User talk:Diannaa/Archive 50

Hi Diannaa. I’m an editor who has been contributing to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. I saw that at 22:32, 31 December 2016 you changed visibility of 22 revisions on the page with content hidden (RD1: Copyright violations) included in your summary. As one of my edits was included in the list, I looked into the situation and noticed that you sent Annestorm a message on their talk page concerning this.

It is the first time that this editor has contributed to the article which requires WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. I checked the user’s contributions and discovered that the edit you deleted was, interestingly enough, their 501st – the first edit allowed to them for this article.

Digging a little deeper I found that prior to this, on December 30th, over a period of less than 90 minutes the same user made at least 326 individual edits containing not more than 1 or 2 characters to their sandbox. There were many more slightly longer edits that seemed to be only deletions.

The following is a sample of one such edit , ‘fd f fdfddf15 fdsdsds5a25621256 dfasd4556256 sa5562451 25’. The rest of the edits are more or less the same, namely random keystrokes.

It seems evident that this user is abusing the extended confirmed right by having added nonsense edits to reach the 500 edit total required.

I, myself, am not looking to escalate this further as I have already spent too much time on the findings I have just laid out to you. However, I wanted to bring it to your attention. I will leave it with you to do as you see fit. Happy New Year! Veritycheck (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I received a message from "Diannaa", whoever that is, saying my additions to the Leonora Piper wikipedia page were copied from another website. That is NOT true. They are quotes from the book I cited, by Michael Tymn. I also have no interest in re-typing it, if I could, as I type slow, and it took a while to put it into the article. So, buy the book, don't buy the book, it is of no consequence to me : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaeatetus (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thaeatetus: The material was removed by a bot. Placing material in quotation marks does not let us off the hook from a copyright point of view. We don't construct our articles using a series of quotations from copyright material; pretty much everything you add here should be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. Learn from our mistakes, learn by doing : ) I do note that it is likely no coincidence that the article on Leonora Piper is skewed to the skeptical perspective. It is due to the subjective and spontaneous nature of consciousness, and clairvoyance. That is, they can't be measured. Not good for the scientific/academic agenda wikipedia and their editors are pursuing. "The rational approach works quite well in certain kinds of situations, such as the mass production of goods, or in certain kinds of scientific measurements -but all in all the rational method, as it is understood and used, does not work as an overall approach to life, or in the solving of problems that involve subjective rather than objective measurements and calculations." ( 'The Magical Approach', Jane Roberts/Seth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaeatetus (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your task is, no doubt, as important as I guess not enough appreciated by good faith editors like me. Having said that, I believe that blank reverts of all my edits in that article, nevermind if they infringed or not any copyright policy whatsoever, is not what the project needs or wants from you.

Since you didnt bother to read any further after detecting copyright problems, you couldnt have noticed that you were reverting most of my contribution, which was totally unrelated to the source which apparently I can not use the way I did. Actually, from all of your reverts, probably less than half has anything to do with copyright, but was about summarizing, trimming and the like.

I may understand that you have precious little time doing your assignment all over the wikipedia. But blank, aggressive, reverts such as the ones you just made without even bothering to read what you were reverting can be only understood as either punitive ("user X needs to learn his lesson") or unprofessional ("user X infringed copyright with this one edit, so he's guilty by association and all his remainder edits must be reverted"). And, by the way, it's not only you who has precious little time, but also "regular" contributors like myself, who may get disappointed or even cynical with the project after getting such "retribution" for their unpaid time.

Neither makes a positive impression of your actions or the project you claim to defend. You may -or not- want to think about this. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 12:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What I removed was three paragraphs copied from http://voxeu.org/article/spanish-economic-growth-long-run. I have checked and the material was indeed copied from that source and nothing was removed that does not appear in that source. The revision deletion requires that all diffs from the addition of the coipyvio to its removal be hidden. This hides but does not alter your subsequent edits, which remain intact. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OMG...you're perfectly right. I saw at the history that you had deleted all my edits so I took for granted that it was a blank reversion to the last version before I started working on that. So, in the event, it was me who didnt bother to read what you had done...

I owe you a big apology. I am sorry about my post above, please accept my apologies.

You are such a patient man... MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 18:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and Happy New Year. You recently made 4 revision deletions at Dark energy, and left a comment on my talk page, accusing me of an RD1 copyright violation. The Dark energy deletion log states:

15:26, 26 December 2016 Diannaa (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 4 revisions on page Dark energy: content hidden (RD1: Copyright violations: http://casofran.blogs.uv.es/2016/11/22/y-si-la-expansion-del-universo-no-es-acelerada-ing-suspenso-d)

Firstly, your URL is wrong. The sources I used were:

[1] J. T. Nielsen; A. Guffanti; S. Sarkar (21 October 2016). "Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae". Nature Scientific Reports. 6.

[2] Stuart Gillespie (21 October 2016). "The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate – or is it?". University of Oxford - News & Events - Science Blog (WP:NEWSBLOG).

Secondly, my edit was not an RD1 copyright violation, since it merely consisted of a quote by Subir Sarkar fully in accordance with WP:QUOTE, preceded by two heavily paraphrased sentences from what I explicitly stated in my edit to be a WP:NEWSBLOG. Fortunately, the original material you deleted survives at Accelerating expansion of the universe: (Redacted)

Quite apart from the WP:AGF and WP:TALK issues in your actions, it's clear that my edit was not even close to being an RD1 copyright violation. My edit was fully in accord with WP:QUOTE and WP:NEWSBLOG. Please revert the comment you left on my talk page. The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The material was removed from the article by another user for reasons other than copyvio. Your actual sources differ from where I found it because the material has been reproduced in several locations online. There was indeed a block quote in the removal but the overlap in the other paragraph is excessive by Wikipedia standards, and that's why the revision deletion was done. Different publishers have varying standards for copyvio and paraphrasing, and Wikipedia is quite strict about it. Your edit was over the line, as it presented the same ideas in the same order using for the same terminology and in some spots identical wording. The overlap is highlighted in Bold:

(Redacted) Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @The Cube Root Of Infinity: I don't see any AGF issue (well, actually I do, you aren't offering Diannaa, who has done a lot of work with copyright violations and is clearly much more experienced with these than you are) or an issue with an article talk page. I do see a couple of very minor tweaks which don't avoid a copyright violation. I've revised your edit at Accelerating expansion of the universe to read "A 2016 report from Oxford University's Department of Physics and the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen working with a much larger data set has cast doubt upon the arguments for accelerated expansion." You're a new account so this isn't a major issue so long as you learn from it, but it would have been much better if you'd come here and asked why your material was considered a copyright violation. If you wish to copy my version to Dark Energy, note that you must place a note in the edit summary stating that it's been copied with a link to the article it was copied from. Otherwise that would be a copyright violation. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, I wonder if the code dealing with edit conflicts has changed. I'm sure that after I posted my request below I opened a new window on this thread, wrote my comments while rewriting the material at Accelerating expansion, and then save them - after Diannaa's post, which I hadn't seen. Yet no edit conflict. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict while writing to this thread at 15:25 as it took me about 20 minutes to prepare my post and you had posted below in the meantime. Don't know why you didn't get one at 15:35. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The translation seems to be clearly a copyright violation. I presume the same goes for a transliteration and of course the modern tagalog translation. I'm not sure how to deal with this, ie what to cut or? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks to me like all three versions are copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

HI Diannaa, Thank you for sending me a note about my edits to Julio Larraz. This is my first post and clearly made all the rookie mistakes :/ I will start in smaller batches and submit updates slowly. Thank you - Annabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelsimpson (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa,

I am very glad to know that my work at wikipedia has attracted such a great person's like your attention. Thank you very much to criticize my work. Actually, I have been involved with Bangladesh Army University of Science and Technology (BAUST) and everybody wants to know about it . Even I want everybody to know many more details about it. Wkikipedia is the best way to know. So I collect genuine information and photo about BAUST legally. I just want to make a view about BAUST at wikipedia like Islamic University of Technology , Military Institute of Science and Technology, University of Toronto, St. Francis Xavier University etc. But I'm quite new at this. So I want to know more details like how I can be legal at this purpose and for with whom can I meet or discuss which makes sure my work legal at wikipedia.

Thats all for now. I am looking forward to your reply. You are warmly welcomed to my beautiful contry, Bangladesh. Thank you again--M Tanvir Rahman —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Don't copy material from the school website and paste it here; that's a copyright violation and is against the law. Also, you need to add citations for the material you add. It's best if these are not from the school website but are rather from other places if possible. I have placed some links at the top of your talk page to help you get started with Wikipedia editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, The article "Apex Fund Services" was recently deleted after edits I made. Can I restore the page as it was prior to those edits? Regards, Jerry J Kelleher (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to speak to the deleting administrator, who was User:DGG, to see if he will restore it or not. The reason I nominated it for deletion was the company does not seem to meet our notability requirements, and the article was worded like an advertisement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Happy New Year to you :) Can you expand on my use of "copyright material' with respect to Grenada and what was removed? I am at a loss as to what is being referred to in the message... Plus stating that I have used copyright material without giving me a chance to explain is damaging to my character and this appears to be a consistent statement from you to me which I have not followed up on previously. Would you be so kind as to be a bit more careful in what is being stated especially in a public forum? Perhaps there should be tracking of information which is being removed by persons who join Wikipedia so that they understand the rights of persons to provide information which is fair and free from bias and which may be seen as being reliable.

Have a good day....

Jennifer N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer N Bailey (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennifer N Bailey: Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here. All prose that you add to this wiki must be written in your own words. For the Grenada article, the material that was a copyright violation was the description you added of the Summits of the Americas, which appears to have been copied from http://www.summit-americas.org/default_en.htm or elsewhere online. The page is marked at the bottom as © Summits of the Americas. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa

Thanks for the information. My information on the Summit of the Americas relates to "factual stuff" which is made known to the public via newspapers, gov't releases and such... The dates and locations of the Summits are public knowledge since funding is provided from various countries. The number of countries which are members of the OAS, details of their joining the OAS, is free knowledge. If I were to paste extracts exceeding a certain number of words etc from reports, then I believe that would be copyright. Jennifer N Bailey (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi... You have removed all my data on a particular page.. I plan to start slowly introducing Maltese politicians to wikipedia in order to expand further on the subject. I've added information on Keith Schembri just because it was totally biased on just one event happening in May. I also edited other pages relating to different politicians and parties. The information and photos I've put was all in the public domain and cited by the relevant references... kindly explain why such changes had been removed - I honestly think that this should be reverted.. Thanks for your help and I appreciate your help :) - fenechtonio (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2017 (CET)

The source page http://www.summit-americas.org/default_en.htm is clearly marked at the bottom as being copyright. As such, it is not okay for you to copy the material here. It's against the copyright policy of this wiki and against copyright law. If you don't understand this, you need to stop editing right away. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa Marking something copyright means that it may relate to the official site or there may be rights attached to the information.. If you were to look at Trinidad and Tobago, you will see that I have included details on a number of Treaties which have been signed by the Govt of Trinidad and Tobago over a period of time. In my blog, O Come O Come Emmanuel ~ Reminiscing I have included information on my source or access to the treaties. However unsigned copies of the Treaties are available on the BIR's site as it supports the practices of T'dad & T'bgo wrt withholding tax. At this time, I have not linked everyone of the treaties to the BIR's site, however it is my intention to do so. I have included the The Tax Information (Declared Agreement) Order (with the United States of America) 1990 on the page, however that may not have been included in the BIRs site. So perhaps I will suggest that it is included in that site or a link is provided.

Have a good day Jennifer N Bailey (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. Another revdel may be required at Narciso Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to the latest sock edit. I will also take this opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year! Take care. Dr. K. 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision-deletion done, and I have also semi-protected for a month, it's getting out of hand. Happy new year to you as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That was really fast. Thank you very much Dianna. Dr. K. 00:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Diannaa! Hope 2017 is a great one for you and yours.

Would you mind taking a look at Pete McLeod for copyvios when you get the chance? Article is pretty promotional sounding in tone and looking at it in the edit window I noticed some curly quotes and em-type apostrophes, etc. which often happens when text is copied and pasted directly from an external sources. The use of the first name throughout much of the article also sometimes indicates a bit of copy-and-pasting has been done as well because personal websites/official pages tend to refer to individual use their more familiar first name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't find any copy vio but stuff like "Pete's inaugural air show season exceeded expectations and paved the way for even greater results in 2007" needs to come out; it looks like it was written by a PR guy. I will clean it up tomorrow, right now I am going to watch some stuff on Netflix (Star Trek TNG and The Mindy Project is what I'm into right now :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Diannaa. There's no great rush since there are no copyvios. I just wanted to make sure before creating any extra diffs which might need some revdeleting. I also asked about the article at WT:AV#Pete McLeod so there may be others also working on cleaning it up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I have nominated this article for deletion. I'm certain your experience and feedback would be valuable should you decide to participate in the discussion. Thanks Veritycheck (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I won't be participating. I am notoriously bad at assessing notability, my A7s almost always get declined. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you here at your talk page, I don't do that, but as WP:NACD says that the only thing I can do is to contact an admin, and you said that I could ask you if I had any doubt, let's go. Recently a template at discussion got a non-admin close for a merge after a very long discussion. The problem is that in my opinion the discussion was far from reach any merge consensus, I counted 11 support votes for merge and 19 against it. I know that this isn't about counting votes, or democracy or whatever the name they gave it, but it seems a bit to risky to do that with a template used at 3084 pages and with some serious technical issues raised by some users. Maybe an admin should take a look. Best regards, Bertdrunk (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you raise this matter at WP:AN for a review of the close. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this; if another editor thinks the paraphrasing and word changing I did was not sufficient, I'll rewrite it again. Note that you shouldn't have deleted the last paragraph, as it was entirely new. Anyway I'll go back and fix it. Cheers and Happy New Year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The last paragraph didn't make sense to leave in without the other material. I suppose I could have commented it out instead of removing it! Thanks for fixing this up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, thanks for the warning and I have now sent an email to the Wiki permissions address forwarding the appropriate email which I believe shows that I have permission to use material from this website. Can you advise what happens now please? Regards StuPat (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC) And the permissions email address keeps bouncing back!!! Can you help pleaseStuPat (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Check that you have the correct email address. Try doing it by following this link: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I think there may have been some issues with Yahoo but your permission email needs to come directly from the corporation, which should not be a Yahoo account. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa! Hope you're well.
Just wondered if you could have a look at this diff[1] of Gabriella Di Laccio and give me a second opinion. The 'Career' section is an almost direct copy of [2] (the oldest copy the Wayback Machine has of the current, virtually identical, page[3]). With the site being undated, I was just wondering what your thoughts might be on the section being a possible copyright violation? Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Two different tools (this one and this one) both show the gabrielladilaccio.com page as being created in 2015. Content was added in 2014, most likely by the subject of the article. So no proof of copy vio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Thanks again for your help with Pete McLeod. I've found another one which may be a copyvio. Part of Rachna College of Engineering and Technology looks like it's been copied-and-pasted from rcet.uet.edu.pk. As before, I just want to avoid any unnecessary revdels before trying to attempt some clean up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am taking it out, because although the wayback machine does not have that page archived, the line breaks show the material was copied from an external source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DatBot_6. Approved to take over Theo's Little Bot. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

Thanks so much for helping get this resolved! We have 616 transclusions right now, so we shall see how many get done in tonight's run. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Few hiccups at first (apparently due to transfer from Windows to Linux, and DatGuy was on holiday), It's rattling through the backlog as we speak - there are 103 left, and now Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions has grown... Lots of clicking of the "rescaled" tab next week end! I've turned off Task 1 of Theo's Little Bot. This] show just 390 files >1000px both ways (probably less by the time your read it! I can start narrowing the criteria soon. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It got off to a slow start as DatGuy was on hiatus, but ticking along nicely now! @Sphilbrick: this will interest you, since you do most if not all of the deletions of orphaned revisions. I will help too if there's not too much copyvio action. You can also check how many are left to reduce by viewing the transclusion count on the template (thus). Note the bot will not do svg, ogg, gif, tiff, wav, etc (or at least has never done these in older iterations). I will go through the remaining items and reduce the ones I know how to do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yikes! Yes, thanks for the heads up, doubly so. I've noticed some oversized images, and vaguely wondered what was up, so now I know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to make sure, the cat I usually depopulate is Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. There are some situations where it may make sense to wait seven days before deletion, but this doesn't seem necessary here - any reason I shouldn't start working on them?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we'd better wait, due to the wording of the WP:F5 policy. How about helping with https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en while you wait? there will be a few days in the next week with little or no orphaned versions more than 7 days old to delete, and I am having trouble keeping up with the copyvios. (Just a suggestion  ) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It still can't do svg, ogg, gif, tiff, wav - it's all down to what the Python Image Library can process. I have done some svg in the past (although it's really a reduction in the default size, as svg are vector and can be scaled as you wish) - I have a crib page at User:Ronhjones/SVGreduce (as I usually forget how to do it!) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Data on upcoming workload.

• January 5 files, to be done Jan 12: 20
• January 6 files, to be done Jan 13: ~260
• January 7 files, to be done Jan 14: ~1725
• January 8 files, to be done Jan 15: ~400
• January 9 files, to be done Jan 16: ~380. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I just wanted to know whether I can upload these images of the Queen Mother (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the Princess of Wales (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) on Wikimedia commons or not. I checked the categories and I think that they haven't been uploaded yet, and based on Wikimedia's guidelines it seems that it's OK to upload these images but I just wanted to check it with an administrator first. Keivan.f^Talk 05:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

All these images may still be under copyright. The ones of Diana will definitely be copyright. Please don't upload them. You might consider posting at Commons:Village pump/Copyright regarding the Queen Mother images, which might be ok. I am not an admin on the Commons, so I am not prepared to make a call on this for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

But I think there's still a chance that a few of them might not be copyrighted. Dozens of images are uploaded from Flickr based on the copyright status provided there. Of course I will take your advice and try to discuss it with an admin on the Commons again. If they approve the copyright status then I'll upload them. Keivan.f^Talk 21:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Not everything is as it seems at Flickr; there's been plenty of cases of Flickr washing, where a copyright image is uploaded to Flickr with a fraudulent compatible license and then uploaded here or to the Commons. There's more information on this at Commons:License laundering. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In order to make sure, as you said, I will leave a message on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I think they'll be able to guide me. Thank you so much for your response. Keivan.f^Talk 22:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As you had suggested, I had a discussion on that page and based on its result it could be possible to upload this image which seems to be taken by freelance photographer John Macintyre for paisley.org.uk but it's not clear whether the copyright was transferred or not, so the user recommended contacting the photographer. I think a similar case had happened before when one of the users asked the copyright holder's permission to upload an image of Princess Margaret which is currently used as the article's lead image. Mr. Macintyre doesn't seem to have any contacting information like e-mail. So what should I do? Are you, or maybe the others, able to contact him in any way or at least find a way to contact him? Keivan.f^Talk 04:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And wouldn't it be better, or at least possible, to upload the image that I mentioned above, and let the users discuss and decide what to do with it? It's also an option. It's not copyrighted based on its license but if anyone has any doubt he may start a discussion later. Keivan.f^Talk 11:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Keivan.f, but it's not my decision to make. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 

Hello Diannaa, My name is Len Ellis, I am a board member of Peacemakers Incorporated in Dallas, TX, and have known Vivian Castleberry for many years. We wanted to set up a Wikipedia page for both her and for Peacemakers Incorporated, but it has not happened yet. Then today I see that you have been involved with Vivian's Wikipedia page, starting just last month. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to comfortably find my way around, but I did find this and I would be grateful if you could contact me directly to discuss this. Thank you so very much for setting up Vivian's page, we certainly want to add to it, and, we want to start on the Peacemakers Incorporated page. You can contact me at (Redacted). Thank you!

PeacemakersInc (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@PeacemakersInc: I am not responsible for the Vivian Castleberry article and have only one edit to that page. Please don't create an article on Peacemakers Inc; if you work there, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing on that topic at all. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Can please let me know what was the exact issue with the page? and is there anyway you can revert to the previous state for a day, so that I can atleast copy source and make necessary edits, which will be much easier than Redoing it all over again.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reubenthomasv (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Reubenthomasv: All the content I removed was copied from various newspapers, in violation of the copyright policy of this website and copyright law. The material was removed for that reason. Everything you add here needs to be written in your own words. I can send you a copy of the removed material via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I have done that. Thanks for letting me know. I will correct it asap. Reubenthomasv (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Email sent. Remember none of this content is acceptable except for the stuff I left in the article. It all has to be re-written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, you put on my talk page the information that further verification was needed for the file I uploaded ( File:Karen Mok (莫文蔚) at the TV show "The Singing Battle (天籁之战)" on 31 Oct 2016.jpg). I got the owner of the file, Christo Jan, to write the email you requested to the mail address you requested but the file was deleted anyway. Could you let me know why this happened and how we can get the file back up again.? Thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jaeljojo. The step you missed was adding the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the image. I have restored the image and tagged it for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa! Not 100% on this, but [4] & [5] possibly need revision deletion? I say 'may' as I'm unsure if revdel is required where the same image is used under fair use on another article (but where fair use clearly doesn't apply here)? Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't normally use revision deletion on these edits. Thanks for your query, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. Whole content of this edit is copy-pasted from the cited source – details. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion done. Thanks for reporting. census2011.co.in is a copyright web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for looking at my updates. My talk page says you did something but I can't figure out what. Can you let me know please. Robertwhyteus (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed some content describing these spiders that appears to have been copied from http://australianmuseum.net.au/mouse-spiders, a copyright web page. And then I did revision deletion to remove the copyvio from the article history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It was possibly information in being able to determine the difference between the Actinopidae (Mouse Spiders) and the Hexathelidae (Australian Funnelweb Spiders) which may have medical importance. But can't recall cutting and pasting material unchanged. If it is scientific in nature and deals with diagnostic characters, there are limited options in the use of the paraphrase. Is it possible for you let me know exactly what it was you removed? Robertwhyteus (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. I am sending it to you via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. Cheers. Robertwhyteus (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. It appears a new editor unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works may have been copying-and-pasting stuff from an external website into Al-Ahbash. Would you mind taking a look when you have a spare moment or two? i think the website is this which was also posted at File:///I:/Qawl document RN is working on.doc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Found it here. The material has already been removed. I am going to do revision-deletion now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

... about that, it was unintentional. Paul August ☎ 03:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,
I've deleted the a draft as for three reasons:

• per WP:G12
• following the Precautionary principle regarding WP:COPYVIOs
• If Diannaa says it is a copyvio, that's good enough for me.

I personally think the draft article was something of a mosaic of obvious copyvios, close paraphrasing, and some good "write it in your words" prose.
I guess I could have started a whole new WP:CCI about this. Which in my opinion would have been a WP:WASTEOFTIME#please, just write and edit encyclopedia content.
All that said, I see no reason to question whether the article draft was made in anything else but good faith.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Today when I was reviewing two articles that I had expanded before January 2016 (which means before the time you blocked me), I realized that I might have added some copyrighted content to them. There are actually two articles that I wish to be reviewed from a copyright point of view. This article about a Japanese princess and this article about a British noble. I decided to report these as soon as I realized that they might contain copyrighted material. I wanted to check them myself but as you have had enough experience in dealing with such cases, I thought you would be the best choice. Keivan.f^Talk 10:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have cleaned both of these. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. There are two more that I wish to be reviewed. 1 & 2. By the way, you cleaned the articles so fast. Do you use a special tool, and is it accessible to everyone? If not, how can ordinary contributors clean an article? Do they have to always report it to the administrators? Keivan.f^Talk 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I use https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/. This tool can be used to look at the entire article at once or compare with individual websites. What I did for the two articles this morning was create a contrib survey using a special tool at Labs and then inspected all the diffs in bold. I've created the surveys for the Princess Tomohito of Mikasa and Princess Akiko of Mikasa and you can view them at User:Diannaa/sandbox. Yours are easy to clean because the material is cited, and the copying comes from those cites, which are for the most part still extant. Of course I also do it fast because I have done literally thousands or even tens of thousands of these cleans. I will work on these tomorrow. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I need to learn this. You also said that you had created "a contrib survey using a special tool at Labs". What's the name of this tool? Keivan.f^Talk 03:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I also edited this article earlier today. Here's the difference between revisions. I just preferred to let you know that I had edited the article, because I thought you might still want to check my contributions. Keivan.f^Talk 07:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The contribution surveyor is https://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor/. What it does is makes a list of all the articles edited by a person and organizes them with the most heavily edited at the top. It's helpful because it can be used to create a list of diffs for a particular article or suite of articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa,

Although I appreciate your remarks regarding copyright violation, I am representing and I am authorized by the international NGO to publish the materials in Board of European Students of Technology page. We have had the materials feedbacked and the texts and picture presented are the final form.

Dragos-Andrei Gaftoneanu PR Department Secretary of BEST

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.

Another 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 am adding some information about conflict of interest to your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I might have found another partially copy-pasted article in Davide Tucci. Mainly the promotional sounding nature and the use of Tucci's first name are things that standout, but thought I just ask first this time and avoid any new diffs, before jumping in and doing some clean up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not finding anything using the copyvio tool or manually. This was likely written by a PR flack, who also uploaded the photo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BEST logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Diannaa! Revdel needed on aisle 7, please... today, Spades, specifically revision 758667196 by IP 208 ... 162, which is a direct copyvio of [6]. Merci beaucoup! Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done; thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and the info. I wasn't aware there was a problem with doing this. I have done it on a couple of others. I hope I can remember which ones. I started using cut and paste to create new pages for CDPs that didn't have a page. Mostly just the info box, first paragraph and Geography section, plus the box at the bottom of the page. I just change the relevant information. I don't think this is a problem because there is no edit history. If it is let me know.

I am still unclear on how you changed the title of the page. I think I've done other name changes in the article, but the title remained the old name before I found I could change the redirect, which evidently isn't the right way to do it.Jdtrue63 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Pages are moved using the move function. There's more information on this topic at WP:moving a page. Non-administrators are usually able to move articles to new locations themselves. If you find you are unable to move a page yourself, you're supposed to file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I found the move function and am pretty sure I will be able to do this properly in the future. I do, however, have a problem with Morgan Farm, Texas. I did the cut and paste thing for the rename from Morgan Farm Area. I was able to "undo" Morgan Farm Area, Texas, but can not move the page because Morgan Farm, Texas already exists. If you can fix this for me, that would be great. The other cut and paste jobs I've done are for new CDPs, not moving info from an old page to a new page, so I think that's okay since I'm just using it as a template to construct the new page, without changing the old page. (example - creating Boling, Texas and Iago, Texas pages from the Boling-Iago, Texas page)Jdtrue63 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Nevermind fixing Morgan Farm for me, I figured out how to do the history merge request. Hopefully everything should be good from now on.Jdtrue63 (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a kind request to please consider unblocking the page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Comedy_Shorts_Gamer&redirect=no so that an individual page can be created for "Comedy Shorts Gamer". Comedy Shorts Gamer has improved significantly since 2015 and a ban on his name/page simply because his fans (who were unaware of Wikipedia guidelines) mass-created pages feels unfair. Please kindly consider this request to unblock this page so that I can create it again, citing the correct, appropriate individual sources which I already have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithu123 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Shorts Gamer. I suggest you create the article in a sandbox and if it's acceptable it can be moved to the proper location. You can use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation system to create your draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.52.186.148&curid=24419677 who is clearly the same person from Arnold, Missouri behind this IP range: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=250&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=2602%3A304%3AB34B%3AA940%3A*&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1 and 'analysed' the IP's edits. The edits from the range are disruptive, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_Q-M242#The_Moral-Scientific_Necessity-Imperative_of_Transcending_All-too-Human_.22Identity-Politics.22 and he's back again as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:304:B34B:A940:5D1A:B29C:EFF3:EE1B Doug Weller talk 08:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Drmies has blocked for 31 hr to start. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that, thanks. I'll keep an eye on the range. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

Can you add true content that is your own knowledge? If so, how would you cite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Kamionsky (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We can't add personal knowledge, because other editors have no way to verify it. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for information on identifying acceptable sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that all the work I did to illuminate the opera 'Fausta' has been deleted. By a 'bot', as they call it, I assume? What a pity, and now no one can benefit from what I pulled together, as I've not seen anyone pull together this info about the historical/literary underpinnings of the opera any where else at all. Most of the entries on wiki seem like regurgitations of widely-available info, including the data on 'Fausta', and are hardly original primary-resource research. I thought wiki was to get jnfo out and was far more casual, and that the 'copyrighted' material you speak of was there for the picking. I don't think I could find all that info again if I tried. All lost. (sigh) Oh well.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucvaldo (talk • contribs)

Unlike other editable sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. We don't consider other people's copyright to be a casual thing, nor do we consider other people's copyright material to be there for the taking. If you are not comfortable with this, I suggest you discontinue editing here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, you sound like a quavering old bore. Te ipsum.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucvaldo (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, thank you so much for your guidelines on my talk page! I wanted to apologize, since I'm new here, as I created the article in a hurry and found that the write up at the sources were neutral in point of view. Now, I am aware my actions could have brought on legal implications, I will be more careful next time, and not create an article in haste.

I would very much appreciate it if you could go over the article once I have rewritten it, following the guidelines you have left me. You help and guidance is very much appreciated! Thank you! Seadonkey1999 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, two articles with spotty, if not pervasive copyright issues I've recently encountered are Media literacy and Renee Hobbs. The former appears to have a lot of content lifted verbatim from its sources, like much of what's attributed to Henry Jenkins; perhaps the issues go further. The Hobbs article has POV and COI issues--I've found one or two small copied passages, and don't know if there are more, but its overall tone tempts me to post a notice at BLP. Though I've done some copy editing, going through these line-by-line is a bit daunting, and I'm hoping you have the tools to check these with more facility. Thanks for any help you can provide, and best wishes for the new year. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I check them using https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/. In cases where some of the content has been there a while, there's going to be Wikipedia mirrors to watch out for. I have checked for copyvio using the tool and done some spot checks as well. I have checked for copyvio only and not for neutrality or POV. Hobbs seems borderline notable so I have added a tag. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Does that copyright check tool cover Google books? I'm still wary that a lot of text was cut and pasted from published rather than online sources. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes it picks up books. Please feel free to do some more clean-up if you find anything further. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. You suppressed all the history on this particular page as if I had never created or contributed on the page. --SirEdimon (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion was performed to hide the copyright violation in the page history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

But I mean. You supressed ALL THE ENTIRE history. Even the contribuitions from other users. The violation was only in the plot and you supressed my entire work.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In order to completely remove the material from the page hisory, 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) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

But for the records I will be kept as the page`s creator or not? --SirEdimon (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is that more important to you than getting in trouble for copyvio? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You get a point. You're right.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. I don't know if you will even read this message, but since you are expert in copyright I would like to ask you a question related to this matter. I would like which is the criteria on the copyright matter related to film poster. I mean, film poster is important to compose the article, but it belongs to the film producer. And therefore there's a copyright attached to it. What I need to do (which criteria I need to fullfill) to be able to upload and use in an article a film poster without violate any copyright. Thanks for your help.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Film posters can be uploaded here (but not at the Commons) as fair use content. Please use the File Upload Wizard to upload the poster, so that you will be guided through the process. Make sure you include a source where you got the image. Alternatively, tell me which film and post me a link to an online source and I will do it for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa. I did it by myself in order to learn how to do it. Here is the link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gargantua_(1998)_theatrical_poster.jpg. If there's something wrong with this, please advice me so I can fix it. Thank you for your help.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That is good. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. User:Cameron11598 directed me to your talk page. I found what looks like a potential copyvio at Lisbon Metro#Information on fares and tagged it with the source URL. However, because this is the fare schedule for a Portuguese metro system, I'm not sure if it's free content or not. Can you help? Many thanks in advance! AlexEng^(TALK) 01:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The numerical data is not copyright, but we don't normally include price lists, per WP:NOT. The explanatory prose is copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I could use some copyright advice (I made sure to clear a dozen items at CopyPatrol before coming to ask :)

OTRS received an email from someone asserting that their copyright has been infringed at Timeline of magic.

The good news is that the copyright holder would be happy with credit and isn't requesting that the article be taken down. So far, sounds straightforward.

There are at least two complications.

First, I haven't definitively concluded that a copyright infringement exists although it is highly likely. The complication is that the source material is a book available online, and I do not have a copy. One possibility, which I have not yet raised with the author, is that they provide us a courtesy copy so that we can confirm the infringement.

I do see that a lot of the material in the Wikipedia article matches material at this site: History of Magicians.

The person contacting us alleges that the material at that site is also an infringement of his book.

Of course, it is not quite as simple as adding a reference to the book, assuming we can identify that the book is the source, as we do not generally permit long passages even with proper quotation or block quotes, which may means we have to ask the author to provide a free license. They are asking for credit, but may or may not be comfortable with the license requirements.

I had originally thought that I would tracked down the principal author of the article and placed the burden on them to arrange for proper permission, either getting a free license for the entire contents or selected contents or converting some of the entries into proper short quotes. Unfortunately, the principal contributor to the article hasn't edited in years, so that's a nonstarter.

The simplest approach would be to nominate the article for deletion, but that doesn't serve our readers well and doesn't seem to be the best option, especially given the willingness of the author to leave the material given proper credit.

I plan to point the author to this discussion.

Do you have thoughts on how we might proceed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume the book in question is the one mentioned in this diff. A self published book available on CD or in book form. We therefore have no way of proving or disproving the author's assertion that the material was copied. However, browsing through the page history, I am not seeing any large blocks of stuff being added, other than the initial author's 15 entries; the page seems to have grown organically over the years to the 37 entries currently present. If their claim turns out to be credible, giving credit alone is insufficient; we would require that the author release the material under a compatible license.

The earliest archived version of the webpage http://www.all-about-magicians.com/history-of-magicians.html was May 2011, and shows a copyright date of 2008, which agrees with the creation date of July 2008 offered by this tool. At that point we already had the overlapping content on our page, so it seems to me that they copied from us rather than the other way around.

Thank you for helping out with copy vio; if everybody who's been helping out there could do 5 or 10 per day that would be great. Handy link for talk page watchers: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The author has graciously offered to send me a copy of the book. I'll look at it and respond after I've seen it, which may take a few days at least.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Tuesday, Diannaa! Could you please wave your wand over this article, where a new user copypasted from [7] earlier today between 8:50 and 9 a.m. Pacific ([8])? I have rolled back and warned the user. Thanks as ever—I wish there was some way to send you tangible yummy foodstuffs or the like for all your help in this regard! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(tps) @Julietdeltalima:I changed the visibility of the edits. Is that what you were looking for or is there anything else you need?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

'Twas all. Many thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I was reviewing the above a couple of days ago, and I found it had a 52.8% report, and flagged it for deletion by prod which was declined by new admin Rickinbaltimore. What is level you normally set for copyvio on an article. I thought 52.8% would be borderline, it was a chunk of stuff copied. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't go by percentages copied but by how much made it into the article. In this instance there's about 3 paragraphs. I can see why deletion was declined but the copyright material should have been removed or paraphrased and revision-deletion done. I will do that right now. P.S. : You could have cleaned it yourself as an alternative to deletion, and then tagged it for revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to paraphrase more, let me know if it doesn't work. Most of my quotations are from third-source documents. FourLights (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diana Thank you for the guidance on the wikipedia copyright policies. the violation in case of the article that I was putting together was unintended. Will restart work on it only once I have the copyright bit in order. Will reach out for help. Thanks a tonne. Shweta Vangoghstarrynight (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen that you have tagged someone of the images that I have uploaded as being to large. I thought the size I reduced them to wash fine from the original but apparently they were still to large. What size are comic book covers supposed to be to be acceptable?★Trekker (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:Image size states to multiply the dimensions, and if the result is over 100,000, the file is too big. There's a calculator at Labs (archived here, it still works) that you can use to check your image uploads. A bot will reduce any oversize images tagged for reduction. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, I just blocked Ashim nep for a long history of copyvios and unattributed copy pastes. I've cleaned up a few of the latest infractions but I think there may be more (first came to my notice in 2015 when I had to get autoreviewer flag removed and warned about a possible block). Could you take a look please? Majority of these are likely unattributed copy pastes of unrelated content (e.g. he copies content from the US mint article or Indian Administrative Services article and replaces with "Nepal" etc). I'm not sure if a CCI will be needed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have done some revision deletion on Coinage of Nepal and will try to find the time to assess the remainder of his contribs. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

THanks, actually, I think that article ought to be deleted in its entirety, e.g. see "Another major coinage found in Nepal is of the Kushan Empire was a syncretic empire, formed by Yuezhi, in the Bactrian territories in the early 1st century CE", now he's copied part of this sentence from Kushan Empire and added the rest as a copy from elsewhere after substituting some country name with Nepal. The article is filled with stuff like this, also all his other contributions aren't any different and this is what makes copyvio digging difficult as each sentence is an amalgamation of different phrases from different sources or just a minor country name change. —SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You are free to work on this yourself if you think it's urgent, as I don't have time right now. Any help would be appreciated. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on all this stuff, don't think it's too urgent, just a bit too complex to figure it out, especially since he does this multi source combination copy pastes. —SpacemanSpiff 04:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa I see the problem and will follow your suggestion.It should be possible to clarify the text at the same time.Some of the wording in the keys is awkward especially for those who read English as a second language.Also the text is out of date.This will all take some time but I welcome the task. Very best regards and good wishes for 2017 Notafly (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC) I made a start with Melangyna_umbellatarum Since the key is based on differences this should have been emphasised in the other species I expanded.

Hi Diannaa. Recently I realized through an online source that in a book titled "Diana vs. Charles: Royal Blood Feud" by author and journalist James Whitaker it's stated that the Princess of Wales had suffered a miscarriage while on holiday with the royal family at Balmoral Castle in September 1983. Can it be considered a reliable source? Does it have to be mentioned on several sources or is a single source enough? And can it be mentioned on the article with only one source? Keivan.f^Talk 13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviews at Goodreads are not encouraging, calling it gossipy trash by a tabloid writer. I would not include this info unless it it is backed up by at least one other, more reliable, source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at ITeachThem's talk page.
Message added 23:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Diannaa, I was trying to sort out Wind_wave#Wave_formation and noticed some anomalous formatting which led me to suspect some copy/paste editing. If you have the time, could you check? Things like bullets in the wikicode. This diff refers: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wind_wave&diff=next&oldid=580633457 String of edits by apparent non English-speaker, who follows up with some grammar of a much lower standard than the original suspect edit. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The material may have been copied from the journal article listed as a source, but I can't prove it, because it's behind a paywall. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I plan to improve it, which will paraphrase it to some extent. I will try to paraphrase more rather than less for this one. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. Bipin Rawat's infobox pic – File:Bipin Rawat COAS.jpg – seems in violation of the WP:NFCC #1. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. Anyone can do this; you don't have to be an administrator. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I just saw this & I apologize for wasting your time. I will never bother you again regarding anything that involves tagging. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's okay, it's probably just as well I handled this one, since it turned out to be a little complex. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I came across WP:THQ#Television in Romania so I decided to take a look at Television in Romania. I removed a few non-free images, but per the Teahouse discussion it appears that most of the content recently added by various IPs appears to be copied and pasted from www.tvchannellists.com/List_of_digital_channels_on_UPC_Romania. Would this be considered a copyright violation? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, list material is not copyright, but if there's sorting or organizing going on like there is in this case, it is copyright material and can't be copied here in my opinion. I will look after it — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Diannaa. I think the IP is back adding that copyrighted list content. I've reverted, but the info is still in the article history. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. I am new to wikipedia, but I see that you have deleted the work that I have done today. I am from the publisher of Acta Crystallographica and was asked to update the pages for this, which I started to do yesterday. We are happy to release any content that I place on the pages under the licencing required by wikipedia. I have not at this stage restored anything that you deleted. I can see that there is a mechamism for licencing of images, but also want to put some content about the journals that will be similar to what we have on our web pages (but don't know how to do this so that wikipedia editors do not claim it is copyright material). Any advice that you can give would be appreciated. Ps iucr (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Copyrighted or not, if its copied from your website, then it is almost certainly too promotional to be included here. Please see our journal article writing guide for guidance on how to create/expand articles on academic journals in a neutral manner. The JWG also gives instructions on how to upload covers under "fair use". --Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• 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. In order to include so many images in the article, they would have to be released under license, because we typically would have only one non-free image in an article of this type.

  Another 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 posted some information about conflict of interest on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. Perhaps you could put the pages back to the state they were in before I started i.e. 3 days ago. They are very out of date and incorrect factually, but given what you have said above, I have decided to make no further attempts to work on this. My role at the IUCr is a scientific editor and I take pride in providing a neutral viewpoint. I am disappointed that this has no value for wikipedia.Ps iucr (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't do that, because in that version, Section B has copyright violations from http://journals.iucr.org/b/services/about.html. Previous still older revisions have similar material, but in quotation marks, which does not let us off the hook from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ps iucr, you can update the page with factual information, just don't copy-paste it from the website. As Randykitty mentioned above, as long as you follow our guide on writing journal articles, there really should be no issue with your contributions. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa I'm sorry the changes I made were too slight and do apologise.I will check that all text from Coe is removed and at the same time put in links to the RES pdf since it is a useful though out of date free resource.I have a notion that Coe copied his keys from a much earlier work by Verrall and might use this as a source but probably not. Your actions were entirely correct.I will show you how I intend fix the problem asap. Very best regards Notafly (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Any doubts I have in future I will check with you if that is OK

Hello Dianna,

can you hide the truth about Eichmann and Bormann when you delete them? I believe crimes have their greatest power when they are concealed. Light and shadow stand opposite the orphans. I know it's very hard to bear that. If we allow the truth, we can defeat the dark. All the best to you!

Kind regards Jens--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello "Eagle Eye". I have left a message on my talk page. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ma'am, I want to state that the copyright concerns raised on my edits are totally baseless. I forgot to provide the citation , that is my mistake I accept but the data which I added , I got it from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Khanderi-second-indigenous-Scorpene-submarine-launched/article17027309.ece . The website provided by you , I never went their. Thus I request it should be first investigated then some conclusion should be reached. I my self wrote these words taking the data form the website I specified above. And please tell how can a news be a copyright of someone. If there is a violation then all other websites using this data should be sued not me. Thank you and please redo my edit as , there is nothing on that page except this. AnadiDoD (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, the news was released in public domain by mazgaon docks and Indian new through PTI . So I don't think it is a violation of any copyright AnadiDoD (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The material appeared at multiple places online, including the web page I mentioned and the one where you actually copied it from. Hence my mistake about the source. Regardless, the material is definitely under copyright and not public domain; the page at the Hindu is marked as "Copyright© 2016, The Hindu". Always please assume that everything you find online is copyright and cannot be copied here. Regardless of the copyright issue, another editor has removed the material as not being appropriate for that article for other reasons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The material is originally released by PTI and can be used for fair purposes as in the PTI copyright agreements. I will make sure to pay more attention from now onwards but the editor should provide reason for the deletion because-i added the features and elaborated the page so as to make it more informative I gave citations too. Such acts demoralise the editor at least we should be informed before hand . You Being an admin should help at least editors who provide citations and correct information. AnadiDoD (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Information released by the news agency Press Trust of India is copyright. Our copyright policy is strict; in some ways it's stricter than copyright law itself, because regardless of fair use provisions, we don't permit large passages of prose to be copied here from copyright websites. It's a violation of our copyright policy and fair use policy to do so. Please make sure you read and understand both these policies before you do any more editing. There's a simplified guide to copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright that you might find useful as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help AnadiDoD (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Diannaa! On the Gretchen Gerzina article I see that while some of my corrections have been kept, you removed other content I added in the course of trying to expand the stub, as possibly violating copyright. Sorry if that seems to be the case and it was certainly completely unintentional - I thought I given adequate attributions but cannot now check and it's hard to retrace my steps since my edit has gone completely! Can you please let me know which specific parts were the problem? Thanks. Proscribe (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the entire "Biography" section as the material was copied pretty much unaltered from the website http://www.gretchengerzina.com/index.php?id=2. I can send you a copy of the removed material by email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah...my recollection is of using one direct quote from that website, in quote marks, and with attribution, as well as other refs for her biog. But I don't think it's something we need to get into email correspondence about! Proscribe (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. Could you please have a look at User_talk:Bryan4562013#January_2017. The user has again added copyrighted content (and in some cases copying without attribution) and I doubt they understand the issue. I have warned them once but I see no response on the talk page. I believe a block is in order here, at least to force them to discuss on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa,

I was very disappointed and puzzled to see that the page I re-listed yesterday for the British feature film ‘Playing the Moldovans at Tennis’ was almost immediately removed by yourself.

Under a couple of IDs I’ve been a regular contributor to Wikipedia for several years and also always make contributions when the funding appeals from Jimmy are sent out.

I am very aware that the site has to keep a certain threshold but as someone who uses the site for my journalist work every single day I also know that there are, inevitably, many self promoting and arguably unworthy sites and I completely support the attempts to keep the selfie generation from enhancing their egos still further unless they have done something of note !

In this case, however, I am concerned there may be a misunderstanding because this is a genuine feature film with a well known British cast, an Oscar winning cinematographer, a good budget, based on a 200,000 selling book and a number of genuinely strong points that I have listed below.

I would like to request that the film’s Wikipedia entry is reviewed and that I am allowed to put it up again as it has genuine merit. I am not doing this as a paid PR or member of the crew.

I also know that the proceeds of the book and film have made an incredible difference to the lives of children with cerebral palsey in a country that unfortunately has a reputation for bullying them and denying care.

If this is not a decision you are able to make could you please advise me what the appeal process is within Wikipedia or what may have been wrong with the initial listing that I can seek to correct as it can be very confusing at times.

Thank you for your assistance

Kind regards

Essex46essex (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)MartinEssex46essex (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tony Hawks is a million selling author, one of the best known and most regular voices on BBC Radio comedy shows, is a renowned stand up comedian and presenter.

‘Playing the Moldovans at Tennis’ is very closely based on a true story. The book that Tony wrote after his experience has sold more than 200,000 copies and was a UK best seller as well as being turned into a BBC Radio series.

His previous film, Round Ireland with a Fridge, has been purchased and shown by the BBC and has it’s own Wikipedia page. That book has sold 650,000+ copies to date.

PTMAT is the first British feature film to be shot in Moldova, the poorest nation in Western Europe. It was made with the full co-operation of the Moldovan government.

The eventual budget was £300,000 but the film also benefited from very low Moldovan costs and subsidies. Had it been filmed entirely in the UK it would have cost more than £750,000.

The film’s co-director, Mikolaj Jaroszewiecz was cinematographer on the Oscar winning 2006 film, Peter and the Wolf.

Angus Deayton, Stephen Frost, Morwenna Banks and Laura Solon are all very well known British TV, Radio and Theatre actors.

Pat Cash, who commentates in the film, is the 1987 Wimbledon Tennis champion and now a BBC TV commentator.

Most of the best-known TV actors in Moldova also appeared in the film.

The film had it’s UK premiere at the prestigious Odeon West End Theatre in London’s Leicester Square in front of an A list audience of British TV and Radio actors, presenters and comedians.

It had it’s Moldovan premiere in Chisinau with an audience including the local cast and crew and members of the government.

PTMAT was shown at independent cinemas throughout the UK and released on DVD.

The film has it’s own website, IMDB listing and numerous mentions and pages on other film and comedy sites.

ALL profits and proceeds from the film are donated to a care home for children with cerebral palsey that Tony founded in Chisinau with the royalties from his original book.

The page was previously deleted in November 2016 as a result of this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playing the Moldovans at Tennis. The result of the deletion discussion was that the movie is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Before I deleted the article I removed some copyright material, copied from http://www.moldovansmovie.com/uploads/8/6/9/6/8696474/ptmat_1.pdf or elsewhere. The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:BEST logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, what I copied from GUID to UUID was a citation, because I was using the same source. Does that also require attribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.110.94 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The material that appeared to be copied was this. If you are not the original author of that prose, attribution is required. If you copied it from an external copyright source, that's a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that text. IIRC, I intended it to be in the UUID article but I had the GUID article open and by mistake I added it there, thinking that I was editing UUID. Then I moved the text to the UUID article and removed it from the GUID article. 73.253.110.94 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In mind, it may be a no good taste Trueman show, your finding is important. I apologize to you for the delay in my replying. In my image, your finding of a copyright makes you Smart on that report. so that I think so, perhaps.
As I also do not like pointing a finger at some mistakes with a lot of fuss, your very discreet comments are not negative for me. But I am in a much weaker position than upper persons because I can not write without a go-ahead from supervisors of editing articles (seasoned contributors). Oh, My English skill is really poor. --I.hidekazu (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, what is the best single article tag for a science article that does not comply with the third point of the Plagiarism guideline—"Summarising...", here—and so constitites plagiarism that does not infringe copyright? This applies to many maths and science articles, where section after section is either WP:OR or this type of plagiarism. My understandings are the most academically common (like WP policy, and informed by various university guidelines, Lipson and other books, as cited in the WP guideline), and shaped by university teaching experience. For now, I have used a Cleanup tag, here. RSVP here, merci. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a template {{Close paraphrasing}}. If you don't think it fits the case, use the cleanup template. Regardless which template you use, I suggest posting on the article talk page as to what you think the problem is and give details as to which sources you think have been plagiarized. Thanks for your interest in helping with copyright cleanup. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Two statements newly inserted were exactly copy pasted at Amaravati_(state_capital)#Etymology, from url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/deep-focus/Naidus-smart-capital-will-not-be-made-in-a-day-or-in-10-years/articleshow/52709704.cms.--Vin09 (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned and user warned. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

When you have a moment, please take a look at a recent edit to Jainism, where a few paragraphs apparently copied from “Six Substances” at JainBelief.com were added to the lead by an unregistered editor. Last edited by: has already undone the edit, but I think the material should also be hidden. Thanks!—Odysseus1479 05:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I noticed you deleted Draft:Whistle (company). I didn't think this page was genuinely reviewed, since it was flagged for deletion just a few minutes after submission. It included citations to The Wall Street Journal, CNN and in-depth reviews in publications like PC Magazine. In addition to consumer use, the product is used by universities to conduct veterinarian research. Although I am an experienced editor, I'm not that familiar with the speedy deletion process. I thought once the speedy delete was contested on the Talk page, there would be a discussion. So I guess I just wanted to check-in, because I wasn't sure if you reviewed the page and also felt it should be deleted, or if you were deleting it as a matter of administration, perhaps not realizing the deletion request was contested. Thanks for your clarification in advance. CorporateM (Talk) 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello CorporateM. I actually did not delete the draft, only a redirect from your sandbox to the draft page. The deleting admin was User: RHaworth. I suggest you speak to him. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood. That person's user page says they don't think COI editors will ever be good editors, so I think I'm just out of luck. In any case, thanks for clarifying.CorporateM (Talk) 13:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I came across a series of uploads to Commons of historical photographs where the license is listed as "own work", which seems doubtful for the headshots: link. I'm not sure how to proceed; could you advise? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What you want to do is start a deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests and do a bulk deletion nomination. There should be a link on the left to nominate for deletion where you can list one of the files and then go in and add the others manually. You might have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kannansivaram for a recent example of how to lay out a bulk nomination. Notifying the uploader of the first nomination should happen automatically if you use the link on the left. Then go to their talk page and manually add the others so they are notified of all and are not overwhelmed with templated messages. For example — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Those may well be Bundesarchiv Bild photos, but not his "own work". Kierzek (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the great pointers. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello.I'm new here, so I thought citing sources was permission enough to copy.Having now understood the copyright-related-policies of wikipedia is it okay if I put back the information you removed on Indian National Physics Olympiad, albeit, this time, in my own words, with more extensive citations? How much of details should I include, in general, while writing on wikipedia?Also, the page INPhO just contains information about the physics olympiad-Does copyright apply here, given that these are government affairs(websites IAPT and HBCSE), not private? Sorry if I'm being silly-I'm just a high school student! 112.133.232.33 (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Siddharth110200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.33 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Siddharth110200: Writing for Wikipedia is more difficult than it first appears. Please assume everything you find online is copyright, whether it is marked as such or not. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please.

Everything you add to this wiki should be backed up by reliable sources, preferably to sources independent of the subject. Content should be general information on the subject, written in a summary style. Wikipedia is not a directory or how-to guide. The article should not give detailed information about how to qualify for the contest, dates/times/locations of events, or extensive lists of winners. There's some good information about how to write for Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Your first article. Also you might consider visiting the Teahouse, where editors experienced at helping new users are available. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, thank you for the fix and info on S-layer. We have used most of the wording from our own open-source review (in FEMS; CC BY) on S-layers, used inline citations but did not mark the sentences as direct quotation with double quotation marks, sorry. Anyway, we will rewrite the paragraphs in order to keep it simple (and replace the non-open source phrases). But, a quick question: Since the sentences we used are pretty concise and often only a limited number of ways is available to say the same thing, I would like to know how/where we can check the material before editing the article again. Moreover the figure is my own work, published in the open source FEMS review too. May I use it (including the figure legend) ? Finally, I would like to emphasize that basic and applied S-layer research has made enormous progress over the last decade and thus we would like to stress our engagement in updating the article. Thank you --Adigit (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adigit. I did not find any evidence that the material I removed was released under a CC-by license, and I did check, so sorry. General information: It's okay to copy compatibly licensed material, but you have to give attribution. This is done by not only listing the source as a citation but specifying that it has been copied. This can be done by using a template {{CC-notice}} or by adding details manually like I did here. Another point: The wording of your post implies that your account is shared by multiple people. Shared accounts are not permitted. Each user needs to create their own account please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, thank you - I understand now how complex the copyright issue is ! Sorry for the confusion about my account. My account is absolutely personal (and not shared; I am the only one who knows the password). "We" simply meant that my colleague and I had been sitting together and discussed the additional information to the existing article. We have written +100 scientific papers together. Sorry and thank you again. -- Adigit (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I have edited the S-layer article and hope it is fine now. Please, may I ask you to check whether the citations of the verbatim definition of S-layers (ref.11) and figure/figure legend are okay ? Thank you again. -- Adigit (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The bot did not find any issues with this edit. Some of the content is behind a paywall so I can't say with 100 per cent certainty, but what I was able to check looks okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much ! -- Adigit (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The file you took down was created by me and my brother (Jared Miller) for the sole use of adding to the wikipedia page. There is no original publication to cite, as this is an original work. I uploaded this file in the presence of, and with the permission of my brother Jared who is the sole author of the code for the animation. What should I do to prove I have copyright permission when there is no original publication to cite? If needs be, I will re-upload the file with the copyright under my name. I have no doubt that my brother will transfer the copyright permissions to me as I worked closely with him to produce the animation. Using his name to cite the work was to respect his significant contribution. He has given me full permission to release this animation into public domain. I can have him send you an e-mail detailing such permission. I understand that such an e-mail would not represent proof of ownership, however, I can think of no other way to convince you of the originality of the animation. Cpm827 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I did take much of the addition from the Ken Sanders page. I did rewrite it into other words, and I did give Ken Sanders the credit in a ref at bottom of page. I feel that I proceeded properly; therefore I am restoring the page as written. If you feel that it should be further modified from the wording in KS' page, please feel free to do so, but I don't think it is necessary to revert. TIA --Spray787 (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but you are incorrect. The overlap is really large, and it's a copyright violation. Please do not restore. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So how are we supposed to cite info from sources? Please show an acceptable example. TIA --Spray787 (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.

Here's a sample of your problematic edit: Source says: "In June 1865, John V. Long received a letter from Edward L. Sloan, clerk of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion High Council, stating President Daniel Spencer had noticed that Long's seat at the body's meetings had been vacant and the council would like to know why. " Your edit says: "In June 1865, Long received a letter from Edward L. Sloan, clerk of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion High Council, stating President Daniel Spencer had noticed that Long's seat at the body's meetings had been vacant and the council would like to know why." Overlap: one hundred percent. Suggested re-write: "Long first began to realize that he was in trouble with the Mormon leadership in June 1865, when he received a letter from the Salt Lake Stake of Zion High Council questioning why he had not been attending its meetings." I have to do real life things for a while and will respond later should you post again. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at User:Raviobbu/sandbox when I saw you simply removed the tag and revdel'd the edits. I think that's the first time I've seen that; AFCH blanks the page when "cv" is chosen as a decline but often the page is still deleted. Is it because of the decline notice left on the page, is that just something you do? Primefac (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't normally do that, but decided to do it that way so that the author has ample opportunity to read Joe Decker's extensive remarks on the page, which have only been present for an hour. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I figured as much, but I thought I'd ask. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Joydip.B (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your review my article "Draft:Tractors India Pvt Ltd", I checked again, but i did not found any direct copy from http://tiplindia.in/about/ page, or any copyright violation however i made some changes again, please review. Thanks

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Please feel free to resubmit the draft, though I doubt the result will be any different. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to point out that the edits done by me date from 10 September 2016 whereas content deleted by you citing Copyright issues are even older that that. Hence deleting that content would be an ill-advised decision. The content I edited/added is in not plagiarized from the mentioned site. I'm willing to contest your claim. Magnilonam (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit of 09:06, January 17, 2017 was picked up by a bot as being a copyright violation. Investigating, I found that the content you added about the Students Gymkhana was a match for the prose found at http://nifft.ac.in/UserView/UserView.aspx?TypeID=1268. While investigating the problem, I found additional copyright violations by other users dating as far back as 09:07, December 24, 2012‎ so those were removed as well at the same time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa have intially replied on my talk page on the https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License%20Versions#Definition_of_.22NonCommercial.22 website when you click the link permitted uses under the NonCommercial licenses the FAQ section dealing with Wikipedia articles, Can I include a work licensed with CC BY in a Wikipedia article even though they use a CC BY-SA license? Yes. Works licensed under CC BY may be incorporated into works that are licensed under CC BY-SA. For example, you may incorporate a CC BY photograph into a Wikipedia article so long as you keep all copyright notices intact, provide proper attribution, and otherwise comply with the terms of CC BY.--Navops47 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Navops47: The "by-SA" part is not the problematic part of the license. It's the non-commercial no-derivatives part that's not compatible. Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? for a list of compatible licenses. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to explain the pitfalls of these licences and interpretation of them and bringing it to my attention :).--Navops47 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. I just had a look at the Gervonta Davis article and I can spot at least one instance of direct prose plagiarism from an ESPN article, namely in the final section of Professional career. Would recommend that you have a sweep over it, as you are more experienced in these matters. Much thanks. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Lotsa copyvio, added pretty much exclusively by one person. All clean now. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa ! I hope I'm not disturbing you. If possible, could you direct me to a page where all labels like this one "Refimprove|date=April 2007" exists ? That is, if a such page exists, naturally. Can't find any myself. The reason for my question is the "Format" part of the Argentine Primera División article. I would like to put a note there, which states "This could be explained better", or something in that direction. (I'm not certain whether some of the teams play each other twice or three times.) Cheers! Boeing720 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, never too busy :) We do have a lot of templates. I think you might want to use {{confusing}} for this situation. I found a good listing of available templates at Template:Template messages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Splendid ! And double thanks, which includes the word - "Template". Of course have I've noticed that word before, but the brain tends to throw some things out, occasionally. But more important (I assume) is that I don't even have a Swedish word for - "template". Have had a brief look at the page, and I guess I go along with your suggestion. Thanks again, your answer is much appreciated. Again! Boeing720 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Boeing720: for what it may be worth the Swedish Wikipedia uses mall (which I believe is cognate with English mould, model, & module) for its version of our Template namespace.—Odysseus1479 02:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate your concern, Odysseus. Thanks! But I'm not at Swedish Wikipedia. I'm not welcome there,and that is jolly good for me as well, actually. And it has been so during 6-7 years by now. But since perhaps 2 years ago, do we have an understanding. They removed a lot of bullshit about me, and I haven't comment them after that. But I'm far from alone to have left Swedish Wikipedia. (At occasions do I wright on Danish and German Wikipedia, but 95%+ of my contributions are made at English (the World Wide Wiki). And my only real troubles I have encountered here, is (typically) from two other Swedish (of which one is an administrator, who appear to have been blocked by Jimbo Wales himself !) Boeing720 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi dianna, you recently deleted a information from Optometry article, from the 'definition of optometry and optometrist' column. U said it is due to copyright violation from website. But, the definition is universally accepted one, and anybody can use the definition in books, publications etc. I just gave the reference URL to the website, if you wish u may delete the reference URL, but don't delete the definition, it doesn't violates any copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B10C:947C:7076:7A4C:11B0:BF95 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't the definition, which was properly framed as a quotation, and is still in the article. There was additional prose copied, and that's what I removed. Please don't restore it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is resolved. I haven't made any changes. But u wrongly wrote the <blockquote> format as {block quote}, I have corrected it, and it's all fine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B00A:B8CF:6748:ABC0:5552:8025 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a curly bracket where a pipe should have been. Fixed now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B006:1826:B8B6:F9E9:192B:E80 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. Re your deletion of the extracts from 1930s letters to UK newspapers in quotation-boxes in the F L Lucas article, please note that UK newspaper letters copyright is 70 years - i.e. letters from the 1930s are now out of copyright. (Lucas's letters were never published in book-form.) I'll add a note to this effect on the talk page. Re your other deletion, one short 1935 poem in full, to give an example of his verse, does not seem excessive (the poem has been out of print since 1935). Regards, 163.1.110.149 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.110.149 (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Material from the 1930s might still be under copyright, and the amount of non-free content seemed excessive to me. However I don't plan to pursue this further. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa,

I was not aware that facts phrased a certain way are copyrighted. Since this is the case, why only remove a portion of the DCC South entry and leave some without rephrasing it?

SortaScience (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I checked the remaining prose and could not find it elsewhere online, so it appears to be okay from a copyright point of view. If you believe there's additional copied material, please tell me what the source was, and I will have another look. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, thank you for checking the page. I had quoted some information from Euromuse because I had the permission, but wasn't aware of the steps that have to be taken for donating copyrighted material. I have paraphrased the information now and added further information, citing both sources. Thank you for your help and great work. --HistorischInformiert (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks for taking the time to do this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa: Would you please consider protecting this article which has been subject to much ip vandalism of late. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have semi'd for one week. Please let me know if the problem resumes when the protection wears off, as I am not watching that page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ibex (band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the outcome of the previous AfD was soft delete, so, in my opinion, G4 does not apply. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The new article is identical to the old one. Should the page history be restored? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, yes, that should be done! I'll do that momentarily. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Started a second AfD for it. Karst (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, I requesting you to semi-protect my user page. Thanks for reading. --Nothing7898 (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing any reason why thus needs to be done. If you want a second opinion please post at WP:RFPP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. Could you please take a look on the recent edits in Southern Gas Corridor? By my understanding there may be (but I can't say for sure) some problems with copyrights issues. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This article checks out okay in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

These three edits ([9], [10], [11]) introduced material that is potentially libelous. The editor claims he was an eyewitness. Could you please have a look to determine if the edits are suitable for WP:REVDEL? Thanks. 32.218.152.233 (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Joplinplayer (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC). 32.218.152.233 awfully heavy handed with me. Got a great deal of nonjudgemental help and comments from others (and dianna previously) made adjustments as requested. The edits reverted were from unsigned contributors, particularly a new contributor who deleted a Fox 6 news citation and associated comment, and who also edited another page with ZERO citations.

This request isn't about you, Joplinplayer. It's about legal and liability issues. 32.218.152.233 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

We can't use eyewitness testimony and adding the content immediately in front of the Fox News citation gives the appearance that the content is contained in the citation when it's not. Sourcing standards are quite high for our biographies of living people, so it was correct to remove it. I think it qualifies for revision deletion and will send an email to the oversight team as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. 32.218.32.154 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Most BLP violations that qualify for revision deletion also qualify for oversight. If you had an account, you could have skipped a step and gone straight to emailing the oversight team yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa,

I am reaching out to you because you are a librarian and I have worked with librarians very well over the years. On the Jadoon wiki article, there is a user by the name of "sitush" that deletes everything anyone puts up and categorizes it as using outdated sources. Please read the Jadun Talk page to get some background on discussions I have had with him on this topic. I am an expert on Pashtun tribes and have spent 20+ years researching them(including Jadoons). All the materials on Jadoons draws from the writings written in 1700s /1800s /early 1900s. There are many articles in Wikipedia on other tribes with no references but no one deletes them. Why is Sitush allowed to do this? why don't wiki administrators put a block on him? (they did to me!) The Jadoon wiki is being hurt by his actions because he does not allow any material on the Jadoon to mature, be modified and improved upon. ~~ Mulberry sky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulberry sky (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the page, I wonder if you are the same person who has been repeatedly adding copyright violations at Jadun. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, because copyright violations are against the law and violate the copyright policy of this website. Please don't add any copyright material to this wiki or you risk being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If I quote something from a book and then give its reference - is that a copyright violation? I have done that in the past. But you did not answer my question - what makes Sitush the judge of deleting referenced information that has been used to substantiate claims in other literature on this topic, just because he does not like it without any repercussion from Wikipedia administrators? ~~ Mulberry Sky

All material you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa :) (by the way, spent 3 years in Calgary - great place!) ~~ Mulberry Sky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulberry sky (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Why you delete my editing? What's wrong there? It was the edition of the source in the book in English language. It's very important, because showing what's happend with camp after war. --Swd (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't even clear from your edit that the source was a book. Since it's a Good Article, we need complete details on the book:

• Complete title of the book
• Author name
• Name of publishing company
• Publication date
• ISBN
• Page number. If you could please provide all that information I will format the citation for you to match the way it's done for the other citations in the article. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok. I'm sory. If you wish some others books I can help you in future (send you scans, pic). My english is not so good, so maybe better if you corect it, if it's important.

• Complete title of the book - " KL Auschwitz. Documentary photographs"
• Author name Kazimierz Smoleń (redactor)
• Name of publishing company Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, Warsaw
• Publication date 1980
• ISBN 9784906302024 (PB 1981/1497)
• Page number. 250 (all book have 252)

Book is in polish, english, french, german and russian. It's more album like book. --Swd (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I went to re-add the content, and I see that immediately above where you had placed it, the article already says "On July 2, 1947, the Polish government passed a law establishing a state memorial to the victims of Nazism on the site of the camp." So I am not going to reinstate your edit, because it's already covered in the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Thanks for guiding me on the copyright related issue. I will definitely keep it in mind. However, I have a small confusion. The content that I copied from http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/priyanka-chaturvedi-blog/people-in-villages-small-towns-worst-hit-by-bjps-demonetisation-move/ is same everywhere. I mean it is the bio / intro, so do I need to rewrite this too in my own words? Also, there is a reference on the page which is no longer available. Can that content be removed? Edwige9 (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the content you copied has been reproduced elsewhere online; news stories are often sold to agencies such as the Associated Press or the Press Trust of India and reproduced in various locations. That doesn't affect the copyright or give us the right to copy the material here. Dead links and the content they support should not be removed; the citations should be repaired using the Wayback Machine or tagged with the {{dead link}} template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Thanks for your prompt reply! So, now I want to update the content in the Intro and I have written it in my own words. Should I first show it to you or how does it work? Should I update it first on the Talk page of the Article? - Edwige9 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you've written content in your own words and you've got reliable sources to support your addition you don't have to clear your edits with me first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. I did some cleaning up, but could you check the copyvio status on July 2016 Turkish military asylum incident in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Thank you. Dr. K. 17:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, It has come to my attention that content regarding the AChemS Annual Meeting posted earlier this week by someone who does not have a close relationship with the organization was taken down. There was no conflict of interest violation so that posting/edit should have been permitted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelherz (talk • contribs)

I suggest you post on the article talk page regarding your concern. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

These diffs [12] [13] appear to be copied from the about me here [14]. I have no idea about the notability of this article, but the copying probs should be rev deled. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa - another which needs protection from ip v. If you have time. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done; two weeks this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa,

Thanks for the post on my talk page. I must confess I was unaware of this, all the time I've been editing articles its not cropped up before. However, if I understand correctly the other sources quoted are books or the online texts of publications and so don't require the attribution. The source in question only exists a web page, as far as I know, so that requires the attribution as you have added to the reference. I have used similar pages in the past and in fact some from same source. these I will need to locate and add the attribution as you have I expect. Regards Adrian

If you quote from a book or other source and place the material in quotation marks, you don't need to provide attribution in the same way tou do when copying from one Wikipedia article to another, or from compatibly licensed material from websites other than Wikipedia. You do need to cite your source. In fact you need to cite a source for everything you add to this wiki. The days are gone where we were prepared to accept unsourced content. Quoting copyright material from books or websites without making it clear that you're quoting is not okay, because it's a copyright violation. Quotations should only be used where there's no alternative and need to be short. In most instances you should be re-writing the material in your own words using the sources as a source of ideas but not of prose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

You deleted content from a page I added. You sited that it was copied from another website. When in fact the writing is originally from MY website for the film and the website you listed copied it from ME. Please don't delete things from this page. This material is 100% owned by me and my company. pinkmermaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkmermaid (talk • contribs) 23:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You deleted this sentence ("It was founded by the Ambani family and currently endowed by Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Group") from this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_Research_Foundation citing that it is a copy righted content!!! . Irulason (talk)

You are mistaken. That sentence is still present in the article, right at the bottom of the opening paragraph. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Would you please help me with What's Your Raashee? by copyediting it? I am intending to take this to GA and then FA. I would appreciate your gesture.Krish | Talk 19:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to help with copy edits any more. I suggest you file a request at the GOCE requests page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I am new here and interested in editing pages on Nazi Germany. Just wondering if you could give me any guidance, as I don't have much knowledge as to how editing works and I know you work on these pages regarding copyright issues. Any advice would be appreciated. Taylor6644 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644

Finding my talk page on your very first edit seems very precocious. Perhaps you have edited under a different username in the past? If you actually are a new editor and wish to learn how to edit I suggest you visit the Teahouse for advice on how to get started editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Taylor6644: Wikipedia:Your_first_article--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and I am actually a student who has been working with a group under supervision to understand Wikipedia. Our specific interest is in Nazi Germany, so through navigating those pages I found your username and understand your credibility as an administrator. My class and I are working towards an edit-a-thon, so I thought it best to seek advice from you, especially to avoid copyright violations during the process. You do really great work from what I have seen on other pages and maybe you could direct me to a link explaining Wikipedia's copyright policy better? Thanks for the help. Taylor6644 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. If you've never edited Wikipedia before, you are not well informed enough to host an edit-a-thon. Such projects often do more harm than good to the encyclopedia, and in some cases virtually all of the classes' edits have been reverted because of copyright violations, unsourced edits, or other reasons. If the project is a class assignment, the place to start is for your teacher to set up a course page and have all of the students listed there. Wikipedia:Student assignments gives information for the teacher as to how to set up the course page and get everybody enrolled. For information on copyright, our copyright policy is located at WP:Copyrights and there's a FAQ page at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. There's information on how to write material without violating copyright at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue and/or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. For general help getting started in editing, there's the WP:Teahouse, help pages, and the Wikipedia Adventure. The Teahouse is a good resource because there you will find peopple standing by who are experienced in helping new editors get started. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

True Diannaa. Taylor, even for experienced editors, editing pages on Nazi Germany can be difficult at times as it is an area where sensitivity, neutrality and careful research are vital (see WP:NPOV and WP:RS citing). And some of the articles are B rated or GA rated already so, there is not much to add but for minor tweaks. Kierzek (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I found one more useful resource: Wikipedia:Training/For students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

More resources for school projects: Wiki Education Foundation; Education Outreach Wiki — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help and offering your resources and insight to us, I really appreciate it. Also, thank you Kierzek for giving us some insight on the Nazi pages because I don't know that we would have known all of that just starting! Taylor6644 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Taylor6644

Hi Diannaa,

I see that you previously deleted some copyvios from FriCAS, and User:Unicas has recreated the article. You might want to take a look. --Slashme (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

Indeed, I've recreated the article from scratch. This time from head to keyboard ;) I can understand why the first post was deleted, however, it was by no means a violation of copyrights. The text passages used in the first version are part of the source code (BSD licensed, literate programming) and Axiom and forks are allowed to share it, that's why it occurs in the Axiom "books" (that are generated during the compilation). Nevertheless it's certainly better this way. Thanks!Unicas (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The examples I removed were copied from the pdf mentioned in my edit summary. The source code may be open-source but the prose is copyright, and that's why I had to remove. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. I'll rephrase them, though it were my own words ;) As I remarked, Axiom uses literate programming, so 'prose' is considered source code. However, I admit that license matters in Axiom/forks might be confusing on first sight.Unicas (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I carefully read the copyright notice on the pdf http://page.axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/bookvol1.pdf, and I disagree that the licensing conditions listed therein were fulfilled by your edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm Tim Daly, author of the cited 'bookvol1.pdf'. I give Unicas permission to quote from the book in whole or in part. As a matter of professional courtesy I'd appreciate a link to the Axiom website but this is not a requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daly (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Daly: If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Diana, thanks for those reverts on the Tina Arena page. I noticed that one specific IP had made a lot of those copyvio edits and warned them. I had ran the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector but hadn't caught those. What do you use? Karst (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I use the same, but sometimes when there's large quotations from copyright material such as reviews it throws the bot off so manually checking the edits of a known violator will often pull up more stuff that needs to be removed. So I also take a look at what remains after the first coupla passes and do a Google search on snippets of prose that seems sketchy and often find additional copyvio that way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep that in mind. The editing by the IP caused quite a significant amount of copyright violations. A repeat offender. They did the same at Martine Dennis (reverted) and Toluca Lake, Los Angeles (struck). Other edits appear to be fine. Karst (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Diana for your message. Well, the content sourced from the website was for describing the weather trend of the place. They're factual statements, so I don't understand why should it be removed when the references were cited. Of course, it could be paraphrased however, the Weather being a natural scientific phenomenon, facts would remain 'as-is' with little to no difference to the writing. I didn't use any illustrations or charts from the website, except for the weather facts (citing the source), so don't think it was any copyright violation. Hypothetically speaking, the website content could also be sourced from a geography book, and the content provider could memorise and contribute to the website souring from a book altogether, which wouldn't become a copyright violation, would it? OmerMarcel (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The web page you copied from is clearly marked at the bottom as "Copyright © BharatOnline.com" so it is most definitely copyright, and therefore against the copyright policy of this website and a violation of copyright law to copy it here. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. I realize that the result may be similar in some ways as there's technical language involved, but people do this all the time when writing about climate on thousands of Wikipedia articles so it's definitely possible to do without running afoul of copyright law and the policies of this website. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. Since you had some involvement with the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa

Hope you are doing well, I found that my article/cv has been deleted by you , and I don't know why? is there something wrong, or I missed something must be there.

Regards

Ahmed abo elseoud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedmas (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The page was located at Draft:Ahmed Abo Elseoud and was deleted by admin user: RHaworth. Reasons given by the nominator were "It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic", and "It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals." Sorry you were not notified of this deletion nomination; you should have been. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. YOu deleted some text on a page I was working on. Thanks for your attention to this. I have extensively re-worked the information that you deleted by verification from other sources of the facts contained in the paragraph and have now added that work. None of the citations now come from the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry for Ruth Fairfax, but I will include it as an external source.

here is the text I have added: After the move to New South Wales Ruth Fairfax continued to be involved in the Country Women's Association. She was the president of the metropolitan group in Sydney and also honorary secretary of the New South Wales Country Women's Association.[14] She was a vice president of the Associated Country Women of the World[15], and attended conferences in Washington and London in her role.[16] She was also an editor of The Countrywoman in New South Wales : official journal of the Country Women's Association of New South Wales which was published from 1937 - 1957.[17]

She was actively involved in a number of other organisations, including as the vice-president of the ladies' auxiliary of the Adult Deaf and Dumb Society of New South Wales,[18] and as a member of the board of directors of St. Luke's Hospital, Darlinghurst.[19] She was was a member of the State executive and then the General Council of the Girl Guides' Association.[20] She was appointed a trustee of the Public Library of New South Wales in 1937,[21] and served in that role until her death.[22] She was chairman of the Women's Council of the Australian Board of Missions[23] [24], and a patroness of the Kooroora Club for business girls, which formed in 1929.[25] [26] Thank you --Mawarre (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The new version has some (more minor) copyright violations too, and some over-large quotations from non-free sources. I have cleaned it up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Same IP is back adding the copyrighted list content to Television in Romania. See User talk:Diannaa/Archive 50#Television in Romania for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure the new version is copyrightable as the material is sorted geographically, which is more like a pure list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I don't know whether you're still checking my contributions or not, but in case if you wanted to, I decided that it would be better to report them myself. Here are the recent contributions. Based on your advice I paraphrased the sentences and didn't copy the words. Keivan.f^Talk 11:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am no longer checking your edits, as everything has been okay for quite a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at Azwu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 14:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on the articles with CDC content added and adding the footer note. I will try to make sure that we do that consistently. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I want to call your attention to a prolific Spanish editor, Vvven, who is spoiling a multitude of articles with his execrable English, unsourced "information" that is frequently distorted or simply incorrect, copyright vios, and generally incompetent edits. You can see the results of his awful work in the revision history of the "Architecture of Mexico" article, for example, from 2012, which I've fixed by either correcting, which is exhausting, because his work is so bad, or simply deleting it. His talk page pretty much tells the story. This poor soul thinks his English is just fine, and vigorously defends his laughably bad stuff. He recently become active again after a brief hiatus when dozens of images he added to articles were deleted because they violated copyright, and he seemed to be depressed. This guy needs to be stopped; he is ruining many articles. Thanks for your time. Carlstak (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The place to start is to discuss it with the user on his user talk page. If that doesn't work, I suggest you open a report at WP:ANI. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Again one of the users has violated copyright policies by uploading this image. It's obviously neither free nor in the public domain, and as it shows a living person it can't be considered fair usage. Is it possible for you to delete it? Keivan.f^Talk 04:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The image qualifies for F7 speedy deletion as it is a non-free image of a living person. What happens in these cases is the image is nominated for deletion and is deleted a week later. The nomination can be done by anyone; you don't have to be an administrator. It's easy to do using Twinkle. I've gone ahead and nominated this particular image for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa

Please could you revert the speedy deletion of Higher education in Afghanistan and the removal of text from Challenges for innovation in Malaysia, you stated you have done this because the text uses a non compatible license, the publication is available under CC-BY-SA, as stated on the 4th page of the .pdf.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There's already discussion going on at User talk:Susan Schneegans#Speedy deletion nomination of Higher education in Afghanistan. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, could you suggest a way to improve attributing the open license text so this confusion can be reduced in future? The attribution is in a Sources section at the bottom at the page with a link to publication, however this clearly isn't prominent enough. The only other ways I can think of making this more prominent is asking people adding text to put the information in the edit summary and also possibly a template on the talk page, can you think of anything else?

Thanks again

--John Cummings (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Placing it in the edit summary is ideal, as the fact that the material is compatibly licensed would then be visible first thing. This is already being done by some more experienced editors. I think you have to realize that I will make the occasional mistake regardless, being human — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, ok, thanks for your feedback, I will add this to the instructions :) --John Cummings (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your claim of removing certain additions over the Infiniti Q70 article be cause of copyright violation is questionable. First of all, the possible violation material from Car-Revs-Daily.com source was actually from Infiniti's official media newsroom, so the material removed can't possibly be from Car-Revs-Daily.com anyway. Secondly, if there really was a violation, what was the actual violation? You claimed there was violation, but failed to produced exact quotation that you considered is violation. Instead, you made such claim in some (semi-)automated messages that does not explain the exact extent of violation. That sounded like what you claimed as violation may not actually be the case. This brings to the third point. If there was indeed copyright violation, shouldn't there be some way for third party to review what was removed instead of making full on accusation? Thanks to your effort, there is no way to reveal what was actually been violated now, because you have deleted the key revision that allow others to decide whether actual violations have taken place. In other words, you deprived the accused of due process just to make your point, and that is a despicable tactic. I hope you can revert whatever it was you have removed, just for the sake of clarity. To make the fifth point, even if there were indeed copyrighted material being added without evidence of permission from the copyright holder, it may not even justify removal, since your automated response had already said contributors is allowed to copy/translate a small amount of a source material. Since the material being removed was just 431 over 14,030 bytes, that is hardly breaking the rule. If that tiny amount really is that big of a deal, the more constructive way to deal with it is for paraphrasing the questionable material, instead of going on full persecution mode just to one up against the 'violator' that you can no longer prove because the article with disputed content was removed. -- 128.100.220.37 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because or 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. The material that I removed was 63 words copied verbatim from a copyright web page elsewhere on the Internet, without a citation and without quotation marks to indicate that it was a direct quote. That's a copyright violation. Quoting this passage is not a good alternative, because it could easily be re-written into copyright-compliant prose. While I do occasionally paraphrase the copyvio material myself, given the volume of copyvio reports that are filed each day and the amount of time it takes to assess and clean the articles and notify and/or discuss with the editors involved, it's not possible for me to perform re-writes in each instance. Removal of the copyright violation from the page history was done under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I see that you recently hid some revisions on Elaine Duke because they were copyright violations. I had noticed those violations and removed them, but at the time I did that I was unsure if there was a protocol for following up on such edits and having them removed. If I encounter a similar issue in the future, is there a noticeboard or someone I should notify so the edits are removed? Thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marquardtika, that's a good question. You can tag copyvios for revision deletion using the {{copyvio-revdel}} template. If you find the template tricky to use feel free to post here giving details and I will look after the revision deletion for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

On Battle of Leuthen you deleted some text that I was working on. It should be free of any possible violations now. I've got an in progress template on it now. I'll be working on it more in a few hours. I had the material cited, and you deleted text from 3 different sources. Or your bot did. Not sure. auntieruth (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to look after this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa- As I see you have run across the above new user as well, I'm wondering if you think "his" attitude in this interaction might be worthy of attention somewhere. He was not happy with these edits I made to new material he'd added to the Maremma article. Wasn't sure if his behavior warrants an ANI or other action, so I thought I'd run it by you. Thanks in advance for any input. Eric ^talk 04:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

He wrote some of that section, but not all. There's no excuse really for the gratuitous rudeness. I have posted on his talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. On a related note: This issue and one of your posts below prompt me to ask you if you've ever come across a template or guidance that would help with the problem of non-native speakers practicing their English on en.wp. I find it to be a constant problem, but have never seen any policy or guidance addressing it. Here's a discussion I had with a couple users on this topic. Eric ^talk 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I found a couple of things: Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language and Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages. It is definitely a perennial problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those links! But I must say I find both articles a bit too encouraging. I'm afraid I'm not as patient as some of our colleagues here. Eric ^talk 23:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Virginia Tech College of Architecture and Urban Studies#History when you get the chance? All of the information has been recently added and appears to come directly from 50years.caus.vt.edu/history/. The page is cited as a source, but there may be a bit of close paraphrasing in there that might need some checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the section for now and notified the user. I will do the revision deletion in a day or two so as to give time for a re-write if he or anyone else would like to to that. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa Thank you for your heads up message on my talk page, about the Air Barons copyright problem. First of all thank you very much that you had just removed the part of the text and not deletet the whole page about the Air Barons.I appreciate that. Rewriting the facts with newly written text should not be a copyright issue. But unfortunately, my English is not very good (English is not my native language). and I fear that a text reworded by me will not be correct English. FFA P-16 (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you don't speak English well enough to write content perhaps you should be editing the wiki of your native language instead of this one. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I it is not the problem of writing a new text, its the problem to rewite a english text with keeping all the informations.I do already a lot of work on the wiki of my native language and related languages. How ever I have now add the Link in the section "External links". I wish you a nice day.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I do understand what the problem is: You feel you are not fluent enough in English to write at a level acceptable for this wiki. I found some information pages for you to look at: Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language and Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your message. I have an approval to use texts and photos from www.ehc.cz. Anyway, I will adjust the text to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md editor (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have an external relationship with the subject of the article, you may have a conflict of interest. I have placed some information on that topic on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not have an external relationship with the subject of the article. I just asked over an email if I could use the photo and some information from the website www.ehc.cz, of course I cited many other references as well. Hope the text is fine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md editor (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. I have removed some more copyright violations. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI - Updated history section per your comments Thanks! Pajokie (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)pajokie

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks for taking the time do do this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK - Thanks! Pajokie (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm asking this because you told me about attribution on my talk page when I copied from one article to another. The genus Mimulus was renamed to Erythranthe, see the work we've started at User:HalfGig/Erythranthe, about 5 years ago, but wiki has never caught up. Naturally there will be a lot of overlap. We may even redirect Mimulus. Is there a template or something we can put on the talk page for Erythranthe rather than attibuting every time there's overlap? Thank you for the help. HalfGig talk 22:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi HalfGig. I'm not sure I understand your question, but hopefully this explanation covers it: Every time you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, attribution is required. If at some point the decision is taken to change the title of the article Mimulus, the material should not be copied to the new location and the old article redirected; the article needs to be moved to the new location using the move function. This will automatically create a redirect at the old location and keep the page history intact for attribution's sake. If the decision is taken to split the article (leaving some content at Mimulus and moving some to a new location), the initial edit summary when the new article is created needs to provide attribution (i.e. the edit summary might read "Attribution: content in this article was moved here from Mimulus on February 1, 2017. Please see the history of that page for attribution"). You might consider placing a {{Copied}} template on the talk pages of both articles if you do it that way. If at some point you wish to incorporate material from your sandbox into the new article, you might consider requesting a history merge. Alternatively, the content in the sandbox could be used to create the new article using the move function. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. HalfGig talk 23:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dagar (disambiguation) was created by copy-pasting a revision of Dagar, which was deleted today per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar (2nd nomination). Will this create any attribution issue? - NitinMlk (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dagar (disambiguation) already has attribution in the edit summary of its very first edit — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Copied states that "the former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists." That's why I asked for clarification. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We can also add the attribution manually, by attributing the creator of the dab page at its current location. I have gone ahead and done that. If you are not satisfied with this solution, please consider requesting a history merge. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - NitinMlk (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, if you're inclined to do some rev/deleting, I think nearly all the content in the article was a copyright violation from various press releases and websites before my mass reversion earlier today. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You're great. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw your edit at List of birds of Sri Lanka and wondered if you think that a notice like the one you made needs to be applied to the many other lists in the "List of birds of ..." series. There are many that use the same or similar language. Thanks for your input.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It's possible. If you know of any for sure, you could add the attribution yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list of things to do. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for taking the time to review Kōzō Okamoto for copyright. However I'm thoroughly baffled by your decision to remove content that had clearly been rephrased from a news source, with correct and proper citation. In addition, I quote a single sentence from said source, with proper quotation marks and explicit reference to the source (beyond the citation). I say this from memory as I have no access to the text.

All of the above shows conclusively that I have made every professional effort I could to avoid copyright infringement. In addition, my contribution based on the news source was limited in quantity (the source article is much longer, and the verbatim bit is a single sentence in quotes, all other half-dozen sentences are my own rewording). It couldn't be the case that every word I contributed were in copyright violation.

So I kindly ask you to explain exactly how one should add content based on news outlets without infringing on copyright, since as it stands your decision contradicts everything I have learned in academia regarding proper referencing and citation. I'd like to keep my motivation to contribute more, but, without understanding exactly how to avoid this situation, I'll have to refrain.

Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealash (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Therealash and thank you for your question. There were two problems with your edit. First, there were two portions - sentences not included in the quotation - that were identical to the source web page. Second, the quotation is unnecessary use of non-free content, because there's no reason why that material could not have been paraphrased. Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself and stricter than what is permitted in academia, because or 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. I paraphrased myself the information that he is currently reported to be living in a refugee camp near Beirut, and chose to omit the less important details about his medical history and recreational activities. Here's some resources on what the expectations are for copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, Purdue, andthis module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to add TBRB's championship policy and its rankings guidelines so I copied it from tbrb website but not the entire charter and since it's a rankings guidelines its best not to be changed or paraphrased. Also, the main tbrb website page clearly says the website can be shared and encourage spreading their page to other websites so I thought copying certain parts of the text is just fine. Is there any chance for me to add the contents you removed since it's a very important part of the page? Pacphobia (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The material that I removed was copied verbatim from a copyright web page elsewhere on the Internet, without a citation and without quotation marks to indicate that it was a direct quote. The source web page is marked "© 2012-2015 Transnational Boxing Rankings Board", which means we are legally not permitted to copy the material here. It's far too much for fair use as well. I suggest you provide the readers with a link to the rules in the external links section. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, would you mind, or are you able, to remove the deletion tag placed on the photography of Stacy Schiff I uploaded yesterday? I forwarded an email from her giving permission for its usage on Wikipedia to the email address you supplied, but I'm concerned that the photo will get deleted before anyone reads it. I have never, and would never, upload a photograph to Wikipedia that's copyrighted and not used with permission. Thanks for your help, Terry Foote (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion tag and added {{OTRS pending}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. Terry Foote (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance re. copyright - I was still drafting the article and hoping for input. I had assumed that since some of the text was from the subject's website it would not be a problem but I understand the need to re-write this information in my own format. I've since found more information from other sources that I will be able to combine into the article.

May I ask why quotations are not necessary when citing a video game? How will a reader know where the information is coming from, specifically? I'm not saying you're wrong, you know better than me, but I'd just like to know for next time. Thanks. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict wp:non-free content policy, and we don't allow a lot of copyright material in our articles. Adding quotations to your citations is unnecessary if you trust your sources. The amount of non-free content being added was so large as to have been picked up by a bot as a copyright violation. Also, we prefer secondary sources over primary sources. If you don't know what I mean by that, please read Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, thanks for your guidance on copyright violations. I will rework those sections paraphrasing it as per Wiki guidelines. Regarding the Alumni section, there is indeed a more detailed list on a separate wiki page. However, in consonance with the practice of other business schools, it might make sense to have at least a truncated list of alumni on the main page, with a 'See also' for a more detailed list. Moreover, I will provide some detail to each of the programmes and student clubs (ensuring no copyvio) since they comprise an important component of the information about the business school. Thanks! Raunakshah8 (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, The same vandal who is coming back with different user names have come back and added text that is against the Wikipedia policy. His actions have caused unnecessary amounts of work for the administrators. The Url is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premakeerthi_de_Alwis The same user who has come back under the names of Wipeouting, Academiava has now come back with Premakeer. Thank you for looking into this. Ramya20 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The page has been protected by another admin. I will re-add it to my watch list. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the structure and copy. I will re-do with unique language. Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it.--YongMein (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted also because the subject does not meet out notability requirements. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The references and articles I found were focused on the subject, but if need be I can find more sources. If you Google his name you will see where we came up with his notability. We are doing this for class and some recent news promoted our creation, so we dug in further. Can you offer some suggestions please? I'd like to work with you on this.--YongMein (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, so you deleted my "copyrighted" short description of Army Men III, however, I have exclusive permission from the game's developer and can even provide proof that he did so on Steam, actually he edited the Army Men III article himself, I just most recently added a picture there, again, in accordance with his permission.

I also respectfully request that the request for deletion of the page be removed if you are a person in power, I believe the people have the right to know about the fan made project in the game series in which a lot of work and effort was put into.

Thanks in advance and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by $oldierboy (talk • contribs) 13:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please try to talk some sense into this fellow? First he started an edit war in this article, then he became obsessed with removing your warnings, and now he's very rudely removing my warnings not to do that.--Max Tomos (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, check the talk page of the article in question, dear fellow. Have a nice day, go away. — Film Fan 20:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And now he's doing it again.--Max Tomos (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I have the right to remove any nonsense you put on my wall. You don't have the right to keep putting there, mind. Watch it. Go stand outside, and breathe. Maybe do something productive. See ya. — Film Fan 20:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I see he has also removed dozens of other messages and warnings. Not exactly a person who likes to listen to others.--Max Tomos (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Hi Max Tomos. Editors are allowed to remove warnings from their user talk pages, and doing so is considered to be proof that the editor has read the warning and understands its meaning. There are, however, certain things an editor is not supposed remove from their talk page as explained in WP:BLANKING. So, unless you are sure this is the case, you should not be re-adding any content removed from a user talk page by the user in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Checking the logs I saw you and another admin have deleted this page twice as G12. My browser can't load the past website it was a copyvio from for some reason, but thought I would alert because the text contains bracketed numbers which suggests it was copied from somewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

May I ask what exactly the copyrighted material was? You give no indication - instead you just gut a whole section.

Also, you deleted my sandbox page?!? It's not even public! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldPizzaDay (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi WorldPizzaDay. I am not an administrator, so I cannot see the content that Diannaa removed. Just for reference, all Wikipedia pages are public pages that anyone who can access Wikipedia can see. Your user sandbox may not show up in Internet searches, but whatever you post there is not private in any way. Copyright violations, like BLP violations, are one of those things which are not really allowed to be posted anywhere on Wikipedia, including the user sandboxes, so my guess it that's why Diannaa probably removed it. It's OK to add content you find online in your own words to an article if you feel it is in accordance with relevant policies and can be supported by citations to reliable sources. It's even acceptable to add short quotes, etc. per MOS:QUOTE as long as you properly cite the source where the quote is found. Large blocks of text, however, which either (1) have been directly copied-and-pasted into the article, or (2) are too closely paraphrased are almost always considered to be a copyright violation/plagiarism and are not allowed. The best thing to is to read the source your citing and try to summarize it in your own words as much as possible.

Finally, one more thing about your User:WorldPizzaDay/sandbox 4. It's not really a good idea to copy-and-paste entire Wikipedia articles into your sandbox. In many cases, there may be non-free images being used in an article, whose justification for use is only for that particular article, not your user sandbox. Another problem is that even though the content found in Wikipedia article's is freely licensed, proper attribution to the source of the content is still required when copying-and-pasting into other Wikipedia pages. More about this is explained at WP:CWW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted it again, too much of it was copyvio, despite the warning. WorldPizzaDay, how can you not know what you are copying? Doug Weller talk 11:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Should versions from the creation of the article to my last edit by revdelled for copyvio or just leave them be? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If using articles in other languages as sources how would one cite said articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deum ex machini (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Our citation templates include fields for language and translated title. For example:

{{cite book | last = Keller | first = Gustav | title= Der Schüler Adolf Hitler: die Geschichte eines lebenslangen Amoklaufs | trans_title = The Student Adolf Hitler: The Story of a Lifelong Rampage | publisher = LIT | language = German | location = Münster | year = 2010 | isbn = 978-3-643-10948-4 }}

displays as Keller, Gustav (2010). Der Schüler Adolf Hitler: die Geschichte eines lebenslangen Amoklaufs (in German). Münster: LIT. ISBN 978-3-643-10948-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thank you for pointing out the copyrite issue - I actually wasn't sure about that and I appreciate the clarity. I'm working hard to be a good and welcomed contributor (because Wiki rocks specifically because of mentors like you!) Thank you! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I noticed your entry at: User_talk:Reattacollector#Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution. It suggested to me that you may have insight to offer regarding concerns I posted at User_talk:NeilN#Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles (and again at WikiProject Automobiles#User making large unilateral changes to vehicle articles over short time period without discussion).
Thanks for your time and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Sorry I had to no idea how to change the title of an article, and I promise that I did attempt to Google it. The only solution I found was to create a new article and redirect the old one. I quickly realised that this was no correct since another user (Xx236) informed me. Thank you again. I shall look through my history and see which pages I have moved and list them in the link you provided. Thank you and sorry. Leave a message on my talk board if you want to discuss something - BardiaSaeedi. 22:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BardiaSaeedi (talk • contribs)

Hi Diannaa, I removed some content in 2011 Southeast Asian Games that was copied from various sources. Think I got most of it but the issue is that some seems to have been added over 500 revisions ago. Would it be worth doing a huge revdel here or would that be excessive? And would WP:CP be a better place for this? Thanks, /wiae 🎄 14:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

We actually do big revision deletions fairly often. If you would like to tell me which diffs to do I will get it done right away. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

One big chunk was added today (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Southeast_Asian_Games&diff=prev&oldid=765048939), but there are other copied parts dating back all the way to 9 March 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Southeast_Asian_Games&diff=prev&oldid=417973972). The extent of that earliest copying is the part about the NSC "mulling over the possibility" and another sentence, which you can see appeared on the Internet at least a week earlier. It's only two sentences and a quote that were copied, but it is direct. /wiae 🎄 14:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

All done. Thank your for your excellent work on copyvio clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being so prompt and helpful! /wiae 🎄 15:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I may be wrong on this, but it seems that your revision deletion on this article may not be compliant with WP:CRD: "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used." Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's the way we normally do it. Contributions are not removed, only hidden, so the attribution is still present, but is only visible to admins. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please check the recent edits I made to INPhO and tell if they're okay(i.e., no plagiarism/copyright infringement, summary style etc.) Siddharth110200 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, had a brain fart and hit the wrong button while I was editing - sorry about that. I meant for a preview instead, and it went live. Last night wasn't one of my finer moments all round, I'm afraid. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Why you deleted this page? Page described Lithuanian mentions as a Slavic language which NOT duplicates an existing Lithuanian language topic. Craft37by (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is the wrong place to write your article. I suggest you prepare a draft first and then move it to main space once it's ready. Or add your material to the main article Lithuanian language. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa,

It for sure was changed, (Iran–Turkey relations) but anyway, as the edit is hidden right now, Please make it back here, and then I will be able to rewrite and put it back in the article then. Or at least make a subsection on the talk page of the article so I rewrite the texts once more and make more changes.

Thanks,KhabarNegar ^Talk 11:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The material added to the article was identical to the source webpage, so I cannot post it on the talk page. You can view the content at http://www.iran-daily.com/News/130925.html?catid=1023&title=Iran-determined-to-combat-counterfeit-medicines; it's the part that starts " In an exclusive interview with Iran Daily, ..." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm trying very hard to learn, and can't imagine what copyrighted material I may have included. Could you please give me more info on this? I'd really appreciate the guidance. Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Petersmillard. It's not a copyright violation, but we should not say in Wikipedia's voice that it's a fact that the device has an impeccable safety record. Nor should we say without providing a source that its safety record is because of the simplicity of learning and using the instrument. I removed that and amended the first bit to say that the World Health Organization describes it as having "an impeccable safety record", which is pretty high praise regardless. The copyright violation was when you were describing how the device could be put together using pieces from differently-sized units and thus not function as designed. I re-worded this passage to read "Because the Gomco clamp is made of three major parts, there is a chance that pieces could be incorrectly assembled from differently-sized units. Using mismatched parts results in a device that might not sufficiently crush the foreskin, potentially resulting in hemorrhage." You can see exactly what changes I made by examining this link. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. Excellent changes. I am a bit confused about the different manufacturers being removed, though, since that is a point that WHO makes clearly. This is because different manufacturers would have very slightly different sizes, even if they were listed as the same. I don't believe the Gomco clamp has been copyrighted for many years, but I am not an expert in copyright law.Petersmillard (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The prose is present in the WHO document http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44478/1/9789241500753_eng.pdf, which is marked as being © World Health Organization 2010 All rights reserved; that's what matters here, not whether the device itself is still under copyright. I will re-add the bit about different manufacturers. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for the clarifications and improvements.Petersmillard (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Could I ask you to edit the Prepex article? I am trying to clean up the circumcision devicesPetersmillard (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC), but don't know where to start with this one. It seems like marketing to me. I'd really appreciate it. PeterPetersmillard (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to do that. I am too busy with copyright clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa--a student of mine needs a hand. Can you look into the license problem? I'm not very good with that kind of stuff. Thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The photo needs source information and a license tag. A photo from 1931 has to be assumed to still be under copyright, which means we cannot host it here unless it is tagged for fair use. We can't use fair use images in sandboxes or drafts, so we can't use this image until the article is live and in article space. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The source is apparently here, where it says “Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws.” That doesn’t say who owns the rights or why, but if it’s the archive or the university it might be willing to release them through OTRS; a contact e-mail address is provided at the bottom of that page.—Odysseus1479 22:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Diannaa, Odysseus1479. I found the curator for the collection and am emailing him. Diannaa, can you go ahead and delete the image? Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The image is already tagged for deletion and will be removed on or after Wednesday, February 22. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick question. Why was this deleted? A WHO expert review meeting on infant circumcision concluded that the procedure is easier to perform and associated with less pain and fewer complications when performed within the first two months of life.[2] When infant male circumcision is performed by well-trained, adequately equipped and experienced personnel, complications are minor and rare, occurring in 1 of every 250 to 500 cases.[2] It doesn't seem to be copyrighted material to me, but I am just learning. Thanks!Petersmillard (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The material was removed because it's identical to prose on page 5 of http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500753_eng.pdf?ua=1, which is marked as © World Health Organization 2010 All rights reserved. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law to do so. All prose you add to this wiki must be written in your own words. Copyright law 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) 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks.Petersmillard (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, info at Allama Gohorpuri Rahimahullah has been repeatedly reinstated since 3 August 2016 and appears to be copied from this website. The article had numerous problems prior to that but, I think, was probably at least free of copyright violations. I vaguely recall you recently mentioning that there is a revdel tag for situations such as this but I can't find it. Can you assist? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. The template is at {{Copyvio-revdel}} but you can post here instead if you like. I am seeing the copyvio coming from http://www.shariahcouncil-midlands.co.uk/articles/shaykhul-hadith-allama-nooruddin-gohorpuri.html ; the Wayback Machine shows they had the content first, as they archived it on April 2, 2016, and the content was first added to our article in August. Revision-deletion is done. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up about my cut n paste move. I currently have a problem with the title of the article. It currently is "British-Israel-World Federation" but the real title of the organisation is "The British-Israel-World Federation"^[1]. Can you please assist me?? Thank you again, Scynthian (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Per our manual of style, we don't normally include "The" in the title of our articles. If you think an exception should be made, I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page and/or file a request at WP:requested moves. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you please tell me what "we do not build our articles using primary sources" actually mean (??) and how you connect this with:

Primary source From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources".

Yours sincerely,

--ORANSIGLOT (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@ORANSIGLOT: While we do allow short quotations from non-free sources, the amount of non-free material you included was excessive, as there was 817 words of quotations in a 1795-word article. The quotations were 45% of the article. What's permitted is short quotations (ten to fifteen words) from reviews or other sources, and only when there's no alternative. In order to comply with our copyright policy and non-free content policy, the article needs to be written almost exclusively in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I gave a second opinion as best I could. I also asked a question, which hasn't been answered, so I started to take a bit of a look. What are your thoughts (if any!) on the status of this document in view of this and this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of the original document, the translation appears to be under copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This comes from this. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Coenzyme Q10

I see no reason why you allowed that user SundayClose to delete my edits, since both are sourced, I wish there were 100 studies saying a drug cures Autism, but at least there is one source in both edits, the Q10 page for example says at the beginning of Supplementation:CoQ10 is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of any medical condition, yet there are 8 subsections, why was my edit the only one deleted? I was going to post the link, but I saw that SundayClose deleted my edit completely, it cannot be restaured, WHY? What's so bad about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove your edit. What I did do was perform revision deletion to hide the material in the page's history, because your edit was a copyright violation. You were notified of this on February 13. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. This user did it again here, copied from http://www.consumerlab.com/answers/Which+supplements+have+been+shown+to+be+helpful+for+autism%3F/supplements_for_autism/. He/she is being very defiant, edit warring on two articles over a period of months and making two personal attacks on my talk page: [15], [16]. I also suspect there is some socking with IPs: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Granito diaz. I hope something can be done about this. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule against editing while logged out. The user has been warned about copyvio, personal attacks, and edit warring. Any further violations in these three areas will result in a block. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. As you had previously said in order to avoid plagiarism we should paraphrase the sentences. That seems reasonable when we want to use an article or book as a source but what about a list of items or things? As it's been common in Wikipedia, the articles about royal figures usually contain the names of their patronages. For example a series of charities are currently listed on Diana, Princess of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc. Here's a list of all the charities that were under Diana's support. My question is that how the names of these charities should be added to the article? Or is adding only the names of buildings, items, charities, flowers, etc, that are mentioned in a source a copyright violation at all? Keivan.f^Talk 08:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an alphabetical list so there's no problem with copyright. However, I don't think you should add it to the article, as it's far too much detail. You might consider creating a separate list article, or offering the BBC web page as an external link on the main article, or both. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very detailed list but, per your advice, I'll try to add only the names of important and notable charities and organizations to the article. Keivan.f^Talk 04:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa. Sorry couldn't get to to you in time. I am sorry for the non para-phrasing of data. if you re-enable my previous edits, I may be able to fix the problem.Messiaindarain (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I will send you the removed material by email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I understand you had to remove the content that were creating copyrights and plagiarism issues and therefore I'll try to rewrite or to follow the correct procedure to quote / donate etc copyright content. What I actually don't understand what is the content you found "advertorial", I can work around on the copyright issues, so could you advise on what was advertorial, please? I'm trying to understand how Wikipedia works and therefore when your guides / helps aren't so clear I cast an eye on pages that I find similar to the one I'm working on. For example, I broke in two a bulleted list as I found the code in a page, as the "help" in the dashboard doesn't say word about. Similarly, I wrote the board of trustee as I found it in the LAMDA page; why can they show it? How can I find the correct template to follow to populate wikipedia pages? How can I understand what exactly kind of organization is a certain business? Finally, could you be so kind to help me to understand how to upload a business logo? I really don't have the faintest idea of what I have to write to "explain how the use of this file will be minimal". I'm really sorry. Thanks for you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppanico (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The content I removed as worded like an advertisement and containing no useful information was this stuff, which reads more like a press release or an advertisement than an encyclopedia article:

Using other articles as a guide is a good idea, but make sure they are high quality articles. The one you chose to emulate is stub-class, which is our lowest rating on the quality scale. It's not so much athat they are "allowed" to have that content; it's the fact that as the encyclopedia has grown to now include 5.3 million articles, it's no longer possible for experienced Wikipedians to be monitoring them all continuously. Also, some of the people listed in the LAMDA have Wikipedia articles, and the patroness is the cousin of the queen, so these people are notable in their own right, so it's a lot more reasonable to list them than it is to include a list of private individuals in the CDET article. I have uploaded the CDET logo for you from the Twitter page. Please have a look at how I templated it for fair use and use it as a model for any corporate logos you might upload in the future. You might consider visiting the WP:Teahouse, where people experienced in helping new users are available to answer your questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I got the message about the picture in Standard Manufacturing DP-12 I added as well as the article. I was a little unclear about the article part, is it just in reference to the picture in the article possibly being a copyright violation or other parts of the article as well? Would removing said picture be sufficient? PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The entire article is a copy of another Wikipedia page: Kel-Tec KSG. While it's okay to copy other Wikipedia articles if proper attribution is provided (which did not happen in this case), I doubt that the two firearms are so identical. Hence the deletion nomination. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I used the KSG article as a base because the two items are so similar. Changing all the states that were different and adding parts to differentiate the two. The main difference between the two is one has two barrels and the KSG one. The bulk of the duplication hit seems to be from the bullpup firearms template at the bottom. With the other duplications being common features between the two. So I am not sure if it is not a false positive there. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I see, well thank you for the information. I will rewrite the common sections tonight to fix the issues. Again thanks for the help on this, I appropriate it. Cheers! PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page and for the warm welcome. I fully understand that it is important to not cite too much from textbooks in order to avoid copyright problems. But what I don't get is, why you deleted the DSM-5 criteria for SPD. Because they're the same as in DSM-IV- TR and these are cited freely everywhere on the web anyway, e.g.: http://behavenet.com/node/21648. Thanks in advance! Best Wishes, --Schattenblitz (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Material in the DSM-IV is copyright, and the publishers have specifically asked us not to copy their material here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You are going to get fed up of me, sorry. I have just commented out a paragraph that appears - sometimes directly, sometimes very closely - to come from this book. I actually suspect pretty much all of the additions of the last couple of days will be violations but most of the sources are not online. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not getting fed up with you - please stop by any time! I have removed the passage you commented out and was unable to locate anything else that is provably copyvio. Thanks — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I have been away, so my apologies for the tardy reply. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Your input would be appreciated with the possible copyvio noted at User talk:Drmies#Help, I think I found a mass of copyvio / Talk:Bluebird K7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but you've already got two admins working on the case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I understand to a degree that you removed the section, but the information is technical and has to come from a government source. The newspaper cannot make up a list like that on its own. So I doubt that the information is copyrighted, - it would mean that they made it up. It would be nice if the newspaper would reference their source.Ekem (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If you find a government source, it would be okay to re-add it unaltered. Otherwise we have to assume it's copyright since it came from a copyright newspaper. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This the FAA source:[17] Ekem (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's okay to re-add it then. If you copy the material exactly, please either use the template {{PD-notice}} or place it in quotation marks, so that the readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa! You'd been very sweet to me with an issue last year with an article I posted and I'm writing in the hopes you can help shed some light on something that happened last night! Over the weekend a friend posted a ted talk on their facebook page. I really dug the speaker, Richard Greene, and started looking into him on Google. Turns out he has a fascinating life and career; and also has been a popular talk radio host on Air America; a judge on a Learning Channel show; and is a regular writer for Huffington Post; as well as a global speaker and author (he wrote a book for Penguin Publishing with a forward by Tony Robbins (who he was partnered up with apparently (Robbins wrote the intro to his book and it's on the net on a bunch of book selling sites)). Anyway, I was JUST starting to post the article I wrote about him when I got an immediate red flag - speedy deletion. And then I contacted the user who added the tag and spent the night adding in over 40 links/references I found on the net. Anyway, I just woke up and it was deleted by another user. I would be so grateful to understand why it got deleted. I wasn't trying to promote him, just add what I think is good content on a credible and noteworthy person! :-(!!!

The place to start is to speak to the deleting administrator, User: Athaenara. I see you've already done that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User: Athaenara - thank you so much for replying. I tried to speak with Reddogsix immediately upon him adding the tag to my article; and the response I got was to leave the tag there and contest the deletion. I'm really coming from a point of wanting to be educated - and while I've been waiting I'm finding more links - like this one from CBS news that clearly states Greene's significance and mentions his legitimate connection as a speaking coach for Princes Diana - something I think on it's own would be of interest to the community - http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/28/master-of-charisma-shares-his-history-with-princess-diana/ - So, I guess I will try Reddoggsix again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Step one is to discuss with the deleting administrator. The deleting administrator was Athaenara. They have not yet responded to your inquiry. The second step, after you have discussed with the deleting admin and if you are not satisfied with the outcome, is to open a deletion review. This is done at WP:Deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User: Diannaa - hey - I am not getting any response from Athaenara - I wonder - since something clearly was misunderstood here - is there any one else I can contact? Sorry to bother you! Just wondering if you had any further insight for me. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Athaenara has not edited since your post. Please be patient. Not every editor logs in every day. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information you supplied in User_talk:Vfrickey#Copying_within_Wikipedia_requires_proper_attribution. I was unaware that such copying was in any way restricted under our project's licensing. But, looking up over this editing xcreen, I and other editors are warned "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." I was obviously negligent in not having followed the link "certain terms and conditions". I note that it doesn't point directly to the relevant guideline in this case, which is WP:CWW. I ideally ought to have read the source cited for that transferred material and written my own precis of it for the article Incapacitating agent, which would, I think, have eliminated the attribution issue entirely (or would it have?). And what about paraphrases of other editors' content? Is attribution required then? I'd say it was under a broad construction of WP:CWW, but the guideline doesn't address paraphrased material specifically. Thanks for your time and help. loupgarous (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources--Moxy (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Attribution is required in every instance where the material you move or copy from one Wikipedia article to another is not entirely your own work. If you re-write the content using the Wikipedia article as a base from which to work, you might use an edit summary of "Attribution: This material was adapted from Sleeping gas on February 19, 2017. Please see the history of that page for attribution." If you go to the original source document and write your own prose using it as a source, attribution is not required (but naturally you would want to cite your source in the usual way). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've prodded this as an opinion essay, but the content reads to me like it was copied from somewhere. Copyvio detector only is at 54% and I didn't see it as blatant enough for G12. Thought I would see if you had an opinion on it since you are so good at finding copyvios where others can't. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The copyvio detector is only picking up the books in the bibliography. But using manual searching I did find a pretty big overlap with http://www.ecowatch.com/after-sailing-3-000-miles-its-official-microplastics-are-everywhere-1882083465.html and an even bigger overlap with http://plastic.scaquarium.org/plastic-smog/. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, I have a problem and I don't know how to resolve it. I'm a specialist of Khmer language. I wrote the biography ot the famous Khmer writer Soth Polin (and others). I spent weeks to write it, trying to do my best (I'm new in Wikipedia) with all the good references (Universities, Journals, Reviews, translations, etc.), etc. It's a big work. I had a problem with Triptothecottage. He sent me a warning that I was vandalizing Wikipedia. I was not, of course, I was just correcting my own text! I told him he was to fast. I removed the warning but he never apologized. And two days after, he removed my page for "Investigation of potential copyright issue". I don't know what to do. It's too complicated for me to resolve this (I tried to follow the procedure but I am lost) and my page will be deleted soon. It's unfair. I asked him to help me. But he didn't. Please have a look. It's just because of few sentences in a small biography before an interview here (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/55431), which was just a English translation of my own work in a the French Jounal "Europe" (everything is written in "References", Triptothecottage should have read this) This is a very serious work which now has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale... I'm sad. I tried to do my best and the only thong I received it's an offer of deletion... Please help me. Domrey Sar Domrey sar (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Should just clarify that I self-reverted my initial identification of the edits as vandalism when that clearly wasn't the case. I've also explained to the user on my talk page how best to proceed if he believes that he is the copyright owner of the content. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Domrey Sar. Sorry you are having a bad experience here. 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 WP:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Have made a mental note that next time I come across a copyright violation (like Mount Pleasant, New Zealand), I shall change visibility of the revisions as part of my edit. Schwede66 18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, any and all help is greatly appreciated. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I have a wee problem/request. I've been trying to get hold an image for several weeks. The image of the front cover of a code book used by the British during World War II. This is it Front Cover. I spoke to the guy who I thought who owned it, about three months ago. He came back, says he gave the code book, the whole lot, to Bletchley Park Trust. They have came back with an email yesterday, which states:

Thank you for your e-mail which was received on 31st December 2016. You wished to receive copyright permission to reproduce two images in a Wikipedia article. With apologies for the delay in getting back to you, unfortunately whilst the Bletchley Park Trust does indeed hold the code book in question (Object Number T-1495) we do not hold the copyright to it. Although the donor of the code book may have believed that they were signing-over the copyright to the Bletchley Park Trust, this cannot actually have been the case. This is because as an official UK Government publication, the copyright would have resided with the UK Government until such time as it expired (which may or may not now have occurred). I am sorry that we could not be of more assistance on this occasion and wish you well with your research.

Does that mean the copyright of the image is still active, or would it be in the public domain? If it is still active, would you happen to know who I could contact to get a licence on it, to produce it. Sorry for dumping it on your lap. Sometime I look at these emails I get, and I can't make heid nor tail of them. scope_creep (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The title page of the book indicates a publication date of 25 June 1921, which makes it in the public domain in the United States. Crown copyright in the UK expires 50 years after publication, so govt works prior to 1967 are now PD. The license templates to use are {{PD-US}} and {{PD-UKGov}}. Document is OK for the Commons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Coolio scope_creep (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diana, thank you for your inputs. I have been requested by the Professor himself to edit his page on Wiki, and add the content that appears on his own website. Perhaps you could help me with how I could go about doing it without violating any copyright issues? I would greatly appreciate your inputs on this, as the Wiki page on this very talented and creative person is sadly inadequate. Thanks! Sandii555 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Sandii555

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Another 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. Another editor has already placed some information about conflict of interest on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, The Conference Topics section that was removed from the LREC page comes from the Call for Papers of the conference. LREC and ELRA have not copyrighted the CfP, but since we, as Programme Committee of the conference, are issuing this call in the first place, we are entitled to use it including on Wikipedia. ISCAPAD is just conveying this information we have provided them to their community. Please put the section back in the LREC page. Looking forward to your reply, Best,

Helene Mazo (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Helene Mazo

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Another 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 talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dianaa, I am not sure I understand why this is related to copyright issue: the topics of the conference ARE the content and the terms used in this scientific community cannot be rephrased or replaced with synonyms. In this field, "Information retrieval" or "Speech translation" are terms that are found all over the scientific literature, but also announcements more random documents, and understood by all the members of the community. I would be grateful if you could help me sorting out this specific issue, as I am sure that you have come across this already. Thanks Helene Mazo (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Helene MazoHelene Mazo (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Helene. The source web page http://www.elda.org/en/islrn/ is marked at the bottom "Copyright © 2015 ELRA - All Rights Reserved". What that means is that we are not allowed to host the material without the written consent of the copyright holder. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Copyright law 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 policies. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't destroy sources by stripping them of quotes, often the quote is the last reperesntation of the content when the original source is down and the webarchive couldn't save it (too old, robots.txt etc). Please consider reducing the length of quotes to a save length instead of eradiction in future. Thank you! Shaddim (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The included quotations were large, so large that a bot that detects copyright violations was reporting their addition. You should not need a quotation in a citation at all, especially if the source document is readily available online. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I cutted them significantly, I hope this is an appropriate compromise. About the quotes: they give the exact position cited, therefore they are valuable. Also, I have seen it too often that sources suddenly disappeared and were also not available in the Webarchive, therefore I'm careful here in relying on the online sources alone. cheers Shaddim (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Our non-free content policy calls for quotations from non-free material to be kept to a bare minimum. What I do is check the Wayback Machine at the time I add an online source to an article, and if the page has not been archived yet, I add it myself. That way I can be sure that an archived copy of the citation will be available later if need be. Then I check my good articles periodically and add the archive urls for any links that have gone dead. You can also add to your citation archive urls for links which are not yet dead. Template:Cite web has parameters available for this purpose. The use of citation templates also makes your sources available to bots such as User:InternetArchiveBot, which crawls the wiki looking for dead links and adds the archive urls. So please consider these alternatives as we really are not permitted to use non-free content unless absolutely necessary. Adding: Wikipedia:Quotations is an essay, which is trumped by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, an official Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. I am removing the quotations again. These will still be visible in the page history for future reference if you ever need to refer back. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

well, you activity seems well thought out I have to admit, beside one point which had bitten me before: even when archived, a later added robot.txt prevented access, so we can't relay on webarchive even if currently available. also, I'm not sure why you eradicate all quotes, even the smallest one, which are clearly inside safe boundaries (e.g. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations 250 words). "Our non-free content policy calls for quotations from non-free material to be kept to a bare minimum." -> well, this does not mean eradication. I would argue, if sufficiently small they should not be eradicate as we can't relay on the webarchive. Way aroudn I will cite Quotations "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles." I see no policy forbidding the use of quotations in references, therefore I think your actions are overzealous, especially on the already shorted one. Shaddim (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, so sorry. Our non-free content policy is clear: quotations from copyright material should not be used unless there's no alternative. The content is properly sourced, and there's no reason to permanently prove via quotations that the sources you provided back up the content. Occasionally people use a quotation in a citation, but that's only when they expect their work to be challenged or the subject matter is controversial. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Our quotation policy encourages clear sources and gives not hard limits the here discussed quotes would violate. And while I agree on your point we should minimize them if possible, I see no reason to eradicate them. I think your current eradication is not backed by the policies, especially the now only one sentence long quotes are quite clear outside of copyright and doesn't reach the threshold for originality. If I look here and take the most strict interpretation, everything below 11 words is not copyrighted. http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/563/6WJLTA247.pdf?sequence=6 I see no base for eradication of these extremely short fact quotes. Shaddim (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no quotation policy; you pointed at an essay. What you need to look at is the relevant policy, which is WP:NFCC. 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 alternative is to provide a hyperlink to the source web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My argumentation was and is never fair use; I'm aware of its limits. My argumentation is you eradicate content which is so minimized to pure facts and so short that it doesn't constitute an copyrightable expression of idea. To summarize: facts are not copyrightable, and text needs a minimal complexity and length to be copyrightable. If both is not fullfiled, this is not fair use but public domain, where we have no usage restrictions. Your argumentation is not consistent in itself as also the other "copyrighted" texts in the given references would need to be eradicated: the title, the names, the website, the publisher etc. But, as copyright does not protetct such minimla facts (including such short quotes) we are fully allowed in includiong this: this has nothing to do with fair use or "freely licensed" but wiht "this is not copyrighted" Shaddim (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned here as you apply an dangerous over-eager precedence while you didn't address my point: we can't rely on the links or webarchive. Our possibilities of content additions are limited enough, don't restrict them needlessly without good reason. 07:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is information from the policy page: "Non-free content may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the non-free content criteria are met. 1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This is Wikipedia policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't address my points at all: If we apply such excessive interpretations we could not even "copy" titles and names into inline sources. Also, you didn't address my point that this material is free, as it is not copyrighted. If it would be, not we would have a serious problem. Do you want that we have a serious problem? Last, point even if I take this policy literal I could argue there was no alternative to this material and should be therefore in. Shaddim (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

also Wikipedia:Non-free_content includes the use case very well: "Acceptable use - The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. Note that the use of such media must still comply with the Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information. Text - Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea inline citations are exactly that and backed by this. I see no ground for your eradication policy. I will comply with you demand for minimization, e.g. cutting the quotes further, and re-add the quotes as they attribute an idea, and we are required to provide good long time available attributions. Shaddim (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I still don't agree with you, but I am not going to pursue it any further, as you are sucking up too much of my time and energy, which I value. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There has been a long-running dispute at Talk:Lichfield Gospels between users Wilshire01 and Blackstache regarding an external link to a University of Kentucky site pointing to a collection of images of these medieval manuscripts. It is my impression that Wilshire01 perceives some defect in the CC licensing declarations at the Kentucky site. They place in evidence a contract between Lichfield Cathedral, the institution which owns the documents, and an organization that performed the digital scanning. Earlier editors involved were PseudoAristarchus and Johnbod. There may also be allegations of an academic dispute about attribution or suspicions of COI editing.

Both sides have stated they were calling for administrator attention, but I can't find any results. And the dispute continues.

I've seen you handle some copyright issues before and I would like to ask you, with your expertise, to try to settle this back and forth, which has been going on for a couple of years, it seems (so I guess there's no deadline). It's not a routine problem and posting it at WP:CP did not seem like a fruitful path.

Thanks, jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I got your message. I looked at the document, which was written in 1945, as part of homework for TICOM. I can't see how it can be in copyright. The stuff that is posted up in that web page is written out from the document. General Praun only wrote one document, and that is that. I took the view that as Britain is in Europe still, copyright terms would be the same, i.e all documents before 1995 are in public domain. It mentions the report creation on his article: Albert Praun, scope_creep (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The publisher Communications Security Establishment is a Canadian organization, so therefore the document would be Crown copyright, which means the copyright expires 50 years after publication. The problem is you are showing a publication date of 1988 in your citation,, that's why I made the mistake. I will fix it up now. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is the document here, which it is based on, all 294 pages. Praun Report. It is dated March 1950. scope_creep (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) WorldCat also shows an original publication date of 1950, so I am going with that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required." Does this not apply anymore? Kinston eagle (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question. If you wrote the content, attribution is not required. If you copied it from another article but did not personally write it, attribution is required. Hope that answers your question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the content. When I move something I didn't write, I will attribute it. Until then, please stop nagging me. It is getting annoying. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel I must challenge you on the removal of the plot from The Girls (musical) page on the basis of copyright. The show has the same plot as Calendar Girls and as such I used this article as a starting point, and used the same plot description as per the movie. I have tracked this plot description back to an edit made to Calendar Girls back on May 26 2008, where it has been in place for almost nine years - unchallenged, yet your reasons for removal cite an article from 2015 . I believe this was original writing by user MovieMadness as I can not find an earlier use of this prose elsewhere. It appears, rather, that this local production in NZ source looked to Wikipedia for a plot description for their production. Mark E (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) ETA: I note from your page you may be able to assist in how to correctly use this plot description from Calendar Girls in The Girls (musical), any guidance appreciated!Mark E (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry for the mistake, the bot does not check the wiki and I did not spot that it was internal copying rather than from elsewhere on the web. What you need to do when copying from one article to mention in your edit summary where you got the prose from. In fact such attribution is required under the terms of our license. Please see WP:copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic. I've re-added the material and provided attribution in the edit summary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Been out of the editing loop for way too long!Mark E (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for putting that template on the article. I should have read the talk page archives. I'll make sure to consult the talk page in the future when I see intros with more than 4 paragraphs. Thanks and keep up the great work! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Herblouise945 is still uploading random copyright images such as File:Gov. nathan deal (cropped).jpg - I think a block may be needed to get the point across. Twitbookspacetube 03:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

you are overreacting. I understand my past uploads were not allowed because they were screenshots taken from youtube videos without premission however this was modified from a file uploaded on here that allows for modification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herblouise945 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please make sure you read and understand our copyright policy before you upload any further images. Further copyright violations will result in a block. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna can you advised that I am okay to copy some content from the following book Hamilton, Admiral Sir. Richard. Vesey, G.C.B. (1896). Naval Administration: The Constitution, Character, and Functions of the Board of Admiralty, and of the Civil Departments it Directs. London: George Bell and Sons. the author died in 1912, for a draft The Department of the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty that I am doing I would be including it the section Secretariat branches as its the only published work I could find that explains the structure if okay I have already included an attribution notice in the draft many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's okay to copy from public domain works as long as you make it clear that you've coped and not written the material yourself. You can use the template {{PD-notice}} as part of your citation like this. The way you did it in the draft in your sandbox 5 is also okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa many thanks once again for your assistance I have included the tag in the draft and references are fine and I learnt something new, apologies for undo on the talk page but my main PC crashed during posting my reply I am in a part of the world where the telephone lines are not that stable.--Navops47 (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)