Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Diannaa

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SporkBot (talk | contribs) at 22:19, 6 January 2021 (Replace or disable a template per TFD outcome; no change in content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65

Vivienne Goonewardena

Hello Diannaa. I would like to admit that I am severely confused by this persistent copyright issue. The site from which some of this base information comes from is really a timeline of events, and without a timeline of events, surely the Wikipedia site would be severely jumbled. I would like to further this page, but as soon as I do, I am told that I have a 'copyright strike'- How do I know if my work is all good until I post it (and am subsequently striked). Furthermore, if the only option for me is to to get permission, I have done so (https://twitter.com/Sant1agoSchmitt/status/1054767055566725120), as shown there. However, I am seemingly unable to get someone who lives on the other side of the globe and I have never met to spend more time than that response. The writer simply will never go into more depth and spend time sending an entire permission email to wikipedia on some work he wrote in 1998. So, Diannaa, I hope you can see the deadlock situation that this wikipedia page is in- either the permission given on twitter (and highlighted in the link to the tweet above) suffices, or there is really no way to further this wikipedia page, meaning that it will be left in a state that does not recognise the true notability of the subject of the article. Hope to hear back soon JamesSmith1988 


(talk) 18:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but we cannot host copyright content on Wikipedia without the copyright holder's permission in writing. Such permission must be sent to the OTRS team so it can be kept on file as documentation. The Twitter post is not helpful, as it does not specify a license. Regardless of the copyright issue, a post at ancestry.com cannot be considered a scholarly encyclopedic source for a Wikipedia article. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft article wholesale deletion

Article Draft:Microsoft MakeCode Are draft articles subject to editor deletion of perceived copyright material? In your effort, you deleted material which is clearly under an MIT license as publicly stated on GitHub. Put to the point, the article is in draft so it is by definition unfinished, in a state of non-submission. You left the page such that there are broken reference tags and other artifacts. I'm afraid if you persist, we will have to seek arbitration. Please note that I have asked Microsoft to provide additional information under a wikipedia-suitable license, please refrain from additional deletions if you see such suitable materials as they must be reviewed in a methodical fashion per policies.

And please, please use the article talk page for documenting your actions. If they are not documented, it is perceived as vandalism rather than editorial work.Kittyba (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kittyba: Copyright applies to all parts of the site (not just submitted articles). Policy is "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed with the source url in the edit summary if possible." Unless and until the Wikimedia Foundation receives notification that Microsoft waives their copyright on the pages they say are copyrighted (such as this page, which is not under "an MIT license"), Wikipedia cannot use it.
If you persist in uploading copyrighted material, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I have now repaired the broken citations and added some documentation to the talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda for the greeting and for all the wonderful work you do here! Best wishes, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! - Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
When your goals get bigger, your distractions get smaller. When your goals are smaller, your distractions are amplified.
When you waste time on things that are of no use, you have failed to understand how useful time can be.
Stay productive, and don’t yield to the destructive. — Omar Suleiman

Hey

How do I give credit to the Wikipedia article I copied from after the fact? Do I delete the parts I copied then re-add them with credit given in the edit summary, or is there another way of doing it?

Thanks. MusIbr (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Usually what I do is make a small but useful edit so that I can add the required edit summary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cruise line

Advice please. On this article there is a section Largest Cruise Lines with all the information attributed to and sourced from https://cruisemarketwatch.com/market-share/ (its obtained from the graph at the top of the page by hovering). As I understand it figures like this are not copyvio but the format could be and by using them as our sole source like this I fear we are copying their copyright info and research. Not sure how to proceed Lyndaship (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's any creative content in this data table, and therefore nothing copyrightable. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Escape of Charles II

Thank you for pointing out the rules re copying text from another article. As it happens, in this case the test originated with the Catholic Encyclopedia to which I provided a reference. Unlike the editor who stuck it in the Huddleston article, I at least made some modifications to make the style more appropriate. John Price (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

John Price, if it's a direct copy, you should include the template {{PD-notice}} with your citation please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not a direct copy, I have missed some words out, changed others John Price (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Tips on atribution (related to my edit of the Second Catalinan Conspiracy)

Dear Diannaa, thank you for pointing out the rules (I was unaware of this one) and for the tip(s). I will use attribution when copying in the future. Regards, LuciusHistoricus 04 January 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciusHistoricus (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Nonhematopoietic roles of erythropoietin

Dear Diannaa,

I rewrote the final part of the paragraph with my own words and structure as it follows:

"Furthermore, there is some evidence that EPO may directly affect skeletal muscle remodelling by stimulating myoblast proliferation, survival and muscle regeneration (Ogilvie et al. 2000; Rotter et al. 2008); although several authors observed how EPO administration might also reduce satellite cells population in the long term (Hoedt et al., 2016) and potentially hamper muscle adaptations to exercise in humans (Mazzolari & Papaioannou 2016)."

Can I proceed to the editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.16.90 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No. That's still really close to the source. Here's a link to the original bot report: here. You can see that the new version is still very close to the original wording, presenting the same ideas in the same order using almost identical wording. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much from removing the mentioned entry "re: Australian Flags" and letting me know. I have now recontributed the content regarding the "Flag of the City of Toowoomba" with an original note by myself and the point of interest is sighted/referenced. Thanks heaps and Happy 2019! Dan SkamanDan (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Song lyrics in state article

Hi Diannaa, does this need to be deleted from the history? Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

Done. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

adam piette re Agnes Lehokzky page

not sure where copyright problem is - the 'Poetry' section is purely factual about the subject, not quiting anything or anybody - thanks for working with me on this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adampiette (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that it's the same material presented in exactly the same order using exactly the same wording. Such direct copying is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism notice

Is this custom header appropriate? The note near the bottom of the article clearly states, "This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I see such copying all the time and don't worry about it at all. Please discuss the template with the person who added it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the Article Tulasi Munda

I was kinda in hurry,so edit were gone to mainspace mistakenly.So i didn't watch the page before editing in my own style,thats what happened.Now i am throughly reading your given copyright information,Please add the Part(Heading) "In popular culture" with citations that ware not copied--IshwarTalkGreen tickY 16:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I changed the header "In popular culture" to "Film" since there is only one film at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your warring. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you Diannaa for your information I will do my best to keep to the rules~ thanks again~~ Mitch Mitchellhobbs (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Brain simulation - interest about content discussion

Hi Diannaa,

thanks for raising the discussion, whether my recently added topics (details see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brain_simulation&oldid=876600848):

  • NEural Simulation Tool - (NEST) Software
  • Artificial general intelligence (AGI)

should be part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_simulation or not.

Since I am obviously have a different understanding, what attributes / referes to "Brain simulation" - could we have the discussion here or in case you have concerns - would you agree if I place questions below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brain_simulation

Beside of the question whether the above topics in general attibutes / referes to "Brain simulation", I would be happy If I could convince you, that my content is not just a copy but a cross reference to Wikipedia Articles in the neighbourhood describing content or activities with at least partly overlaping targets :-)

Kind regards Knowledgebase_S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgebase S (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  1. When copying withing Wikipedia, please provide attribution in your edit summary. This is done by stating in your edit summary where you got the material. Here's a sample edit summary: copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
  2. Please don't copy from your source documents; it's better if you summarize and paraphrase, as it makes a better article and better fits our non-free content guideline and copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK - understood, thanks for friendly welcome and the hints - I shortend it and used the edit summary as defined. Regarding copy from external source - hope short citates are fine - especially if the Author is willing to get citated, I won't reinvent the wheel  :-). Knowledgebase S (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Question

Dianna,

Good morning I have permission to add a picture to a page from the author of the book where the picture comes from, below is a copy of her response.


Sure, as long as you only use the picture and link back to my blog that’s fine.


Thanks.

Jo



Creator of the Food Blog Jo Cooks

Author of 30 Minute One Pot Meals

Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter | Google+ | Instagram


Is her response good enough to add the picture?

Thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No it is not, because it does not specify a license. Also, 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) 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna

Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What the ...

I added a LOT of historical information and rewrote a lot of it and you simply DELETED it and I can't even view what I had. This is unacceptable. You need to return the information and allow me to at least rewrite it more before you purge the material. History is hardly copyrighted, but for the sake of your preferences, I will happily rewrite it, but it is difficult to do when I spent hours pulling sources together from disparate locations. -- Avanu (talk)

I have temporarily undone the revision deletion to give you the opportunity to re-write the material in your own words. Here is a link to the copyvio detector where you can view the overlap so you can see what all needs to be re-written. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I spoke with Alan Davenport (the author), and he and I will be reviewing the material together tomorrow morning. I can also formally obtain his permission if needed. -- Avanu (talk)
If the copyright holder wishs to release the 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I met with Alan Davenport this morning and he said he will send the copyright release email to donate that verbiage that is currently on the Historical Society website. Just letting you know. -- Avanu (talk)
Received an email from Davenport indicating that the release email has been sent as indicated at WP:Consent. I don't know what the process is beyond that, but I assume they will forward their findings to you. -- Avanu (talk)
Typically an OTRS team member will review the email and will contact me once this has been done. At that point the content can be restored. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Roswell, New Mexico (TV series)

See here for probable copyvios in episode summaries. Much of the summaries are cribbed from here and here, though there is some rewriting. There may be an original source somewhere, but I couldn't find it yet. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, the use of your powers is amazing. You are a Wonder! :) - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Improper deletions of information in the public domain: Third opinion requested

Third opinion (WP:3) requested for Improper deletions of information in the public domain 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corker1 (talk • contribs)

Corker1, As much as I dislike re-discussing archived discussions, I will reply here. The interpretations that Diannaa and Crow presented in that discussion are consistent with US copyright law and Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. The simple fact that other organizations may care less about copyright rules than we do does not make anything they publish or republish public domain. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber:, This discussion is not about whether organizations do or do not care about copyright rules. My last entry in the archived discussion stated:
The original source of information for the deleted content is the "Nauck: A Neighborhood History" historical marker at https://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=2504, which a person photographed and submitted to HMdb.org in 2007. The marker states that the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority erected the marker.
Immediately following the deleted content, the marker contains the following statement:
"Text courtesy of Dr. Alfred O. Taylor, Jr."
This statement makes it clear that the the author of the content (Dr. Taylor) placed the content in the public domain as a courtesy to the Northern Virginia Park Authority. Any assumed copyright for the historic marker (which actually contains no copyright statement) cannot cover information that another person or entity had provided to the copyright holder as a courtesy.
The Arlington County government copied Dr. Taylor's content (with a few corrections) into its "Nauck Action Plan", which the Arlington County Boad approved in 2014. The "Nauck Action Plan" does not attribute the content to either Dr. Taylor or to the Northern Virginia Park Authority. The Arlington County government has therefore determined that the content is in the public domain.
Please therefore restore the deleted content to the article, if you are able to do so. Corker1 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2018
The issue is therefore whether the removed content is actually under copyright or whether it is in the public domain. The original author of the content (Dr. Alfred O. Taylor, Jr.) contributed the content to a public organization (the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority) that placed the content on a historic marker. The historic marker states "Text courtesy of Dr. Alfred O. Taylor, Jr." It therefore appears that the content is in the public domain, as the Park Authority should not be able to hold a copyright on text that the original author donated to the Authority as a courtesy. Please therefore state whether you consider the deleted text can be be under copyright or whether the text is in the public domain because of the donation. Corker1 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Corker1: For a release under a free license to be valid, it must be clear and specific. For something to be released into the public domain, I'd usually want them to use the words "public domain" when they release the content. "Courtesy of" text or media is generally not to be considered in the public domain, and is often published under a restrictive license incompatible with Wikipedia. Without a clear, specific, and verifiable release, we can't use the content. There are, of course, some exceptions to this rule, such as when content is very old or very simple. I do not see any exception that would apply in this case unless you can show that the text was first published before 1989 and was never registered with the US Copyright Office. You could also find the copyright holder and request their permission to use the content. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you for clarifying the possible copyright issues discussed above. Based on the discussion on this page and on its archived page, I have revised the section that is the topic of this discussion (History section of Nauck, Virginia). I have paraphrased possibly copyrighted information and replaced some of that information with paraphrased information from other sources. There are no long strings of information from a single source. Please use my Talk page to discuss any issues that the rewritten section may contain. Corker1 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's rise to power

I would ask that you consider making the semi-protection permanent (require autoconfirmed) for this article. It has enough persistent v throughout the year and watchlist editors can then spend their time doing something else. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll think about that. Right now I've got it protected through to the weekend to keep the school children away. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, as someone with great experience in that area could you clarify if and when external list data becomes copyrighted please? Case in point is the copypasted list from [1] into Unified Payments Interface (see history). For the record, I don't blame the good-faith editor and have already reverted the list as too-detailed secondary information (not primarily because of copyright concerns). But I'd be interested in a generally clearer understanding between permissible list usages within our projects and the invalid usage of copypasted lists that may be creative works. Similar situations occur for me every few months and I have read some past discussions (years ago), but still have only a blurry concept of how to handle such lists and where to draw the line between valid and invalid. GermanJoe (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple lists that do not contain any creative content are not considered copyrightable - for example a list of organizations or a chronological list of guests on a TV show. Subjective lists should not be copied verbatim. Articles such as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women show top ten only. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess the problem can be sometimes to assess the creativity behind a specific list. But thank you for the advice, that makes the general concept a bit clearer for me and will help me for future cases. GermanJoe (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Betty Blayton-Taylor page - copyright issues

Hello, Diannaa, I am new to posting on another users page and I hopt that I am going about it the right way.

Thanks for helping me with my late sister's page that I am working on. I was hoping to cite art critic's, journalist's and art historian's remarks and review of my sister's work on her Wikipedia page. I am not comfortable paraphrasing their comments. If I clearly indicate that I am posting a quote from a critic, journalist or art historian, and provide attribution ,would that be contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines? If so, would I be able to use a single phases or sentences with quotation marks and attribution?

Also, I uploaded to Wiki commons a photograph of Betty and then added it to her page. I am the executor of her estate and this photograph was among her archival material. I talked to one organization that posted that picture on their website and they informed me that they got permission from Betty to use it prior to her passing, so it is my understanding that the estate owns the copyright since permission was requested of her while she was still living. The photo seems to have been removed from the Wiki Commons, and I am wondering if someone else is claiming to have the copyright to this photograph.

Any information that you can provide to me on either of these issues will be greatly appreciated. Finally it appears that some users ask you to review the texts of their posting prior to putting them on the page. Is this something that you do, and if so would you be willing to review what I write?

Again, thank you very much. Blayton (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Blayton (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Blayton. File:Betty Blayton Photo.jpg was deleted from Commons by a Commons administrator named c:User:Jcb. Commons is technically a separate project from Wikipedia and has its own policies and guidelines, which means you need to ask about the file there. I'm sure if you post a message at c:User talk:Jcb that he will explain what you need to do to have the file restored.
As for the other parts of your question, I'm sure Diannaa will provide more specific advice, but bascially short quoted text can be used as long as it's done according to MOS:QUOTE; longer blocks of quoted text, however, are hard to deal with and in such cases it's usually better to paraphrase what the cited source is saying in your own words. You need to be careful of WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE when doing this because it might otherwise be flagged as a copyright violation.
Finally, even though I'm sure you're intentions are nothing but good, you need to be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since you are trying to write/add content about your sister. The best thing for you to do would be to follow WP:COIADVICE and limit you edits to minor corrections, etc. and then request other changes be made by using Template:Request edit on Talk:Betty Blayton-Taylor. You can find out more how to do this at Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi. Is it possible for you to delete these three files (1, 2, 3) since they have all been replaced by better versions and are not used in any articles anymore. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 05:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Keivan.f. The place to go to nominate these files for deletion is WP:FFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel Figgis

Thanks Diannaa. Hopefully I'm on the right page to reply. I've been reading as much as I can on the rules, and will be adding new content at a much slower pace from here on. Jmulwik (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dealtoy

Dianna, You sent me a message that my changes to Finance Executives International were deleted due to copyright violations. I have no recollection of ever editing that page. I clicked through the link on the e-mail and don't see what the edits were. I would like to understand what happened. Thank you. Dealtoy (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dealtoy. I removed some content on Sarbanes–Oxley Act . Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying!Dealtoy (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please review this edit. Discussion is here. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Commented there. By the way there's no need to ping - send an email - message me here. I was at work and unable to respond. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I restored the content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Quasi doppelgänger

You may want to keep an eye on this just in case it turns into an impersonation vandal. Behaviour is a little odd at present.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Account was blocked on January 13. LTA — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Human Interaction Proof

Hi Diannaa. Could you take a look at this and check whether it contains any copyvios when you have some time? Looks like a first type attempt at creating an article by a new editor and some of the formatting (before I did some clean up) made it seem as if the content was copied and pasted from somewhere besides User:SelimLakhdar/sandbox. It could be nothing, but so many sources are cited and the content is quite techinical; so, I'm not sure how or where to begin looking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've cleaned it as best I can. This should probably be redirected to CAPTCHA as most of the content is already covered there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking this. I asked about the article at various WikiProjects because I figured nobody would've been really watching a newly created page like this. So far, the only responses have been at WT:WPCS#Human Interaction Proof and WT:COMP#Human Interaction Proof. Do you know of a good way to centralize these discussions on the article talk page? I've never used {{Moved discussion}} before; so, I'm not quite sure how it works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Declined revdel

Thanks Diannaa for picking up my error on Transport for Victoria. Sorry to trouble you! Triptothecottage (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

G8-exempt question

Hi, Diannaa. Closeapple asked me on File talk:Camp-dubois-start.jpg why I added a {{G8-exempt}} tag instead of deleting it after F8ing the file page. You told me a while back to only G8 file talk pages with {{WPUS}} tags added by Kumioko, but I don't understand why file talk pages are otherwise kept (unless it's to easily retrieve accidentally-deleted high-risk images). Feel free to answer on the file talk page, so Closeapple will see it too. All the best, Miniapolis 20:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The wikiproject may still have an interest in the file even though it is hosted on the Commons. User talk:Diannaa/Archive 41#F8-G8 deletion question. They are exempt from G8 deletion per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Letizia Battaglia

Thanks for your comments, as a newbie I appreciate guidelines on edits. I'll try to e-edit withing the guidelines. Herrpierre (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Siboni

Hey Diannaa (or TPS), hope all is well. As you are basically one of the great copyright experts on Wikipedia, would you mind looking over the page Daniel Siboni? All of it seems to be copied from his official biography on his webpage [2] (which is copyrighted at the bottom) but I don't know which came first. The page has been tagged for issues since 2015 and from the looks of it, it would have to be blown up and completely reconstructed. I've done some searches for sources and all that comes up are passing mentions or his own biography/promotion pages. It is wayyyy past when I should be editing so I don't think I can deal with this for much longer but I have trimmed so much promotional and copied content. However, the issue is pressing since a COI editor recently started editing the page and is likely to re-add the content. I understand if you are too busy, I can pick it up tomorrow. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's impossible to say which came first, since the artist's home page was never archived by the Wayback Machine and we've had some of the content since the article was created in 2009. I strongly suspect it was copied though I can't prove it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Walter Hugo Khouri

Hi Diannaa,

Your decision to hide the revision was pretty harsh in my opinion and giving me the opportunity to look at the edits on a clear manner in order to make the necessary changes would have been nice. Sending me the removed material through email wont help me make an honest review of my previous edits since the information will be all scattered out. Is there a way you could send me the whole article I had written before your first reversal so I can make a better assessment and include the sources?

I didnt think I needed to add sources to the Awards and Nominations sections since clicking on the award link itself will lead you to the confirmation of the claim. For example for sources on his two nominations to the Palm d'Or prize just clicking the link of the prize will lead you to it.

The words I used on his biography sections were my own and perhaps you could have given me to opportunity to polish it further if you think it was needed instead of preventing me from being able to click on the prev link of your edits nor the edits I did which where line crossed. Is the second time you decide to hide the revision which is pretty harsh in my opinion and does not give me the opportunity to look at the edits on a clear mannerMarc Frier (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  1. I can definitely send you a copy of an old revision of the article, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first.
  2. Each award should have an independent source that shows he won that award. A wikilink to a Wikipedia page about that award or about that film is not adequate sourcing. So for example for the Palm d'Or for Noite Vazia we need <ref>{{cite web |title=Noite Vazia |url=https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/films/noite-vazia |publisher=Festival de Cannes |accessdate=13 January 2019 |language=en |date=1965}}</ref>
  3. Copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical. For the same reason, I normally do the revision deletion immediately, so that each case is completely finished when I leave the page. One obvious solution for is for you to stop violating our copyright policy, and you won't have that problem any more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have activated my wikipedia email. Thanks for your understanding and I will keep doing my best with rewording and sourcing my edits. ThanksMarc Frier (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, Thanks for sending me the email. If I actually copied/pasted the Awards and Nominations section you reversed from https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Hugo_Khouri how do I give a source for it if I put it back on?Marc Frier (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, because it's a wiki. Each award should have an independent source that shows he won that award. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

France at Normandy

You reverted my edit on Normandy landings, but "Free France" became the "Provisional Government of France" on 3 June, and the Normandy landings took place on 6 June? Why shouldn't it be Prov. Government instead of FFF?--Havsjö (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A little research shows you're right. I have undone my edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits by another user

Hi Dianaa. I hope it's okay to post this question to you here - you once posted a useful hint on my page and I have just noticed that you once posted something on this user's page that I have been looking at. I was alerted to some of their edits after they edited something verging in a somewhat dodgy way (just within the rules perhaps, but at least trying to represent their POV), and noticed that they rarely provided edit summaries (and if so, uninformative ones), sometimes copy and paste info from one article into another without checking the citations, which get messed up, etc. Now having a look at their Talk page (user page is blank), I can see that anything unfavourable (e.g. a copyright notice from you, and a level 3 warning from someone else) is quickly removed, which makes me doubt their intentions. I don't want to post the name here, but I suspect that if I post a friendly reminder about including edit comments, etc. it will be removed and ignored, so do you have any other suggestions? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I think I'll try posting a message on his talk page first; also I have just found my way to the admin's talkboard so perhaps that's the way to go? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying. Since you haven't told me who/what you are talking about, here's some general advice. (1) Start by talking to the user, either on the article talk page or on their user talk page, whichever seems the most appropriate. (2) Next step is to attempt dispute resolution using one of the venues/methods discussed at WP:DR. You shouldn't take content disputes to admin boards, as admins don't adjudicate content disputes. (3) If there's a behavioural aspect that you think needs admin intervention, then go to the appropriate admin venue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Diannaa, and apologies for my delay — I have been busy with other things (both Wikipedian and real life!). I did post a friendly message on his talk page requesting him to remember to include edit summaries when he edits, and also to provide attributions and not break citations when he copies from other articles. As per the pattern mentioned above, he just edited his talk page to remove what I said, with an edit comment saying "ok I will do more attributions". (I haven't included his name here as I'm not sure if this is acceptable practice, and also thought I should at least attempt to handle this myself...?) I think that there is a behavioural aspect but perhaps I'll just keep a watch for another few days first. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Geir Bjorklund article

The Geir Bjørklund article has had ~1500 edits since created in 2011. There are two accounts, Vitalpost and Gammelost, and at least 20 times that an IP address worked on the article. All of the IPs are single-purpose accounts, often editing for only a day or two. My suspicion is that all of this activity is Geir Bjorklund writing about himself. Is there any appropriate action in this situation? David notMD (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. Doc James has visited the article and added a COI template at the top. I've removed some material copied from elsewhere online, specifically his Researchgate profile and more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to note that editing your own article or an article where you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged but it's not forbidden. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How do I fix copyrighted statements that were removed?

Hi Dianaa, you left a comment on my talk page about your removal of a chunk of content that I had put up for the article I created for Photoactive yellow protein. However, when I go to the history page for that article, all versions are inaccessible before your edits. I would like to compare my original version, to review the removed content and see how I can rewrite it in my own words, but I cannot see what you had removed! Why did this happen, and can you please help me see what you removed? I spent a lot of time preparing that article, and it makes me reticent to spend more time adding content to Wikipedia (on topics that I am professionally knowledgeable about) if my work simply vanishes. (Of course I understand the need to avoid using copywritten material, and I try my best to reword things in my own language; I'd like to also learn what I did wrong so that I can improve the value and efficiency of my Wikipedia contributions). MM (talk) 15:04, 14 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Bracknell article

Excuse me asking for your time but I am unsure of the procedure for copyvios and I have noticed that you have dealt with them in the past. On the Bracknell page I recently reverted two edits as test/vandalism. A further look at the material reverted raised the possibility of copyvio. An internet search came up with a candidate. I then tagged the talk page as best I could, but I am not sure that it can be attended to as I have already removed the problem content from the article. A further problem is that looking at the IP's talk page history there is a suspicion of a school being involved. Yours.SovalValtos (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please also see Shiplake College. I have not removed the suspect content this time.SovalValtos (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There were some copyright song lyrics on Bracknell whic have been removed and revision-deleted. The stuff about gangs appears to be copied from a Wikipedia mirror. Not sure what I am supposed to be seeing at Shiplake College, need more info please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Just about the Bracknell article first. I now see that the revisions have been deleted but the edit deleting the revisions did not show on my watchlist and no time is given for when they were done in the Bracknell: Revision history. I am trying to understand the system, particularly potential time-scales, so that I do not waste an admin's time in future, nor a copyvio remaining. Once in the past I recall trying to notify a possible copyvio but not getting a response in days. At least I now know that my reverting the edits has not caused a problemSovalValtos (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Shiplake College; In the Exam results section the text is either a close paraphrase or copy vio of the text in the webpage linked [3]. I hope that suffices.SovalValtos (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I will have a look when I get home from work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Breaking (martial art) content

They were sourced by footnotes. Also, I was told short quotes are allowed. Why are you removing my contents. -bearberserk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearberserk (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, even if it's "abnormal" way to write an article by stringing together a bunch of quotations, it's still allowed, right? Anyway, I paraphrased all quotations. Also, I added a new source "Mas Oyama's Essential Karate" except that I don't know how to footnote it on wiki. It's not on Google Book anyway and I don't know the page number, but I still mentioned it anyway. That book has a Tameshiwari drawing that emphasizes the shoulder being pushed for Knife Hand strike. -bearberserk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearberserk (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, short quotations are allowed. Make sure you put quotation marks around them; don't just paste them in. For help in how to format your citations, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Please include a citation with all you edits that shows what your source was. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A Portuguesa

"these colors all fail wcag 2.0 when checked using https://contrastchecker.com/"

If that's the case, would you say the same on several other anthem articles (e.g. Meniń Qazaqstanym, Azərbaycan marşı, Men – Tyva Men) with a similar type of formatting?

I would like your opinion if the lyrics formattig should return to a plain formatting without tables or colours like La Marseillaise. (Maybe we should even start a discussion about this?) 50.194.62.1 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to help with these tasks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Apologies. Your main interest is primarily taking care of copyright stuff, so I'll let you be. I shouldn't assume that you're knowledgeable in things like the formattings of anthem lyrics tables. 64.134.140.36 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Well of course I know how; I just don't have time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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."[1]

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

  1. ^ http://dot.ca.gov/use.html

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: [4], [5] and [6]. :) 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)

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)

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: [7] & [8]. 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)
There are seven sources on the Internet that explicitly show the whole title of each podcast episode and a separate description bellow. This need for interpretation is why copyright bots are not programmed to freely revert the Wikipedia but to call wise humans to the rescue. Also, I don't understand why changing the source to a finish website that is web scraping content from Libsyn. Could you revert the deletion? Diego Cerdán (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, done. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. The podcast is quite scientific and the Wikipedia is very useful for understanding topics and terminology. — Diego Cerdán (talk) 13:12, 5 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)

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)~

Hello ObongiFrank. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can re-work the page. Please do this immediately so the violating revisions can be promptly re-hidden. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 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)

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. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Accessing previous revisions

Hello Dianna. Thanks for your help in improving the quality of the article José Luis Cordeiro. As per your advice, I wish to rewrite some paragraphs using paraphrasing. It seems, however, that I cannot access the previous revisions of the paragraphs in question. I think you may have used the "Change visibility of selected revisions" control mechanism. Can you please undo that control? The paragraphs in question already contained significant additional work, over and above the text that had been inappropriately copied from sources. Naively, I didn't make any independent copy of that work, since I assumed (incorrectly, I now see) that the revision history would remain accessible at all times. I am learning! David W. Wood (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you the two deleted paragraphs via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks! David W. Wood (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Elias Hansen

Diannaa- I received your message that my "addition to Elias Hansen has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder." Please be aware that I have submitted a Fair Use rationale: "Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws and the more stringent Wikipedia policy because: It illustrates an educational article about the artist that the sculpture represents. This image is not replaceable with a non-copyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value. The use of this image will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. Multiple items of non-free content are not used as this one item can convey equivalent significant information. Copy write tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use, i.e. Non-free 3D art. The name of each article (a link to each article is also included) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item is displayed. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. This Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic. The Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the sculpture." "This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) whoever holds copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Per § 107 it is believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright. It is believed that the use of a picture (1) to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, (2) to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or (3) to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokyhallow (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

My message was regarding some of the prose you included in the article, not the image. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I misunderstood the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5A1:24B0:75AE:3A02:C9AB:F5E5 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Palwankar Baloo

Hi, you must get fed up of seeing me! Thanks for the clean up you did a couple of weeks ago (thread higher up here at the moment). I've just looked at Palwankar Baloo and I think it is largely a very close paraphrase of the 2003 book by Ramachandra Guha which we cite there. I can only see alternate pages of the book around pp 80-88 and I'm not sure how it could be rephrased but we seem to be lifting entire sentences from it. Could you perhaps find time to advise? I have a strong suspicion that the problems will be throughout the article but have to go out now. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it's the body of the article that worries me, not the lead. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. Unfortunately Google won't let me view the inside of that book. I suggest you list the article at WP:CP for cleanup. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for your remark on my contribution in the Supersaturation article. Just for the record, I never thought I was infringing the copyright rules!! Anyway, I'm fine with your edit, and I will take this into account for my future contributions.

Best regards

Jacques

Hi Dianna

Thanks for your note regarding my edits to the Jane's World Comic Wikipedia page. My name is Paige Braddock, I am the creator of the comic strip. I uploaded some content that I used on my website. I will make sure to paraphrase the language. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Thanks! --Pb9 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Citations Federico J. González Tejera

Hi Diannaa,
thank you for your help.

Sebastian303 73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian303 73 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

problem with troll

Hello, On en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ak-74 there is a troll saying my one line edits is vandalism. raf910 is the user name. I have proof picture i placed f9 copyright notice on was stolen from a website that didnt give permission. I gave a link, but the person deleted it said it was ip vandalism. Can you please intervene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.68.23.149 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you suspect an image is copyright, place the deletion tag on the file page, not the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
It appears you mean this image. The image is in the public domain, and is available here. We've had this image since 2006, so it's highly likely to have been copied to multiple locations online by now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Chinese New Zealanders

Greetings Diannaa, In your recent masking of copyvio material from the page history of List of Chinese New Zealanders, I think the intended target should have been all the 23 Dec edits further down. Could you please take another look? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

These are also done too now. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Miscanthus Giganteus

Please don't remove quotations from articles that are free to cite. All my quotations are from articles released under a Creative Commons licence. These quotations also serves an important purpose: If the reader is interested in a particular piece of information, he or she can check out the quotation, to get detailed info straigth from the source. Using quotations in this way make it possible to read the article faster, as only the most important information is spelled out in the main text, while checking out particular areas of interest gets you accurate info fast and easy. The alternative is to build all or most of that info into the main article, making it unneccesary long and convoluted.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason I removed the quotations is because Wikipedia aims to be freely copyable and thus tries to limit the amount of non-free content we include. Please see WP:NFCC for more information. If you are quoting from a compatibly licensed source, you could include the template {{CC-notice}} as part of your citation to provide attribution and alert the reader that this material is okay to copy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:North Clifton

Hello, can you comment or advise on this please? There is a quote taken from here but via this page where it is attributed. It's quite a large quote and I am uncertain if it is appropriate, even though it is clear it is a quote. Earwig report. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a really big quote, but being from 1853, it's public domain, so it's okay to leave it in from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, course! Many thanks. Eagleash (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

UMS-Wright article

Hello, thanks for correcting some of the things on my article. This is my first article so I am new to the process. I did change back the sub-headings on the History section because they need to be separate. I apologize for violating any rules. It is very difficult to find non-copyrighted pictures of such an obscure topic. Almost all of my article was paraphrased. The lists were not because there was no other way to write them. The descriptions of the clubs (which I saw that you deleted) were the only things that were not paraphrased. I will try and fix that. I also saw that you deleted a picture of the Azalea Trail Maids from the clubs section. This photo was from the Wikipedia Commons and was on the main page of the Azalea Trail Maids, so I am certain it was not copyrighted. Lastly, Is there any way I can re-upload the photos of the football and cross country teams you took down without getting a copywrite strike? Thanks for all of your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpcpp2022 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the images, I removed them because there's not enough room for so many in an article of this size. If you were to view it in a Chromebook like I do, you would see what I mean. If any deletions were done, it was at the Commons, which is a separate wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

UMS-Wright article

One last thing (sorry) I just saw that you deleted the "affiliations" subsection. This section was copy-and-pasted, but there was no way to paraphrase it (besides simply changing the order of the institutions) because it was simply a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpcpp2022 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not have removed this section, but I am not going to restore it. The prose says "accredited by" not affiliations so each accreditation needs a source independent of the subject. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:uw-copyright-new

Control copyright icon Hello Dianna, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to David Ward (diplomat) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -IndyNotes (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. However, I wrote this content myself, adapting it from this compatibly licensed webpage of the UK Government. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Please note that such use must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--IndyNotes (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
You will note I placed the legally required attribution at the bottom of the article, and the license I stated matches that provided on the source webpage. Not sure what you think I did wrong? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Help in write a new article

Greetings I am writing an article for an online stream website, all the articles have written were deleted couple of hours, i need your help in make the article wikipedia compliant and live on wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Ojielu (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to help with this project. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Kiwaka

Hello Diannaa,

I was working on new wikipage for the WikiProject Apps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kiwaka and I got a warning about conflicting versions when I've tried to save. I received a message from you indicating that you've deleted part of the work. I'm relatively new to wiki... can you explain me what I did wrong? Please notice: the page is work in progress, so it looks messy and incomplete.

Kind regards, --Coel Jo (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Coel Jo. Like I noted on your talk page, I removed some copyright content, material you'd copied from elsewhere online. That's not okay, not even in draft space, not even temporarily for editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Sometimes is just easier to copy a bunch of sentences from different sources while creating a new page. These sentences serve as guidelines only and will never make it to the final document. What if I use my sandbox instead? Will that be ok?
Thanks,
Coel Jo (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No, Coel Jo, that is not okay. We can't host copyright material anywhere on this website, not even in sandboxes or drafts. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Will do so. Thank you for the explanation. Coel Jo (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Tag

Really any need for the template? I made it clear in the edit summary when removing the text that the content was being split into multiple articles due to the sheer size of it. Kosack (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kosack. Attribution needs to be provided at the destination articles, not the source article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, I live and learn but WP:DTTR? Simply writing what you did above would have been much more reasonable given the situation. Kosack (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about the template, I am extremely busy right now doing copyright cleanup, with up to 80 reports per day that need to be cleared, representing 4 to 8 hours of work. Hence I resort to templates so as to leave time in my day to go to my day job, the gym, and other real life stuff — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I probably took it harder than I should of as well maybe. Happy editing. Kosack (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa - I wonder if you'd be prepared to look at a file that I have some copyright concerns over. Please see File:Harvey Club Prize silver plate.jpg. It's used on Harvey Club of London, a page I was reviewing as part of my NPP training with Barkeep49. The file has been downloaded from a website used as a source in the article, and the licensing statement says that it's out of copyright because the work is pre-1924. It's a 2013 photograph however - I assume that the editor who uploaded it assumed that because it's an old plate, copyright doesn't apply, but I believe that's wrong.

My question is - what should I do here? I assume that it needs to be deleted, but I've never edited on commons, and Twinkle doesn't seem to be offering me any useful options. Please could you outline the correct action to take? Thanks in advance GirthSummit (blether) 14:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. When you visit the Commons, there's some menu selections in the left column for things like "Nominate for deletion" and "Report copyright violation" and so on. (You may need to activate this in Preferences→Gadgets.) I think this one falls under the category of "No permission" since we have no evidence that the image is released under the stated license. Clicking on that link will automatically nominate the image for deletion and advise the uploader of the nomination. If you need me to do the nomination for you please let me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response - you were right, I needed to activate the options in Gadgets. I found the 'No permission' option and nominated the page for deletion, so hopefully no extra work for you to do. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined revel delete

Hi Diannaa, you recently declined a copyvio revdel delete on Abnormal urinary color, stating that the site is a US government site. The copyright notice of the site in question (https://medlineplus.gov/copyright.html) explicitly states that the "ADAM" section is subject to copyrights. The author has liberally taken data from that "ADAM" section, therefore it should be assumed this is subject to copyright and should be revdel'd. Many thanks. 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jake. I've fixed this mistake. Thanks for pointing it out; I didn't realise that ADAM stuff is what was copied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Dianna,

Campaign pages are sources of public information and do not fall under copy right. I object to the deletion of the article under those pretenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthabauman (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 February 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Justin Klosky

Hello Diannna,

Thank you for all your assistance and how you have been helping me since I joined the Wikipedia community, I'm grateful. Please is the Draft:Justin klosky eligible to be published as an article Ziggy 2milli (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, since it was just deleted about six weeks ago as the subject is not considered notable enough for an article at this time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Klosky — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response what do you think I should do. Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy 2milli (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't help you; the guy is not notable enough for an article. Find some other topic to write about. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Reza Barati article

Hi Diannaa - thanks for your note about the copyright issue in this article, but as I am unable to see what was removed, I am unable to see how I contravened copyright and I'd like to see and understand this. I'm usually very careful about attribution and quotes and I thought that I'd only pulled facts or quoted within quotation marks from this one (which is also used as a citation in 3 other places). Also, it looks as if there are about 11 or 12 revisions now invisible to me, although all of the changes bar your revision were from other sources and are still in the article...? I thought that there was a way of finding out from the page logs, but I can't seem to get anything to show there! Can you please explain how I can see the deleted content? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laterthanyouthink. I already did the revision-deletion - that's why you can't see the removed content any more. I've sent you a copy of the removed paragraph via email. The content is almost identical to material found here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Diannaa. I see that one sentence in particular is almost identical, although the rest is mostly factual and difficult to change the wording too much. (I think I was pretty tired by then and probably copied that sentence intending to express the facts differently and then just forgot before saving.) I will have another go at it later.
It's still curious to me that I don't seem to be able to see any of the changes that I (and one by a bot) made subsequently though, which have remained in the article - or does that just happen automatically when you revert an earlier change? No matter though, I don't suppose that is important. Just curiosity. Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority

Thank you for the edit and for informing me more about "Wikipedia and copyright". I will keep this in mind in future edits on Wikipedia. djeco563 07:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

YNW Melly

Hello Diannaa, 

       I add some update on the page YNW Melly what should I do  Ziggy 2milli (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted information?

Ghalibrev has continued adding huge chunks of information to the Baghdad article, I wonder if it is still copyrighted information? [9] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This huge addition is actually only 446 words - it's mostly citations. I am am not finding any copyvio in the addition, but I have removed it and asked him to visit the talk page first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Matthew H. Todd

I see you've added the quotations for the six principles with open research (which I agree with). However, is there a way to make it look a bit cleaner? I suspect something like a quote box or a block quotation would be a tad more visually appealing. I do believe it is an important section for this scientist since his work has really revolved around openness.

Pkin8541 (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you could convert it to prose instead of a bulleted list and then wrap it in a block quote template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Rules of Origin

Hi Diannaa, I saw you deleted somecontent I posted 27 January. It was correct indeed because I was just trying to use. Now you can see the content of Rules of Origin is more complete. Please leave me some time to finish it and add more content as well as sources. It will take me a couple of weeks, so if you find out some copying without sources, it means I am working on it. Thank you very much...Khuongduy.dinh (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't add copyright content to Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The WTO web pages do not appear to be released under a liberal enough license for us to host their material here unaltered. I have removed some material that you will have to summarise in your own words to meet our copyright requirements. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I understand, I will surely do that for all. The only misunderstanding is that I don't know I should do it before. But please trust me I will improve it.Khuongduy.dinh (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ramakrishna Math and Mission, Bhubaneswar

Muktipada Behera (myself) had added detailed history of Bhubaneswar Ramakrishna Mission, but it is removed. I am working with Ramakrishna Mission. Those contents are in public domain. It is put in RKM website - http://www.rkmbbsr.org:8080/dynamicproj/Page?name=AboutUs Please allow me to add these to wiki for greater good. [10] Muktipada.behera (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[1]

The page is not in the public domain, but is marked at the bottom with a copyright notice. 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) 13:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.rkmbbsr.org:8080/dynamicproj/Page?name=AboutUs

John Palladino

Hi Diannaa, on February 7 you flagged up the article John Palladino as a potential copyright violation. The article creator was a new Wikipedia editor who was unaware of the rules regarding copyright but was acting in good faith. I've rewritten the article, underneath the section blanked off by the copyright notice – would it be possible to check that the rewritten section now passes Wikipedia guidelines, and the offending section completely removed, so that the article can be cleaned up? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I can't do a proper check right now, because the automated tools I use are not available. Last time I checked though, the article was nowhere near ready, with quite a bit of overlap still. I have it on my watch-list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I understand - it's just that it's also up for AfD... I think it will pass and be kept, but it's quite difficult for other editors to evaluate with replicated sources and a big warning over half the page. Richard3120 (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Savvy editors know how to look under the template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd hope that would be the case - unfortunately a lot of editors who vote on the music-related AfDs, both "keep" and "delete" voters, take things at face value on what they see in front of them. Never mind, that's not your problem - thanks anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
One of the tools got repaired this afternoon, so this task is done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa 1

user User:Frank marine is edit the page due to translate from thai article with no english grammar knowledge. I tired to help him prove the article why Wikipeida doen't has a countermeasure to stop this guy edit any page in Wikipedia. Every article that he edit is non-sense and all translate from Thai language from Google Translate with no re-check. I need your help to block him and please check every article that he make which is bullshit article and bullshit action. Thank You 58.8.169.80 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to help you with this problem. I see you've already posted at a noticeboard, so hopefully your concerns will be examined shortly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa

Hi, thanks for the message about the copyright - apologies that was just sloppy writing on my part. I’ll rephrase as necessary. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Diannaa, I’ve since gone back and refiled the copy. Would you mind kindly giving it a quick look over to see whether this is copyright-free? Thanks for the heads-up. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Kingsley (journalist) is now okay from a copyright point of view. Please see your talk page for a list of six other articles where I found violations of our copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material copied from other websites to Wikipedia. Everything you contribute needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I think part of the issue may be my journalistic background where I tend to view things as whether something "ripped" (to use the journalese) will cause a lawsuit. In my two decades of working in the industry, the Mail and others have committed supposed infractions on a far greater scale and have not faced action from IPSO or had a court ruling against them. Applying industry-wide standards on ripping, the points you raise would not even be sent to our in-house counsel for review. But I will of course take your comments on board, and appreciate that I am still new to this platform. I see you have kindly re-filed the copy on the articles you mentioned, so I will assume they are now fine?JamesMatthews01 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
You can't take your experiences from elsewhere and assume the same rules (or propensity to ignore the rules) applies here. For one thing, we don't make our decisions on whether or not to violate someone's copyright on our chances of getting caught or the likelihood of a lawsuit. Please follow the copyright policy of this website, or you will be blocked from editing. All the seven articles I cleaned are now okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense and thanks for taking the time to explain -- much appreciated. Did want to point out the circumstances because there was never any intention to infringe, but your point is well taken. Will of course endeavour to follow the policy going forward. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that a user uploaded an image that they claim is public domain because it is a screenshot of a YouTube video [11]. They apparently are working on Harvey Tristan Cropper at an edit-a-thon. Rather than just tagging with F9, I was was hoping you have a canned "welcome, but that's not how this works" message you might provide to them. If not, no worries. Thanks for all your work on copyright issues! Bakazaka (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If you could handle this yourself that would be awesome. I am super busy. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Will do. Bakazaka (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Witchcraft

Hi Diannaa. I wonder did you want to take a look at this recent addition? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any copyright issues with it. Someone has removed it for reasons other than copyright. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
So I see. Thanks for checking. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential copyright: St. John's Court House

Hi Diannaa,

Thank you for your note concerning potential copyright on St. John's Court House. The content in question has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, Courts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Please see the Copyright section of the following web address for evidence of this: https://court.nl.ca/supreme/disclaimer.html. A link to the copyright holder's Disclaimer/Copyright/Privacy Statement can also be found at the bottom of the webpage in which the content has been alleged to be copied from.

A note has been added to the article's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! CanadianWikiUser (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but the source webpage is not released under a liberal enough license since it states that users are required to "agree to indemnify and save harmless the Courts of Newfoundland and Labrador against any claims or actions of any kind or manner resulting from its use" and we can't guarantee that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

Im hoping you can help me understand how to properly post images. The images I had posted were removed for potential copyright violations, but none of them were subject to copyright protection. I must be doing something incorrectly. What is the easiest way to discuss this? Funkadlik3 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help,

Edmond (also- sorry if im using the talk section incorrectly. I'm obviously new to Wikipedia)

Under current copyright law, literary works and photos 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. You should only upload photos that you have taken yourself, and (other than short quotations) only add prose that you have written yourself. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules available at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Mahabali

Hi there. Regarding Mahabali, please see the history. I'm not quite sure what that's all about, but will leave it in your capable hands. Cheers.  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Information that is Copyrighted

Oh, I am sorry about that. Is it possible that it can be re-added if I phrase it differently?Thank You.Mountain157 (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
It's okay to re-add content as long as you re-write it completely, using your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I re-phrased the content and I am going to add it back to the article Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism. Let me know if it is better or if it still needs to be fixed.Mountain157 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Mountain157, The new version looks okay from a copyright point of view, but the source webpage is a wiki, with user-submitted content, and might not be considered a reliable source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the response.Mountain157 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Marshy Point Nature Center

Hello trying to understand why the edits from the master naturalist and director of the marshy point nature center were removed and deleted. ManOnTheMarsh IRL is Ben Porter (http://www.marshypoint.org/about/staff/). All of the photos he was uploading are ours and not in any violation of copyright. I am a member of the board of directors for Marshy Point. Please advise thanks Lderezinski (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with the submission. Editors cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if they are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am a volunteer, so that is not an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lderezinski (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

completely confused

hi. i hope this message goes to Diannaa. I am sorry but I think you made a mistake. I honestly tried to include material in a page for my professor and referenced it appropriately. I do not claim anything that i did not do it. I am new to this but this seems so complicated, I worked for couple of hours, tried to be very careful but everything was gone in minutes. can you please help me then. I want to do things the right way paulacademic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulacademic (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

and i am sorry, it is all the opposite, I am trying to include appropiate links and references. for instance, the previous takes to a broken links: References 1 and 2: "Awards/Honors". Retrieved 2008-03-02. and ^ Jump up to: a b "Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Regents and Joaquin Bustoz Jr. Professor (of Mathematics)". Retrieved 2008-03-02.

They do not work, please. They are incorrect. they are not appropriate references. But you deleted my good references. I am sorry, but i dont understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulacademic (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you are finding things so frustrating, Paulacademic. Editing Wikipedia is hard. I removed some of the content because you copied it from other websites. You're not allowed to do that; to do so violates the copyright policy of this website. The citations were okay when I left the article. If you like, you could revert to an older version of the page and try again. Click on the "View history" tab to see a list of old versions of the page. For help making citations that work properly, please visit Help:Referencing for beginners. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. I am learning. and i want to do things in the right way. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulacademic (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing title: Free-trade area

Hi Diannaa, I am recently making the effort to improve some topic which my PhD covers, for instance I have been improving "rules of origin" and "certificate of origin". I will continue to work on "free trade agreement", which is a more ambitious topic but currently very poorly written. However, can you help me change the title of the current article to Free Trade Agreement or Preferential Trade Agreement, which is a more widely used keyword. Although free-trade area is perfectly correct, but less known than Free Trade Agreement (abbreviated to FTA). Moreover, in my view, the article will discuss those agreements establishing free trade areas, so the new title will be closer to the content. Thank you.Khuongduy.dinh (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to move the article for you. There might be a case made that "free trade agreement" is a different but related topic. The place to start is by reading Wikipedia:Moving a page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Vivienne Goonewardene

Hi Diannaa, hope you are well. I have addressed all of your previous copyright concerns on the Vivienne Goonewardene page (in regards to the copyright issue with rootsweb). I have created a draft reviewed article here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesSmith1988/sandbox); would you be able to review it, and confirm that it is alright (I believe that all of the remainder falls under Fair Use), all copyrighted material has been removed. Thanks, JamesSmith1988 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

JamesSmith1988, I'm having difficulty understanding what your agenda is here. You keep on posting the same text, with the same copyright violations from here. Could you please explain what it is you are trying to achieve, and why you can't edit Wikipedia in the normal way, making incremental changes to the page, writing the material in your own words? Has someone asked you to post this specific text, for example? Hi, Diannaa! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I am trying to create an in-depth Wikipedia article for someone who I believe to be is a notable Sri-Lankan and one of the founders of the Sri-Lankan independence movement. I sadly have no clue how to create the page from scratch without using the rough timeline of events (the rough timeline has been expanded majorly)- The link you've provided doesn't work for me :( Regardless, I have spent tens of hours trying to edit this page up to certain specifications so believe that I cannot give up now and must persist or else I have wasted all this time- Sorry if I've been slightly difficult (edit-wise), but I would really appreciate it if you were able to point out which parts need rewriting? I still think that, given that the site linked is a slightly fluffed out table of events, it would be available under Fair-Use (I have taken them back to the core facts, and rewritten from there; please help me to understand what I am doing wrong? Thank You JamesSmith1988 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

JamesSmith1988, what you are doing wrong is copying material from non-free external sources – see the example on your talk-page, which you had included without changing a single word in the sandbox version I've just deleted – and continuing to do so after you've been repeatedly told that you can't do that here. You have a choice: either you stop doing it, or you find some other site to edit. It's that simple, I'm afraid. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers; the sandbox version had the entire last paragraph rewritten; I thought that the sandbox was just a personal page for me to edit on, not publicly viewable or deletable? Surely It isn't the entire section that is copyrighted, therefore the problem isn't with the whole section- which paragraphs do believe are incorrectly written, and I shall rewrite them from scratch. JamesSmith1988 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry JamesSmith1988, but you can't post copyright material here, not even in sandboxes or drafts. All material must comply with our policies no matter where on the website it's located. Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. You have to do this before you save the page. We can't even host it temporarily for editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Martijn ten Velden

Hi,

I AM Martijn ten Velden and the updated biography was written by ME about ME. All facts are correct! No copyright infringements here.

Please reinstall my changes, the old information was 10 years old, it took me 6 hours to update!

Thanks,

Martijn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuce One (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. Regardless of the copyright issue, the person who removed the content did so because of its promotional tone, not for copyright reasons, so it's unlikely that it would be accepted for inclusion even if the licensing issue were resolved.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about yourself, your own organisation, or a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. There's already some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa!

Hello Diannaa! I wanna thank you for the feedback you've leave on my talk page.

I'd like to know how edit that wiki properly? I mean, a final and depured wiki without tag/flag an copyright violations.

Thanks again.

--Autanash (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Autanash. A good place to learn how to edit is Wikipedia:Tutorial. I suspect English is not your first language, and you might be better off contributing on a Wikipedia where you are more fluent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Autanash: I posted a wikiadventure invitation on your talk page.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 05:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dianaa. I honestly thought that I had only taken the essentials from the BizNiz and other pages and tried to present it in my own words. It seems I didn't succeed in that. Thanks for catching that. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted lyrics

Hi,

An IP added copyrighted lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody here. I assume this needs revdeling? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Done; thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, while you're at it [12]. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Done, thanks — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Military Order of the Purple Heart

Hi Dianaa. Thank you for your edit earlier this month to the article Military Order of the Purple Heart to remove and hide content that appeared to have contained copyrighted material. I noticed that after you left a message on the IP user's talk page regarding his or her edits to the article, the IP user has since added some further content to the article, which is possibly questionable. The content added by the IP doesn't seem, in my view, to be in an encyclopedic tone, containing capital letters and an address. I did think about reverting the edits, but left it as it is for the time being. I'd be grateful when you get the time if you could please take another look at the article to consider if there is further content that might be either copyrighted or inappropriate that needs to be reverted. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for your edits to remove the poorly formatted section to the article Military Order of the Purple Heart. After your edits, the IP user again made edits to the article on 26 February 2019 which were not in an encyclopedic tone, containing capital letters and an address. I reverted the IP user's changes. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. When you get some spare time, please could you take another look at the article, as the IP user is again, after reverting, putting large chunks of poorly formatted content into the article. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits on this article Diannaa. Unfortunately, the IP user has again been inserting the material in the article, which is possibly becoming disruptive editing. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kind Tennis Fan. Since I've been involved in editing the article in a non-admin capacity I cannot be the one to block this IP. I suggest try WP:AIV. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Civil Services Examination (India)

Hi. Thanks for that - I meant to stick a {{Copyvio-revdel}} on it. I usually do, but I forgot - mea culpa. Quite a lot of National Talent Search Examination might need some attention too. I'm not sure Justlookingforthemoment is 'getting it' (or wants to get it)... -- Begoon 12:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Begoon. I'm not going to do revision deletion because I can't tell if some of the pages listed in your edit summary are mirror sites or not, and nothing at http://www.ncbe.nic.in/ will load. I see you gave the user a final warning on February 22. That's perfect. There's been no violations since. I will add them to my list of people to watch and will block if there's any further violations. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Let me tell you something: My edit that I made on the article to the movie Valentine I didn't know that what I edited in that article was already on imdb.com as I don't really go there like I used to. That's number one. Number two, I know what the rules are. You don't need to remind me. And number three, don't ever make anymore assumptions and ask me first if I knew. That way I won't think you're being a unstable creature. Please and thank you The King Gemini (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Where did you copy it from? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Give an editor some tips?

Hi Diannaa. Can you give this editor (talkpage at User talk:Lizhogg) some pointers on Wikipedia's copyright policy? I would post a notice myself (an will if you are busy), but you frankly are more skilled in this arena. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6. I've posted some info there and deleted and salted the draft. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio check request

I am hopeless at copyvio detection, and you are so good at it, so here I am. The suspect page is Ruud Janssen, which largely matches with Google books entry. Thank you!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi ThatMontrealIP. We already had this content in 2007 and the book was published in 2008. So there's no copyvio that we can prove. I suspect the artist has supplied the same bio to both the book and Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at that!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Hello Diannaa, a new user (Emmanuel Laverde) who had previously contributed a beautiful image under his own name (File:Telipogon diabolicus.jpg) has now uploaded a copyrighted image to Wikimedia Commons (as File:Megascops gilesi.jpg) that appears to be the work of another artist (Paula Andrea Romero). The image appeared briefly on Santa Marta screech owl before I reverted it.

Can you look into this and if warranted give the user a welcome with your standard warnings of copyvio? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BilCat (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. You left a couple of messages some time back on Knuand's talk page regarding copyright issues. I know the basics of dealing with copyvios, but you seem to be much better versed in the topic, so I hope that you don't mind me bringing this here. I had one of their article creations brought to my attention, and there was some very close paraphrasing to a source other than the one cited. A glance at a couple more articles showed similar problems, and since they had received previous warnings, I revoked their autopatrolled status and left them a message. After a bit of back-and-forth today, they still seem to be having difficulties understanding the rules, but I don't want to exacerbate the issue. If you have the time and inclination, would you mind having a look? Thank you. —DoRD (talk)​ 22:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I already issued a final warning in March 2018. Normally my next move would be to block. Since you've decided to go with talking to the user one more time, I will post on their talk page. But I don't have time right now to monitor any additional users so if you could do that, I would appreciate it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't mean to add to your workload, and I intended to include something like "feel free to tell me to take a hike" in my earlier message. Thanks for the help, and I'll keep an eye on it. —DoRD (talk)​ 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Can't tell you to take a Hike, being a signatory to the Wikipedia:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values and Canadian to boot 🍁🍁🍁 But thanks for your understanding — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail! 2

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BilCat (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. [Username Needed] 13:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No attribution

I am sorry for doing this with Queensrÿche and Geoff Tate without attributing but just the circumstances were such that I thought for the moment and consecutive edits did and there were even no attribution in Geoff Tate article, so I was bold, but I am sorry for not mention further. Kindest regards, Master Administrator.

The Mad Hatter (talk)

we thank you

February
The Hidden Valley, Negev
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for article improvements in February, and protecting copyright! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Reporting of harassment

I will report Diannaa and Reaper Eternal for sabotaging my work on Lindha Kallerdahl and Olli Soikkeli, and for accusing me of close paraphrasing and plagiarism without leaving me any chance to defend myself, and if necessary the opportunity to correct the problem. I will also report DoRD for sanctioning me without leaving me a chance to meet the attacks on my work. I appreciate criticism of my work, if I get the chance to meet the criticism. I am afraid there is a huge democratic problem on Wikipedia that ought to be handeled. Knuand (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_62&oldid=998757660"