: Revision history to no avail. Kindly let me know how I can access so that I can rewrite and correctly cite the sections that were considered copyright violations. Thank you. User: ObongiFrank (Talk) 04:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)~

Hazrat Data Mehboob Shah Wali

Dear, Sir

I want to you will developed the page Draft:Hazrat Data Mehboob Shah Wali by move by you with a article page.I hope you will do it very soon. Rural3857 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to help with this project. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for letting me know that sources must be paraphrased rather than copied. I will re-visit the edits I made and change them accordingly. Mideastprofessor (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Stella Maris College (Manly)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for being so vigilant with copyright. On this occasion related to the Stella Maris College (Manly) page, you deleted content that you quite reasonably believed to be in breach of copyright but I am actually an agent of the College authorised to create a Wikipedia page for us (and as the former copyright officer you'd think I would have thought about copyright - but no!). The original College page was very poor quality information created by someone only loosely connected with the College and without our authority to create the entry, who then left altogether. I put up the content you deleted as a stop gap measure until I have time to create a really good page, which is more of a long term project for now. Is there any process to get permission to use the text from the website until I can devote some time to the Wikipedia page? Thanks, DOnna. Donna stimson (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)