Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

Is it enough?

The article I am working on now shows all green and less than 25% confidence, though Earwig's tool still marks things like "People's Republic of China", "Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP)" or "Caragana gerardiana and Lonicera spinosa" in pink. How bad is that? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If you mean Mustang District, there's some overlap in the Health section that could be re-worded or removed. Otherwise it's clear. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Username abuse

In the edit filter, there is this guy who keeps attempting to create apam usernames and is filling up the filter logs. Anything that you can do? 2602:306:3357:BA0:3476:9B74:A8E2:994E (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything we can do. This is the edit filter doing its job. The 加扣扣⑥⑤⑥⑤⑨⑨⑨⑥④ string was attempted 1917 times, which does clutter up the logs some :). Activity seems to have stopped, at least for now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Now it's resumed. None of these acct creations are going through. I don't think there's anything we can or should do. Perhaps you could post at WP:ANI for a second opinion. There's already a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#what is going on in the filter log? spambot? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem

Hello. I am working on getting permission for one the files you flagged, File:Cropped portrait of Zoe Strimpel.jpg. I asked Ms. Strimpel to send a clearance email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The other file, File:Portrait of Zoe Strimpel.jpg can be deleted. Rgonsalv (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Once the permission email is on its way, please add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page, or let me know, and I will add it for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, Ms. Strimpel sent a clearance email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the file description page. Rgonsalv (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for tracking this down. Note that in her email, she released the photo under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. Please update the Licensing on the file description page. Rgonsalv (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Svoboda diaries

I saw that you looked at User:Walter=svobodadiaries/Alexander Richard Svoboda. Maybe my post at WP:Copyright problems on 22 Nov wasn't sufficiently clear, but there are additional files in the same state:

i.e. copied from the Svobodapedia site without a clear license at that site that allows copying. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 13:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will get these deleted now. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I don't remember doing this, but thanks! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Head transplant

I noticed several edits (02:47, October 29, 2017‎ — 07:01, October 29, 2017‎) were (Redacted) in the article Head transplant. As you are the last editor of of that time period with sysop privileges, I assume it is you who did that. If not please correct me. Why were these actions taken? I am curious. Thank you. Nikolaiho☎️📖 03:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Log entries can be viewed by looking at the "View logs for this page" on the history page for each article. Revision deletion for this particular article was done for copyright violations, which I had removed on October 29. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Scottish feudal Barony of Coigach

Dear Diannaa, Happy New Year. Every time I come I see this beautiful template. Reminds me of a similar one, the Type 3 template for wordpress at the turn of the century, that I used to blog on. The above article is 98.5% copyvio. Highest I have ever seen. I thought it might be attempt to migrate the website to Wikipedia. I have sent an email to the website owner, to see if that is what is happening. I can't see it, it looks brand new, and indeed is new, 2015-16 scope_creep (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. Whois of the website shows it was created in 2010, which predates the draft page. If and when the website creator gets back to you (potentially with a copyleft request) I'm happy to restore. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Primefac coolio. I had a look at the whois/record, it's not the most reliable or informative. Happy to know it was older though. It's a shame it had to go. I was one of the super linking articles, so few of which we get, that pulls together 2000+ other Scottish history articles. I'm missing it already. I was planning to spend the next year fixing it up, until well, lets check the earwig... scope_creep (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
If you're willing to go through the effort, scope creep, I can email you the original text, but you'd have to pretty much rewrite the page from scratch. Might be better to just hope the owner of the website is a) active, and b) willing to place a copyleft. Primefac (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC).
Yes please. I was going to wait for him to get back to me, but it's such an excellent article. The website is his. The whois [1]] says it's him, the Devonshire-Ellis guy. He is based in china, which correlates with the website, and the email is his. He should get back in the morning hopefully. Beside I can put the current article in a sandbox, if he doesn't come back. Work on over the next six months. It will be original by the time I finish with it. Please send it to me. These big article are critical pulling stuff together to create a sort of narritive. Thanks Primefac. Do you need my email address? scope_creep (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no point in reinventing the wheel, so I'll give the guy a day or two to reply and if nothing happens I'll send along the original text. As a note, you can't just plop it in a sandbox because then it would still be a copyvio (and we'd have to delete it again). Primefac (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Right got it. I'll give you bell when he replies back, if. scope_creep (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Eddie Macken Edit

The edit was copied from Boomerang's page (the horse he rode) all accomplishments the horse achieve were achieved with Eddie as the rider. Therefore I do not see an issue as both Eddie (the rider) and Boomerang (the horse) achieved the same awards. Boomerang's wiki page is much more detailed than Eddie's and I thought it was only fair the Eddie share the same detailed accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.95.130 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In the future please say so in your edit summary when copying from one Wikipedia article to another. For example, "Attribution: content in this section was copied from Boomerang (horse). Please see the history of that page for full attribution." Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. I have undone the revision deletion but am not going to re-add the content, because it's unsourced. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Re Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

Do you think "Michellevford" and "Michwit" are the same person, or at least meatpuppets? They each posted the exact same passage. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

They are likely the same person. Perhaps they've forgotten their password, or they could be worried about getting blocked for copyvio. Before Michellevford was Mazeeda and so on. This has been going on for a long time. I will add it to my watch-list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdel req

CopyVio, CopyVio, Probable. Check their contributions, I think there are more. - Mar11 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mar11. Thanks for your interest in copyvio cleanup. Both http://aquatic-human-ancestor.org/ancestors/ardipithecus-ramidus.html and https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Ardipithecus.html. In fact both say right on them that they've copied from Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This was published on 13 October 2014. How did they copy from the text added on 3 January 2018? - Mar11 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Everything copied to the article Jeremy Griffith from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/biologist-jeremy-griffith-examines-where-the-human-race-is-headed-20141006-10qyvm was in quotation marks. Over-use of quotation from a non-free source perhaps, but not a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Material added to Origin of language was copied from Ardipithecus, which is okay, but he should have given proper attribution. I will notify. Sorry for not being more thorough initially. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thank you for your help!

Sardinhapao (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

English Patriot Man

92.29.159.166 appears to be another IP sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the block! Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Blocked range 92.29.144.0/20 for three months. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw your concerns regarding copyright infringement on the page Dean Winslow. I have obtained permission in the form of an email from Stanford (I'm not sure where to include it in the article). Quite frankly, I don't understand how they could even own the copyright to this information simply because it is listed on their website. It is factual information and appears in several locations on the internet. Please help me wrap my head around the idea that an entity besides Dean Winslow himself could claim the copyrights to a description of his career.

Samwinslow (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Facts about someone's life are not copyrightable, but the prose used to describe it most definitely is copyrightable. Your recent addition included copyright prose from two websites: http://medicinecalendars.stanford.edu/event/medicine-grand-rounds-a-morbid-taste-for-bones/ and https://portal.clubrunner.ca/8926/Speakers/10da7d9e-51c5-4ef5-a478-37b6810317da. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Once the permission emails have been received and processed, the content can be restored. Please stop re-adding the material in the meantime. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the content you included in Pascal-p2 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The "history" section that you deleted was written by me. I don't see how I can proceed to write this article if you DELETE the material I write for that. Of course it is not copyrighted. I have no intention of copyrighting what I write here.

Never mind. I give up. Writing for wikipedia is too much of a pain in the rear.

Feel free to delete the article. I am not going to write for wikipedia again.

PS. The reason you decided this was copyrighted was because it was similar to what was found on a web site. IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT, instead of just seeing your search matched, you would have seen:

1. That is was MY WEB SITE!!! so of course the content was similar. I WROTE IT!!! 2. That there was NO COPYRIGHT NOTICE ON IT, OR INDEED ANYWHERE ON THE WEB SITE. 3. That in fact that web site specificially says "ALL MATERIAL HERE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN".

So now wikipedia is mainly concerned with not getting sued over copyright. Not with actual content, just your legal rear end. Congradulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiam95124 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and questions

Hi Diannaa! Thank you for editing my draft article draft:Mark Wexler. This is my first time submitting so I appreciate your help! I am trying to make the changes you suggested but I'm not sure what specifically needs work. I read the help pages on quotations, copyright, etc. In the draft, I used quotes and footnoted sources in the reference section. Was the quote too long? Did I footnote things incorrectly? I'm sorry to ask such newbie questions but I don't even know where to start. If you could point me in the right direction so I can make the article better I would really appreciate it. Thanks! AskMK (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The copied material was not framed as a quotation, hence its removal as a copyright violation. The same prose appears at multiple places online, so I think it was probably written by a press agent or other similar entity. You should write some original prose for the draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks for the clarification. One more question, if I put it in quotes and/or source it to the artist's bio on his webpage, is that acceptable? Also, once I have re-worked it (one way or the other), how do I re-submit it? Do I just put the draft page back into edit mode and paste up the new copy then hit publish? A million thanks for showing me the ropes! AskMK (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It's okay to use short quotations, but copying material from the subject's own web page is not what we're looking for. Quotations or paraphrased content from the person's own website does not improve the chances of the draft being accepted, as it does nothing to establish notability, which is a very common reason for drafts being declined and articles being deleted. Please refer to Wikipedia:Your first article, which contains lots of advice on how to create articles for this encyclopedia. You might consider visiting the Teahouse. Your draft is already in the queue to be assessed for publication, so you don't have to do anything further on that score. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'm still confused about how to amend the draft that is in the queue. Once I re-write the Career sections of the article, how do I put them in so the article is assessed in its new form? Thank you! AskMK (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Click on the blue button that says "Resubmit" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Fingers crossed....I did it! Thanks again for all your help. AskMK (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for contacting me on that edit.

Sadly I can't seem to find a way to see what exactly was removed so I can't understand the reasons. In the history tab my edit date has a strikethrough and the usual diff buttons are disabled.

There's a huge amount of misuse of that word, "viral". Huge. Everyone seems to think that if a video or article or other media item has a lot of views, then it's a viral story. That is categorically wrong. My intention is to try to convey that information in its rightful place. Please let me know how can this be worked out. (PS: why did you ask to talk here and not in my talk page where you created the OP?) --Nmaxcom (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason I removed your addition is because you copied from https://www.practicalecommerce.com/viral-principles and http://20bits.com/article/three-myths-of-viral-growth, both copyright web pages. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. The revisions containing the copyright violation were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. Please don't add copyright material copied from other websites to this wiki. Everything you contribute needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa... I thank you so much for showing me the steps to using copyright here on Wikipedia. Also, thank you for showing me how to follow and understand the practices used for contributions. I did not ask for permission before adding the info to the article, but I have an issue asking for permission, because sometimes it takes a while for the copyright holder to answer my questions I may have or an email I may send to them. I do not have any questions, but I will read all that you wrote on my talk page. I felt silly removing what you wrote from my talk page, but I can still view them, even though I removed them from my talk page. I want to be a better editor on here, and I certainly want to expand articles classified as stubs on here. I will continue to leave messages on your talk page if I do happen to have any questions, and I appreciate you giving me the permission to do so. Also, I hope you are having a great new year, and that you and your family had a wonderful Christmas. Just to let you know, my username is pronounced "callman" not "Coleman." Thanks! Colman2000 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for your attention.

I'm working on the draft article for the late musician Doug Lunn. On December 12 you said, "Material you included in the above draft appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.fretlessbass.com/lunn-doug. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake."

I am in contact with Fretless Bass website founder Eric Larson by email and phone. He has given me permission to quote from his interview with Doug. Please let me know what proof of permission is required by Wikipedia. I've searched but can't seem to find info on this issue. Does Eric need to submit an email or complete a form to verify his permission to quote from the interview?

Please point me to related articles or advise me on the best way to proceed. Thanks.

Art101 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Art101: (tps) Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

FxPro

Hello! You rejected the article FxPro based on the arguments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FxPro. However, the article was different from the remote version and was revised in accordance with Wikipedia rules. How can I resume the discussion on the article? --Darislaw (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The draft was a copy of the deleted revision of FxPro as of September 12, 2016, at 21:38. You did not write that, and for you to copy someone else's work without proper attribution is a violation of the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Some of the material was removed from the article as blatantly promotional, and then the remainder was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FxPro. It would be okay for you to start a new draft if you like, but you will have to write a completely new version using your own words, not copying from the old deleted article. However please have a close look at the reasons the original article was deleted in the first place: promotional content, COI editing, and a lack of notability. Any such draft would be highly unlikely to be accepted for publication. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion...

...on this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Commented there. Thanks for the alert. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

National Catholicism

ANSWER: No the Material was not copied from another web site. To the contrary, AFTER I edited the Wikipedia page, someoneelse copied the Wikipedia page and pasted into his or her own web page. Someone copied Wikipedia content and used in their own page. The edit is 100% original from me. People copies Wikipedia and post them in other pages. That is what this person didAroniel2 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the content you added was copied from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm, a copyright web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ashcome

Just so you know User:Navid.amirpour restored probably the same COPYVIO from the same source 3 hours after you rev del'd and issued a warning [2]. I've requested revdel again, but there also seems to be a COI issue on the page, and since you already issued an admin warning I thought I should let you know. SeraphWiki (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed copyright content copied from https://open.spotify.com/artist/6jmf9quklR7p289dQMR8y9 and https://www.ashcome.net/. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message regarding an edit I made on the above mentioned article. I've made some changes (really just added two sentences)and would appreciate your consideration.--DanJazzy (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your addition is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The Chinaman (Stephen Leather novel)

Diannaa, I just pulled out the Plot and Character sections from this article, which appear to have been copied directly from the publicity blurbs for the 2017 movie made out of the (1992) novel. They appear to have been there pretty much from the beginning of the article. I'll let you decide whether any iterations need to be hidden. Thanks as always for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Rev-del complete. Thanks for the report. I found an acceptable plot summary in an old revision and re-added it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


I don't think that this was clear-cut copyright violation necessitating RevisionDelete. I find RevDel frustrating in this case because it takes a lot of time to figure out what changes were made. The material in this case is substantially similar to the info in the company (Galapagos NV)'s annual report (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1421876/000119312517093838/d333278d20f.htm). Arguably, much of the information in the annual report falls under fair use because it is a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. And it does not seem to be a creative work. By overusing RevDel, you are foiling wikipedia editors without being constructive. There is a more constructive way of handling this situation, e.g. by quoting the material in question. (I apologize for being frustrated.) Glennchan (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that RevDel can discourage people from trying to contribute to Wikipedia... and it can discourage people from trying to fixing salvageable content. Simply undoing a user's contribution would not have the same effect, as it would be much easier for that user to fix any issues with the content. As the RevDel page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion) states: "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed." Glennchan (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Glennchan, WP:CRD point #1 says Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors... Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion. The part you're quoting is a follow-up sentence from the previous regarding "ordinary" offensive comments. Copyright can and shall be removed and revdel'd when it is found. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Primefac The policy should be clarified or revisited. In many cases, the use of RevDel seems unnecessary to me when a normal undo/deletion/edit would also remove potentially problematic material. RevDel has chilling effects on users trying to make a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia. If possible, those chilling effects should be avoided. IMO, the way that RevDel is being used is causing more harm than good. Glennchan (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The content I removed appears at http://reports.glpg.com/annual-report-2016/en/r-d/rheumatoid-arthritis/filgotinib-program-in-ra.html (the source you cited) and https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/08/22/866008/10164739/en/FINCH-filgotinib-Phase-3-program-initiated-in-rheumatoid-arthritis.html (the source I found), both of which are marked as copyright. There's really no wiggle room here: copyright violations are against the law and a violation of the copyright policy of this website. The revisions containing the copyright violation were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy. If you believe the policy needs amending, please consider opening a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
To reply to your suggestion re: simply undoing, Glennchan, the problem is that all of Wikipedia is released under CC-BY-SA, which includes old versions of pages. Thus, revisions that violate copyright cannot be kept freely available and must be revdel'd. As Diannaa suggests, a change in this practice will involve community consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this okay?

Hi,

User:Wanderlust2003/sandbox appears to have been copied from https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-jupiter-58.html. As a US government agency, that's public domain, am I right? If so, does it still need attribution? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007. That's an official NASA webpage, so its PD, but attribution is required (even in a sandbox). I've added the required attribution and notified the editor how to do it themselves in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Benny Ramos

The information I had for Benny Ramos came from the Spanish Wikipedia site which KingJamesBand.com copy and pasted on to their own site. I was unaware Spanish Wikipedia was copyrighted so my mistake. JJsCat (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's likely that Mr Ramos supplied the prose to both the Spanish wiki and the King James Band website. Best to leave it as-is, because we're sure our new version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

SH-AWD

Good morning, Diannaa. I saw your removal of my addition to the SH-AWD page due to copyright. Sorry about that, I didn't realize press releases were copyright-protected (but I see that after a quick search).

Question for you: This site: http://hondanews.com/channels/tlx-press-kit/releases/2015-acura-tlx-powertrain has the same information. Undoubtedly they got that information from the source I'd originally cited. That hondanews.com has been used as the citation for all other models. So I guess I'm confused, as it appears hondanews.com is just mirroring the acura.com press releases. Wouldn't that make all those citations examples of infringement? Or can I re-post with the new link without danger of being labeled a "persistent violator"? Ziwcam (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Prose found at hondanews.com may have been supplied to them by the manufacturer. That doesn't mean it's okay to copy it here. Finding copyvio on various Wikipedia articles is not a valid reason for adding more. Everything you add here should be written in your own words please. If you find additional examples of copyright violations, please report them using the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or clean them up yourself if you know how. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Diannaa, thanks for your help with the SH-AWD article. As I'm sure you can tell, I'm pretty new to editing. I noticed the copyright claim hasn't been marked completed, and that you've done some cleanup on the article. Not sure if you intentionally left the remaining instance under the MDX section, or if it's still awaiting cleanup, but I wanted to leave a note and let you know that I appreciate your efforts, and those of the countless others who make Wikipedia a great resource. Ziwcam (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I did do some clean-up but have not yet checked the sources you listed at WP:CP so I left the report active on that board. I will check it some more if no other investigator does it before I have time to do so. Thanks for your help with copyright clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is my revised article?

Hi Diannaa. Please tell me where my article is that I worked on last night till midnight, eyes watering, head spinning. I want to see what I wrote that you say copyright violations exist. I did not copy from website meanmary.com/bio. This info is all over the place. I even have Mean Mary's permission to use whatever I need. She sent me a Word doc that I have been pulling info from.

Can you bring back that article so I can continue with my editing. I will try to paraphrase more. How can I show you I have permission?

Thank you. KarenPolka (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Karen

Information is not copyrightable, but the prose used is indeed protected by copyright. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. The source web page https://meanmary.com/bio is marked at the bottom as "© 2017 WoodRock House. All Rights Reserved", so that's whose permission you need to obtain. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. I can send you a copy of the removed prose via email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Steven R. Jensen

Is this version better to your liking? Didn't realize a cited to biography was copyrighted lol. If you see something you think is problematic, a more measured approach would be trying fix it or ask someone to fix it. Instead of taking a carte blanche approach. We're here to contribute and improve. Not sure deleting an Associate Justice of the South Dakota Supreme Court is expanding our human knowledge or in conjunction of the philosophy of Wikipedia. I'd be happy for you to prove me otherwise.

Koncurrentkat (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Copyright violations are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical, and for clear-cut violations our copyright policy permits immediate removal. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, but thats why I cited to it?Its biographical information. Reorganized even? Why didn't you try fixing it? Often, people who propose everything for deletion, have no solution. I'm not sure what you achieved here. And can I see your legal citations please? And the current version not be ok? That information currently just reorganized from the source. You should propose the current article for deletion under that reasoning. Koncurrentkat (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a big difference between the current copyright-compliant stub and the copyright violating copypaste that you originally submitted. Sources are to be used as a source of information, not copied outright, which is against copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. Wikipedia's copyright policy can be found at WP:Copyrights. There's more information at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I was asking which copyright laws you were earlier referring to. State or Federal in this situation? Yes, I'm sure that, thats the policy, however, policy is not binding law. And I see the final link is on plagiarism not copyrights.

Koncurrentkat (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You are required to follow the copyright laws of the United States as well as the copyright laws of any other countries that are the source of material you might use when preparing articles. In addition to copyright law, you are required to follow the policies of this website. (The plagiarism page is an informational page that gives information on how to edit for Wikipedia. It's not a policy page.) If you are unable or unwilling to comply with the policies of this website, you can't contribute here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Applicable law: SDCL 2-16-8 with reference to 2-16-6. I didn't know edicts of South Dakota state government were copyrighted? I recall you saying This page appears to be a direct copy from https://news.sd.gov/newsitem.aspx?id=22435. It wasn't a direct copy, however, as I was asking earlier from you, it is not copyrighted. Have a measured response of researching then correcting, instead of this carte blanche deletion method and then telling people when they don't belong here. Here, take a look at this page I created: United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota. Tell me what I did wrong instead of carte blanche deleting it. Koncurrentkat (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The legislation reads as follows: Copyrights of material--Contract for use of state's copyright. The South Dakota Code Commission shall provide the material authorized for publication by § 2-16-6 will be copyrighted by the State of South Dakota, in the name of the State of South Dakota. The commission may contract with printers, publishers, and computer retrieval companies for use of the state's copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

William Buhlman

Re: Kundalini

Hi - I am perplexed about your deletion of my quote from Bulhman's book. Was it the referenced quote that was copyright material? Or are you saying that I plagiarized the Editor's description of Buhlman's history which is on Amazon? If that is the case, I will redo the lead-in sentense by using statement below which is taken from a review I wrote about Buhlman's book that is published in The Journal of the Academy For Spiritual and Consciousness Studies Vol 38, Number 2 November, 2015. . . And then I will include the Quote from his book "The Secret of The Soul" referencing the page. 

"The book is structured around the results of a ten-year OBE survey, made available in an earlier book and on his website. It has generated 18,000 responses demonstrating the OBE is common and cross-cultural After four decades of personal experience and research he views self-initiated OBE’s as the most powerful method available to accelerate evolution and spiritual enlightenment. He asserts that OBE’s, NDE’s, Transcendental States, Kundalini and Alien Contact are results of a natural ongoing expansion and evolution of consciousness."

I am clarifying because there are so many editors on Wikipedia who invalidate any mention of "Out of Body" Travel and consider it a "Fringe Material" and delete it as such. Thank you so much for saving me and Wikipedia from any chance of copyright infringement Cybersister27 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Cybersister27: This is due to copyrights, now she also has to delete this section because you re-posted the text here. Diannaa looking through this users edits and according to some edit summaries there may be other issues. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The part I removed was a biography of Buhlman copied from Amazon. That was removed because it was a copyright violation. Please don't add any more non-free content to the article Kundalini; it already contains way too much quotations. Wikipedia articles should for the most part be written in our own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Padmashali

Hello and a belated welcome to 2018 from me. We've got a problem at Padmashali which appears to go right back to its creation in 2007. I've just posted a note at Talk:Padmashali#Copyright but have no idea how we can deal with this given the number of mirrors. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and happy new year to you also. Thanks for your interest in copyvio clean-up. I've revision deleted back to the beginning and will add to my watch-list. Note my comment on the article talk page about subcastes; not sure what should be done about the discrepancy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Earth Defense Force 2025

I made some edits to the page regarding downloadable content. I originally made it years ago but they were eventually edited. It was incomplete and said "the following content" but there was no content listed. I reworked it but please next time don't remove the edits and close all old edits, just the "wrong" parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.165.111 (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary said you added it years ago, but I couldn't find it in our article anywhere. However, I did find it at https://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/10/28/earth-defense-force-2025-hits-ps3-in-february-2014-pre-order-details-revealed/, and removed it as a copyright violation. If it's from an old version of the page you will need to provide a link, because I couldn't find it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you or someone else locked the older edits from view, so i can't find them anymore. It was the one made on 24 June 2015‎, anyway. Now i simply added some generic info and used your link as a source for some of the things that were listed in that page. Again, it's better than nothing, as the original edit said "the following blahblahblah" but there was nothing after that because it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.165.111 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The potential source page is dated October 2013 so I won't be re-adding the content. It appears to have been copied from that blog if you added it to Wikipedia in 2015, two years later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 4.0 question

Hi Diannaa. I have a quick question for you about use of text licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 on Wikipedia. I've just discovered Principles for Digital Development, which makes use of text from https://digitalprinciples.org/, which is marked as CC BY-SA 4.0. I was about to add the correct attribution to the article, but then paused because I wasn't sure this was compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. Do you happen to know? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license, because of the "share-alike" part. Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#cite note-2 for details. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply, Diannaa. Just to check, does this mean that the material should be deleted as a copyvio? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes please. I have gone ahead with a G12 nomination. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - I would have done that myself, but just wanted to check it was the right thing to do. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio opinion

Hey there. I stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Lucas, which was sent to AfD as a copyvio concern (it being the wrong place technically im not worried about), but the thing is I honestly can't tell if it's a copyvio or a backwards copyvio, so I'm not sure if I should scrap and try and rewrite the article anyway (it's in piss-poor shape regardless of the copyvio, in my opinion). Thoughts on this one? The more I go down the archive rabbit hole the more questions I have. Wizardman 16:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman. There's a cool website created by the Computer Science Dept at Old Dominion University, "Carbon Dating the Web", and it shows a creation of the www.edlucas.org page at "2007-06-29T19:30:06". While we don't have an archived copy of any versions older than August 2008 and thus no conclusive proof, my guess is that the Wikipedia article is a copy of http://www.edlucas.org/about.html rather than the other way around. I will cross-post this to the AFD page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Adding: Overlap was noticeably more significant when comparing the initial sandbox version with the other web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Material handling

Hello, I wanted to tell you that after one of your edits of the article for Material handling ended up making the beginning paragraph get all messed up, and I'm not a talented enough editor to fix it lol.

Jordanmiller335 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed now. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of The Legend of King Naresuan: The Series

The deleted article was about a TV series that aired in 2017, while the alleged duplicate King Naresuan (film) is about a hexalogy of films that were released between 2007 and 2015. Please restore. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the content was identical. Why is that? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I assume the plot was copied from the film article by an inexperienced editor, since they tell the same story. Looking at the Google cache the new article appears to contain parts written in broken English that's clearly original to the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Principles for Digital Development

Hi Diannaa, thanks for spotting the copyright issue on Principles for Digital Development (CC BY-SA 3.0 on wikipedia vs. CC BY-SA 4.0 on the Principles site). I tried to move the page back into my user space. This left a redirect behind from article space to user space (which I failed to spot) and the page was promptly deleted by User:RHaworth. I have contacted User:RHaworth about restoring the page to my user space, but so far this hasn't happened. To me it looks like that your reason (copyright) and User:RHaworth's reason (redirect) were different, and that the article could be improved by editing, particularly given that I had added independent work to the article, that was free of copyright restrictions ("If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", Wikipedia:Deletion_policy).

Regarding the copyright issue: I have informal endorsement/permission for posting to Wikipedia already, via a public forum post on the Principles site.

  • The link is https://forum.digitalprinciples.org/t/pdds-on-wikipedia/1046
  • The endorsing response is from Dustin Andres, https://www.linkedin.com/in/dustinandres/, who works for DIAL, who are the product owners of the Principles.
  • The Principles (and previous website) predate CC 4.0 (afaik), so there must be a version in their archive that 3.0. I would consider it very unlikely that it would note be possible to get formal 3.0 licensing. I'll check the Internet Archive, to see whether I can find a 3.0 version.

In any case, I have followed this up with a more formal request to get permission using the Wikipedia process. I would suggest that (a) I re-edit the page, and (b) place {{OTRS pending}}  onto the page, while the permissions are being being processed?

What do you think? Bjohas (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(Also see, User talk:RHaworth.)

C.f. also Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12._Unambiguous_copyright_infringement

This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

On the basis of this ("a dubious assertion of permission", i.e. permission with the Digital Principles forum, rather than formally by email to WMF; also "free-content edits overlie the infringement" for the additional section created), I'd like to make the case for restoring the page the article space, and removing the speedy deletion nomination, while taking the above actions (as in (a)/(b) above, with {{OTRS pending}} as a reasonable way forward). What do you think? Bjohas (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright material or incompatibly licensed material anywhere on this wiki, including in userspace or drafts. I can send you a copy of the deleted material via email if you like. The copyright holder needs to send an email releasing the material under a compatible license to the OTRS team. The instructions are at WP:donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample email at WP:consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - yes please send me a copy of the page, that would be much appreciated. Would you agree that:
  1. it's ok for me to re-create the page asap, as long as I do not use any of the infringing material?
  2. As soon as the consent email is sent to OTRS, I will then re-include the materials, and attach the PTRS pending template?
OK? Bjohas (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Email sent. It's okay to re-create the page as long as it doesn't contain any copyright violations and does not contain any incompatibly licensed material. Don't create it as a user page like you did at User:Principles for Digital Development. That's wrong. Drafts are located in draft space. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation for more information about drafts and about getting started in Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Seen, thanks. Bjohas (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of lyrics for Katyusha (song)

Hi, I am not too familiar with copyright law but are lyrics to songs copyrighted or just the song themselves (the melody, lyrics, etc as a whole). There are plenty of sites online that will list lyrics for many songs, why can't wikipedia? EvilxFish (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The lyrics are copyright, the music is also copyright. They are copyright when presented together and when presented separately. The reason you see song lyrics elsewhere is because many websites do not care about or enforce copyright law, and we do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks didn't know that. EvilxFish (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Smart pill

I saw you did some cleanup at Draft:Smart pill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I took a look at it, and am wondering if it should just be deleted entirely?

The first section for "World’s First Electronic Smart Pill Approval" is a simple copy/paste of the firat two paragraphs from the press release.[3] the first sentence of the section "Should you use Smart Pills?" is a minor tweak to a well known quote by Myles Munroe.[4]

I honestly stopped reviewing at that point. Your thoughts? Should the draft be kept as potentially salvageable, or cut losses with view that a full rewrite from scratch is best? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If you check the contribs of the person who created it, you'll see that he's been adding the same or similar material to numerous places on Wikipedia. I had to remove / revision delete some of his additions as copyvio. All the editor's additions are being reverted at this point per WP:MEDRS and for similar reasons. Not sure what the best way forward might be for the draft or for the editor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

While new page reviewing, I have come across an article Chat Garcia Ramilo which has some material copied and pasted from a website that states "Unless otherwise stated, content on the APC website is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0". Is this compatible with Wikipedia? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No: the NC condition makes it unfree for WP’s purposes because it limits reusability of the content.—Odysseus1479 19:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion-Draft:VogueAustralia

I saw you did some editing work by simply deleting entire passages and its references. I could have rephrase it as requested, but I don't have any chance to do it now (review the material) since you have deleted it permanently. Would it be possible now to ask you to share the full text (before your revision)? So I can correct it? Diannaa You have deleted about 3365 words. I think it is rough and it would be better to live you comment instead to adjust my not sufficient paraphrasing or request other people to do it [5] SeaAisina (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do it that way, but there's typically some 50 to 100 reports to be checked each day, and only a handful of people working on copyright cleanup. Checking and removing copyvio from approximately 40 cases yesterday took me six hours. If I were to discuss each case with the editor or re-write each violation myself the time required would double or even triple. It's physically not possible for me to spend that much time online, and I would put my health at risk if I did so. The policy allows for immediate removal of the copyright violation, so that's what I typically do. I can send you the deleted material by email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. Someone else has already made improvements to the draft, improvements that are okay from a copyright point of view. Please have a look and see what you think. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Rajiv Shah

Thank you for removing copyrighted material from Rajiv Shah (I can't show the true Diff because you eradicated the two preceding revisions), but you missed an even greater problem there, which is that most of the material related to Raj Shah rather than Rajiv Shah and didn't belong in this article at all. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My only reason for visiting the page was to remove the copyright violation; I didn't notice these other problems. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you have left me a message regarding copyright in my edit of Lucille Tenazas. I did not copy anything from the site you mention. Can you please be more specific. The only similarities I find are in elements like her titles Associate Dean and Henry Wolf Professor in the School of Art, Media and Technology (AMT) at Parsons The New School for Design in New York, which is not something anyone can claim copyright for, or her list of clients, ditto.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There were two paragraphs that were almost identical to material found in http://www.designindaba.com/profiles/lucille-tenazas. Here is a link to the copyvio report so you can see for yourself. The same material appears at other places online as well. However, I have reviewed the copied materiel and discovered most of it is lists of works and lists of places she's worked and am restoring most of your addition, and rearranging the order of the material and snipping out a bit to make it more copyright compliant. Sorry to have been a bit too aggressive here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks!! that's trim now. I just added a comma.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Mona Lisa Kitchen apron, etc.

Hi Dianna. I wonder if you could offer some advice? Would you hazard a guess as to who might hold the copyright for this image? (I often think of Wikipedia when I see this image, for some reason). More generally, of course, my question relates to works of art reproduced on items of clothing or domestic ware, e.g a Mona Lisa kitchen apron. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123. So sorry, I don't have a Pinterest account, which is I think the reason why your link is pointing me at a collection of Far Side cartoons. Which while hilarious, is not the material you were trying to show me. Can you find a different copy of the pic at some other website? Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
How curious. I don't have a Pinterest account either. But I'll look. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) If it’s about the coffee-mug at top left, the cartoon is presumably owned by Larson or his publishers; I would hope it’s used under licence (by the mug manufacturer). The photo itself would be considered a derivative work of the mug and, if published with permission from the owner of the rights to the cartoon, could also have its own copyright based on the choice of viewpoint, lighting, & so on. (But a copyvio can never itself be copyrighted AFAIK.) The Mona Lisa on an apron, assuming the painting were reproduced fairly accurately and without additional elements, would be in the public domain (at least in the USA, per Bridgeman v. Corel, and also according to Commons policy, for example) because the original is.—Odysseus1479 23:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. So if the image was "used under licence (by the mug manufacturer)" (how would one determine that?), could that image be used at Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe such arrangements are usually private–unless they end up in court, that is. Regardless, the image couldn’t be hosted here (except perhaps under a convincing fair use rationale for a specific article): if it’s legit, we would need permission both from the owner of the rights to the cartoon and from the photographer, and if not, we’d just be perpetuating/compounding/exacerbating an illegal publication. In general we need positive evidence of a free licence (or that the work is ineligible or its copyrights have expired). See c:COM:PRP; I don’t know whether or not there‘s an equivalent policy here.—Odysseus1479 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's one at only US $10.50? or, in fact, you could take your pick of Larson mugs on eBay if you prefer. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
There's two things that are copyright here: the Larson cartoon, and the photograph itself. Each of them is independently copyrightable. See for example File:1976D Type2 Eisenhower Reverse.jpg, which shows a GNU and share-alike 3.0 for the photograph, and a PD-Money-US for the coin. For Gary Larson mugs, you'd need a valid fair use rationale for the cartoon, and your own photograph. If it's not your own photograph, it's eligible for F7 deletion as a replaceable fair use. For Mona Lisa on an apron, you'd need two copyright templates: a PD-old-70-1923 for the artwork and a separate license of the photographer's choice for the photo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, many thanks. So, with the presumption made by Odysseus, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we would treat that mug itself as if it were the original cartoon or, at least, as if it were printed on any other medium. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Almost: the main difference is that photos of three-dimensional subjects add their own copyright, while OTOH photographers of 2-D art are considered not to make any creative contribution, so the only rights of concern are those attached to the subject itself. (Another difference between 3-D and 2-D subjects is that some countries exempt the former from copyright if they’re on permanent public display. In the USA this only applies to buildings: sculptures &c. are still protected.)—Odysseus1479 17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, now this seems slightly at odds with Diannaa's "two things"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
How so? The cartoonist has rights over the original creation, and the photographer has rights over the photo for the way it captures a particular aspect of the 3-D mug. Between these two, printing the cartoon on the mug added no creative expression, but it did change the nature of the subject, such that reproducing it was no longer a mere mechanical exercise.—Odysseus1479 18:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
You're saying that a photograph of a 2-D print of that image would not have it's own copyright status? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, at least under American law and Commons policy. It’s less clear elsewhere: for example the UK had a long-standing “sweat of the brow” doctrine that protected non-creative reproductions, but it was overturned by the European courts a few years ago—I suppose there’s a possibility of its being reaffirmed post-Brexit. See also c:COM:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.—Odysseus1479 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I really don't know how UK law differs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Millet

Apologies for not adding the CE attribution. Was about to, but I noticed it already had a link to the Wikisource article, which I supposed indicated it was PD; and at the time, it seemed like over-kill. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Best to include it so it's obvious to the reader that the prose was copied and not something you wrote yourself. No worries though, it's there now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter Chapman (cartoonist)

If you are going to place a copyvio tag on an article then I'd appreciate it if you would do a thorough check on it first. When I create an article this is one of the things I always do & in this case the Earwig's Copyvio Detector report states 7.4% Violation Unlikely for the ABC article/reference. There are only three examples of identical phrases of five or more words - one of which is clearly the a generic title, the Australian Comics Hall of Fame, which is used in multiple references - the other two are easy and minor fixes. I don't appreciate shoddy work and the placement of a warning which is clearly not warranted. Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied at OP's talk page. No point in duplication. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)


Draft:Majid Alghaslan

Hi Dianna. Thanks for editing this page to address your concerns. Just to be sure I understand the status - with these changes, it is now clear to continue in the review process? Thanks. trix70 Trix70 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone will be along to review the draft for publication, but it may take quite a while, as there's an enormous backlog. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Lyrical vandalism

Please take a look here where what looks like an entire song lyric was randomly copy-pasted. Reverted by ClueBot, but probably copyright, so RevDel?—Odysseus1479 03:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Blood management

I thought the changes had been modified sufficiently not to infringe copyright. I will review and adapt further. I work for ISBT clinical transfusion working group so do want to enter some of information albeit it modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransfusionDoctor (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

COI

I am not paid by ISBT nor are they my employer. We are a group of people who are trying to promote better transfusion practice. One way of doing this is by providing free information on wikipedia and highlighting additional places where people can source free information. I actually work for the NHS, our aim is to provide unbiased information that is not influenced by any particular countryTransfusionDoctor (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

How can I explicitly provide permission for material that ISBT has agreed can be used on wikipedia and is publically accessible on the ISBT page?TransfusionDoctor (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

From LaShonda

Diannaa, This is LaShonda Katrice Barnett and I just want to thank you for sending along the email with all the information on proper protocol for making page edits. I initially logged on last month because there was erroneous data on my page, degrees listed were wrong and other things. I'm pleased with how the page looks now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.48.25 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

USOC Media Coverage - USOC 's Olympic Cable TV channel

Hi Diannaa......My local cable TV provider (Optimum) recently added the Olympic Channel to its channel lineup at channel 225. Over the course of the several months leading up to the US skating Nationals, my wife and I were able to watch on this cable TV channel the current international ice skating competitions as well as past Olympic competitions. The Olympic Channel's content is similar to, and I occasionally see programming interchanged with, the NBC Sports Channel. The NBC Sports Channel is designed to compete directly with ESPN and is of similar programming quality as ESPN. My observation is that the Olympic Channel offers high quality, commentated, quality edited, programming - nearly on par with the ESPN channel. Given the quality of the Olympic Channel programming, I thought it worthwhile to mention the Channel's market penetration, thereby giving people something to use to prod their local cable providers. On 13 January 2018, you replaced my footnote referenced disclosure of this cable channel with the non-referenced statement: "In 2017, NBCUniversal launched a linear version of the Olympic Channel over-the-top internet television service in cooperation with the USOC." May I ask the basis for your use of the words "linear version" (as opposed to well edited and inter-spaced}, "over-the-top" (as opposed to commentated and analyzed), and "Internet television" (as opposed to cable television) as the words appear to be misstatements of the facts? If you are ever in the New York City area, I'd like to invite over to my home to experience for yourself the US cable television Olympic Channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attorney18 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Attorney18. Sorry but I can't find the edit you are talking about. The only place I can find where our contributions have intersected was this edit to United States Olympic Committee where I removed some advert-like material you added on January 9. I added nothing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Meena Kumari ‎

Hi Dianna. We have a difficult case at Meena Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aside from large-scale copyvios, there is edit-warring by one of the regulars restoring the copyvios. Best regards. Dr. K. 05:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K. I'm not sure that this is copyvio, as we already had the content in our article on the date it was published (June 17, 2016). I found another potential source, here, dated January 13, 2016, but again we already had the overlapping content in our article on that date. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dianna. This is the Earwig version before I started removing the copyvios. It has a 91.4% confidence for bombaymann2.blogspot.com/2015/01/actress-meena-kumari.html, and the source is used in the article. There are other high-confidence sources, which are also named in the article. How can this happen? Dr. K. 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dr.K. Somehow I was comparing with a wrong webpage. I will look again right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
http://bombaymann2.blogspot.ca/2015/01/actress-meena-kumari.html is a copy of https://vamadevananda.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/journal-jan-03-2012-of-one-soul-meena-kumari/, which is dated January 3, 2012 and was posted online on January 14, 2012. At that point we already had some but not most of the overlapping content. Some we have had since 2006. But it looks like the the material you removed was copied from these documents. The copyvio appears to all have been by one person (Rockyleo94) so I have given him a final warning and will watch his contribs. I am going to check the article for further copyvio and then will do revision deletions. Thank you for your patience and for reporting this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Dianna. Also thank you for your time-based analysis of the sources. Dr. K. 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Walter Willison copyvio

Hi Diannaa. I marked revisions of Walter Willison for deletion on copyvio grounds, and subsequently realised that the violation dates back to the very first revision of the page (Earwig didn't initially pick this up, for some reason). I'm just flagging this up in case you feel that it is necessary to delete the whole thing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion complete. The only visible versions are free of copyvio. I found some cites for the two award nominations and added those. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Best Footballer in Asia

Hello, the copyright holder have submitted the certificates of the two pictures File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg. and File:Elkeson BFA 2013.jpg regarding copyrights to wiki permission email. I am waiting for the reply. Hopefully there will not be problems with the two pictures and they can be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added some {{OTRS pending}} tags. Getting the emails cleared will likely take quite a while, as they have a huge backlog right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Attribution needed?

Hello D. In doing some maintenance work I came across this article Kakha Bendukidze and this section of another article Free University of Tbilisi#Kakha_Bendukidze. There seems to have been some cut/paste editing involved. Unfortunately I can't find where it happened so I don't know whether any "attribution" edits are needed or not. My apologies for not being more thorough in this but I thought you should take a look when you have time - just in case. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD. You can find when content was added by using the "Wikiblame" tool, which is available from the article history page. Click on the link labelled "Revision history search" and then paste in a snippet of prose in the "Search for" field. This shows that the prose was copied over on January 15, 2015. I have added an edit summary as attribution. Thanks for the question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Gosh that tool is slick as a whistle. Thanks for making me aware of it and for performing the needed edit. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Attribution

I found a draft in the user space of User:XYGyn that never made its way to being an article. The last edit this user contributed was in 2013. Can I give this editor attribution when the draft is completed and transferred to mainspace? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barbara. The best way for this to happen is to move the draft into main space using the Move feature. that way the page history remains attached, providing the needed attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Furniture Ombudsman

Hi - Please can you tell me why you deleted the info for 2016 review? You kept 2011 which was there previously but removed the 2016 which I added to update the information already there? (I understand your removal of the quote which was there before - thought I removed that as opinion so thanks!) Thanks Hellinadustcart (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the material because we try to avoid using quotations wherever possible. There's no reason why original prose could not be prepared. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - don't really get this - the information from the 2011 review is in there from the review I just put in the information from 2016? Have updated in same way hope that's okay now? Results from ombudsmen should be available on Wikipedia? ThanksHellinadustcart (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Oh oh finally penny dropped d'oh!

Dean Winslow

There is currently a large copyright violation at Dean Winslow. See these diffs. This same copyright violation has been added several times before, and you revision deleted it in the past, so I'm contacting you now to request that you do so again. Thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. The same content has just been added again by a new user--I think this is the 3rd or 4th different account to add the same info. Would you recommend page protection, an SPI, or something else at this point? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
So far we've had it added by two named accounts and one IP. I've posted a socking inquiry on the new acct's talk page. I've semi'd the article but the original account is autoconfirmed so we will have to continue to watch-list and may have to go to SPI as well. Note this thread from my archives where the first editor has a flawed understanding of how this stuff works. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep an eye on the article. Marquardtika (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Diannaa, I've e-mailed you about a BLP violation that probably needs revdel; sorry to add to your workload. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Received, thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

D. K. Shivakumar

Hi Diannaa. I haven't pestered you in awhile, so I figured it's about time to do so again. Someone just added a big chunk of unsourced content to D. K. Shivakumar. I'd post a diff, but I don't want to create any more cleanup if my hunch is right. Anyway, I just scanned through it brielfy and it has the feel of a copy-and-paste type of copyvio of stuff taken from an external website. Is there a way to check something like this? As least to be sure before I start going in and creating more diffs which might need revdeleting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I didn't find anything using https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ but found some copied from http://www.dksinc.in/biography/, not as much as you might expect. Most of it does not seem to be copied from elsewhere online. This was determined by Google searching for excerpts from the addition. Shortly after you posted here the editor posted about 100 external links at the bottom of the page, presumably as citations for their addition. I have removed everything and posted a message on their talk page. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Hannah E. Taylor

Hi Diannaa. There appears to be considerable overlap between the Wikipedia article and the source. Although the source is noted as being in the Public Domain, surely verbatim duplication is not permitted, or is it? Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's PD, then while it's not ideal it's perfectly acceptable to copy/paste into Wikipedia, provided attribution is given (which is true in this case). Primefac (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Kevin Nagle Page

Hello - I see that you reviewed the draft page for Kevin Nagle but I am not sure what that means for the status of the page as it says it is still pending review? I am being asked for an update so am hoping to be able to provide a status, but I cannot tell from what the page says. Thank you - Erin ErinD22 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@ErinD22: Sorry but I did not review the draft; it's still in the queue. I removed some copyright violations is all I did. There's a big backlog of drafts awaiting review right now, so please be patient. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well colour me surprised

I maintain the AFC decline comments page, and I didn't know that we have a switch for cv declines. Neato. I'll be sure to pass this along to the troops. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm..I am seeing the switch for the first time too!☺Winged BladesGodric 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I am busy clearing out Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations as many of these drafts still contain the copyvio. I have the page bookmarked for regular maintenance but have been pretty busy with https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en lately and let the category get out of control a little bit! It may be obvious, but I should mention that the switch to cv-cleaned should only be performed once totally cleaned, ie, all copyvio removed and revision deletion completed too. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup, totally. I mostly didn't think about it (usually I end up just deleting them) but I'll be sure to start checking that more often. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Parole

I asked for permission after you reverted my edit and this is the response I got:

You are free to use the content from our History of Parole in Canada page, at no cost, as long as the Parole Board of Canada is listed as the source.

Thank you.

Best regards, Iulia Pescarus Popa Correspondence Unit Parole Board of Canada


Is this good enough? Whitebro (talk) Whitebro (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

San Ramon Valley Unified School District

Hi Diannaa, the article has problems with promotional tone, but I suspect there may be copyright issues as well. When you have the chance.....Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For your listening enjoyment while you wait :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Terrific. Thank you for the music! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Note the school website has a CAPTCHA, which makes their pages invisible to Earwig's tool. However, all becomes visible when using archived versions. This is something I had not seen before. Off to do some RL things for a while, ttyl. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
RL is good. I'm going to try it tomorrow. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Rudrama Devi

Hi, revdel needed for this edit if you could please do the honours? Copy/paste from here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yuwa-India

Yuwa-india Sorry, too terse: 'original prose should not be prepared'. Why did you drop the programs own vision statement (quote)? I restored the quote, added the term 'vision statement' and tweaked the order to be more historic.

It's a start. Hopefully someone will beef it up later.

BTW: The Edge feature article is mostly self-serving, although any publicity is good. The lead pic Edge used for the article is a stock photo, completely unrepresentative of the facilities at Yuwa, but that's another story...

I'm not a wiki frequent flyer these days. It may be awhile until it get back to this 19:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't normally include vision statements, mission statements, or corporate goals. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Rahully2j

Nokia N91 - Removal copyright

Hi. Thanks for removing the copyright part. The info was written by a mobile industry veteran named Eldar Murtazin which I used and cited. The technical specs of Hard drive are available on the web just like other specs of the phone. Not sure why that was removed as well.

If I write the entire thing in my own words and cite it properly would that be okay? The reason I ask because all the other info that's written was done the same way by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahully2j (talk • contribs) 04:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

writing things in your own words and citing your source is exactly what needs to be done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Canadian correctional workers who have died in the line of duty

Diannaa I am the Historian for the Hamilton Police Service. The information posted in Canadian Correctional Workers belong to us and I have the authority to release it. I’m not understanding why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstdavek (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmilon (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Open government license v 3

Can you confirm that it is safe to cut and paste a paragraph from School uniform which is licensed under

Open government license v 3 if I put a statement in References before {{reflist}} that says:

Parts of this article include direct copies from School uniform which is licensed under HM Governments Open government license v 3

or do we have a ready made template. ClemRutter (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I found this one: {{OGL-attribution}}. Your blurb is fine. Here's mine, I have it in a sandbox: " This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown copyright." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Solapur district

Your magic wand would be useful for this edit, which comes from here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeated upload of Copy-right images

Hi Diannaa, There is a recently created user Alikhan090 (talk · contribs) who has been repeatedly uploading Copy-right images to the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. First by providing the source and then under false claim of ownership. I think a warning or a small block might be warranted. Also, how should we repeat such editors in the future? ARV does not expect these and I am not aware of another mechanism. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80. I have warned the user and will monitor his contribs. I can't find a definitive answer as to where to file future reports. I sugget you can report to WP:ANI or bring to my attention and I will investigate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Diannaa I think reporting it to ANI is involving multiple admins when one anyone can help. Having a page similar to ARV might help. I can continue to bring it to your attention until then. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Poum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poum

I am only one of two english-speaking researcher working in Poum. I spent time there interviewing, and wrote an article. You have not only removed all my edits, but it is impossible to get them back. Why? The article I used in the wiki was written by me, and the reference is to the DRAFT copy, not the final version which Taylor&Francis have copyright for (unfortunately). They do not have copyright to a submitted word document at all. Even if they did, you can still quote from a published article - I am also a journal editor and know the rules. All this is a net loss to the readers and I have no real memory of all the changes, in order to recreate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batterbu (talk • contribs)

It's okay to use short quotations, not extensive passages without quotation marks. That's not a quotation. So the material was removed as a copyright violation. If you are the copyright holder and with to release this material under a conmpatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Economy of Bangladesh

Hi Diannaa, I removed those parts of content which you think promotional and amended to the most moderate version. Thanks microsoftguru

Federico Bellone

Hi Dianna, my page was deleted for copyright enfringment. i'm the system admin and i want a wikipedia page in english too, 'cause i have that in italian, bit i don't find the option to link them in between. Hope that you reply soon please! i wait for work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroRibola1993 (talk • contribs)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Alchemy ,section :etymology

Wallis Budge was one of the biggest Egyptologists and Orientalists in the history he was born in 1857 and he died in 1934.he wrote many famous books such an english translation for The book of the dead which was written in egyptian hieroglyphs ,he also mentioned the etymology of alchemy at least twice,for example in page 19 of his book "Egyptian Magic" and in page 443 of his book "Amulets and Superstitions". so i didn't use a text from another contributor in wikipedia further Wallis Budge didn't even mention the word "chemistry" in this topic,just check page 19 of his book "Egyptian Magic"and you have a direct access to this page through google books,Thanks

Lithuania marked as "too long"

Hello,

You have recently added a template "too long" to the article of Lithuania, which size currently is 218 573 bites. Article of the United States is named as a Good Article and its size is 402 034 bites. Article of France size is 299 585 bites and it is not yet a GA/FA (only B-class), which means when it will reach such quality it will also be around 400 000 bites. Article of Italy size is 230 235 bites and it is also only a B-class article, which means it requires further expansion and inevitably it will cause rise of its size. It is clear that articles of countries have different standards (especially in the United States case when such a long article is named as a GA) because it requires comprehensive information about various fields. Creating a comprehensive and high quality article about country which is about 100 000 bites is impossible (according to Wikipedia:Article size articles bigger than 100 000 bites should be split). As a result, I believe that your added template "too long" from the article of Lithuania should be removed and only a discussion could be started in its talk page if it really has some issues. -- Pofka (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

To ensure that people using slow connections, old equipment, or mobile devices can still access the article (among other reasons), our guideline Wikipedia:Article size calls for articles to be no more than circa 10,000 words and 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose. Once articles are over this limit, they are typically split and sub-articles created: see WP:SUBARTICLE. Lithuania is 13,236 words, with 84 kB readable prose. Re-adding content from sub-articles into the main article is a bad idea, as it's already too big even without this addition. I am under no obligation to review other articles before adding a maintenance tag that I think applies. There's 5.5 million articles, many of which need maintenance of some sort. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Thanks for your reply. Well, I am currently using a quite old equipment, which I am planning to replace soon as I hate it at times due to its quite slow performance (it has a almost medieval times processor with only two 2.5 GHz cores). Although, such old equipment allows me to access the United States' article (402 034 bites) quickly and it is easy to navigate within it. Mobile version of Wikipedia does not open full articles instantly and you have to open every separate section (f. e. history, demographics) by yourself, so it does not cause any freezes or difficulties to navigate as long as you do not open all the sections (and even if you do - you can close some sections at any time). As a result, I do not think that 400 000 bites articles are "too long" nowadays and even if they are for some rare, very early 2000s computers it should be very highly outnumbered by the advanced computers of the English language readers who are seeking for a high quality, comprehensive articles. Article of the United States as I see does not include any unnecessary details and simply covers all the most important historical and cultural topics of a country. Reduction of its size to 150 000 - 200 000 bites seems to be impossible without omitting some important sections and details (who all are equally important). Consequently, I find it difficult to realize how it is possible to create a competitive article of another country with two times less size. It sounds like a book without half of its pages and this is definitely not what the readers wants. -- Pofka (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This belongs on the article talk page, not here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Woore

Hi Diannaa. You may want to take a look. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Rev-del done. There is still a lot of overlap with that PDF, but since it's dated January 14 of this year and some of it we've had since the initial article creation back in 2004 and I can't find it anywhere else online, I have to assume they copied from us rather than the other way around for what remains. I did however presumptively remove material added by Trident13, a known repeat copyvio offender. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pinpoint

Hi,

Could you confirm whether or not there was indeed a copyvio (I think there was) and whether I was being stupid (I think I misread the copyright notice). Does this need revdel? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the GitHub Terms of Service (section G.1 - GitHub's Rights to Content) I think Yes, they have copyright the content on the website, other than the policy page, which is released under a CC0 1.0 Universal PD license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Rev-del is done. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio at Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Dianna, looks like there's loads of copyvio in this article. Could you take a look? — LeoFrank  Talk 05:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if the page http://travel2karnataka.com/bbmp_bruhat_bengaluru_mahanagara_palike.htm is a copyvio or a Wikipedia mirror, because their content matches ours right to the initial page creation back in 2006, and there's no archived revision earlier than 2010. Regarding http://www.onlinebangalore.com/gove/bbmp-structure.html, I discover that the page is released under a compatible license. But again the earliest copy that was archived is dated 2010 and we have had that content since 2006, so it may have been copied from us rather than the other way around. So, I can't prove anything. Neither of these sources is an official government website. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright article http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/354389. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not use the Schiebinger Source you reference, because I did not have access to it. When I started editing the article a lot of material was alreday in there, and I kept some of the Schiebinger material, but tried to confirm or replace it with material I had access to. I used some material on guilds in from Schiebinger in https://books.google.de/books?redir_esc=y&hl=de&id=KO507eQPO4oC&q=Kirch#v=snippet&q=Kirch&f=false , mainly on guilds. I find it a bit difficult to establish what was removed, and if I added it. In any case, the article was focusing heavely on her dispute with the academy, rather than her scientific work and publications.--Peabodybore (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Examining the book, I discover that the chapter you say you cited is a copy of the same paper by Schiebinger. Compare the first page of the paper with page 56 of the book. Regardless of whether you copied form the book or the PDF file, copying from a source is a copyright violation and it's not allowed. The revisions containing the copyright violation were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. 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) 12:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello.

There's a dispute whether this edit (and subsequent edits which show the link) should be revision deleted for violation of WP:COPYVIOEL.

@Primefac, TonyBallioni, and Dlohcierekim: I'm pinging you because previously you have participated in similar discussion wearing an admin hat, and I'm explaining the history below. I believe the violating link (one diff above) need to be revdel'd as soon as possible, but the rest of this discussion is not urgent.

A history of related actions:

  1. In December 2017, I emailed TonyBallioni (an admin who happened to be active at the time) and asked them to review these edits to the article talk page and the contents of a draft in userspace. I asked TonyBallioni to use revdel if they believed the edits violated BLP or infringed copyrights. I also provided a link to a related discussion at Commons about deleting the Steele dossier from Commons, and mentioned that talk page edits and the draft copied contents contents from the dossier in verbatim. I never mentioned anything about violation of COPYVIOEL.
  2. TonyBallioni contacted Primefac, who has more experience as an admin.
  3. Primefac revdel'd the talk page edits, scrubbed the userspace page of material copied from the dossier, removed links violating COPYVIOEL, and then revdel'd all edits that included the copied material or external links to the dossier.
  4. Primefac removed the copyvio link from Donald Trump–Russia dossier and revdel'd roughly 300 edits (see deletion log) where a link to the dossier was visible. An archived discussion of these actions is available here.
  5. On January 10, 2018, someone added an external link, violating COPYVIOEL.
  6. I reverted the edit, emailed Dlohcierekim, and asked them to use revdel. At first, they didn't understand what my request was about, but after a discussion on my talk page they revdel'd three edits.
  7. On January 16, 2018, someone else added the external link to the article. BullRangifer reverted the addition.
  8. Yesterday I pinged an admin MelanieN on the article talk page and explained that violating edits should be deleted. MelanieN is very likely WP:INVOLVED with regards to this article, but I believe that would not prevent them from using revdel, or they could delegate the task to an uninvolved admin. MelanieN seems to be ignoring me (must be because I have done something very bad).
  9. To my surprise, even though BullRangifer reverted the addition, they are now advocating that a copyvio link should not be revdel'd.

Sorry for TLDR, but I wanted everybody, including people without admin tools, to understand the full background because I want to put an end to this and focus on something more constructive. I don't know a better forum for this (maybe WP:AN?).

So, I have these questions:

(a) Have the three admins (Primefac, Dlohcierekim, and TonyBallioni) been wrong when they have supported, through their actions or statements, revdel'ing external links which violate COPYVIOEL?
(b) If the answer to (a) is "no", what would be a more permanent solution to the problem with this particular external link? Could we use an edit filter to block the most obvious link (the dossier at DocumentCloud), or would it be possible to get some admins to act proactively, after an addition has been reverted? I want to avoid a situation where I – and specifically I because no one else seems to care – have to explain all this over and over again.

Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know the answer to your question. I personally have never revision-deleted to hide an external link to a copyvio, and the revision deletion policy does not list it as something we should be doing. WP:AN might be a good venue to get further input, or perhaps WP:VPP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I’d suggest VPP if it is a question. Fram has dealt with more of these than most, so maybe they can weigh in here with thoughts before taking it wider. I personally read RD1 as applying to COPYVIOEL, but don’t work much in dealing with EL copyvio. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I guess I'll try VPP (maybe next week or so) when I've done some research, and hopefully I can come up with a good question. Have a nice weekend. Politrukki (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Policy forbids linking to a URL which hosts copyrighted material without permission. The link was removed, in harmony with policy. Revdel is normally used to hide outing, grossly insulting accusations, and severe BLP violations, not for links. It just disappears into the mists of revision history fog. Done. (I can imagine a URL which is grossly insulting which should be revdeled, but this isn't one of them. This one is famous and commonly used by normal people, journalist, and politicians, not creeps.)

This particular link is extremely well-known, as it's to one of the most notable political documents of the last year. Pretty much all major news sources mention and/or discuss the Trump–Russia dossier every single day. It's not every day that a sitting president is accused of being a Manchurian candidate, with more and more evidence coming forward which indicates there may be something to it. Indictments and arrests are already occurring to people very close to the president.

I use Google alerts to keep track of it, and it's hard to do. Major RS link to it all the time, and quote from it, and we are allowed to quote from copyrighted material within fair use limits. (Any copyright issues are between the copyright holder and the offending website, and have no effect on "fair use" rights or our ability to quote from said material.)

The dossier is actually hosted several places, and none fear reprisals from Steele or Fusion GPS. Keep in mind that Steele deliberately leaked the document to myriad sources. He wants it out there. I just wish that Fusion GPS would host it on their website for all to use. That would solve our problem. Fortunately major RS discuss and quote so much of it that it's available from their websites, where we can find relevant quotes to use in the context of how those RS discuss it. That's what we do here.

This is an attempt at WP:CREEP which must be nipped in the bud. Current policy is good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Current policy mandates the hiding of copyvios via revision deletion. Full stop. The question is whether linking to an unambiguous copyright violation is covered by that. WP:COPYVIOEL states that Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. Use of RD1 in these circumstances is arguably justified, and I don't think Primefac was out of line. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, where is this policy located? ("Current policy mandates the hiding of copyvios via revision deletion.") -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
ec...
As noted above, once I was aware that there was an issue with adding the link to an article, I deleted it when I saw it, and no longer added it myself:
There should be no surprise about this:
  • To my surprise, even though BullRangifer reverted the addition, they are now advocating that a copyvio link should not be revdel'd.
I have just followed policy which forbids linking and deleted it when people have tried to add it. There is nothing in policy about revdeling such a link from the history. It's not offensive in any manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:RD1 and WP:DCV deal with copyright violations more generally. The question here is if an external link to a copyright violation counts as one under the policy of the English Wikipedia. If they are considered violations in themselves, then they should be hidden. (Also, sorry to Diannaa for all the messages on her talk. Her views on this are always appreciated, though). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Revdeling the link itself makes sense, but since the link isn't offensive, the policy violation exists only as long as the link is live on the page. Once deleted, the problem is gone. I see no need for this form of extreme deletionism being pursued by several editors, some of whom still deny that Russia interfered in any manner in the election, and therefore see the dossier as unworthy of mention here. (I suspect that those indicted and arrested already would see some irony in this situation.)
Some editors aren't just hoping to have the link revdeleted from history, but would love to delete all related articles and all mentions of the dossier if they got their way. They say it pretty plainly on talk pages. This isn't some innocent thing, and we shouldn't play into the hands of fringe POV pushers who are carrying water for Putin and Trump. We're here to document what RS say, regardless of where it leads us.
BTW, I'm not so concerned about Politrukki in this regard, but more with some of the others making a ruckus and endless repetition of these fringe POV on article talk pages and AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Revdelete is normally used for this:
  • "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links. (Emphasis added) Source: WP:RD1
Not even spam links get revdeleted, and the link under discussion isn't anything like that description. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I can see your point regarding "things getting lost in the shuffle" but I still stand by my earlier administrative actions. At this point in time everyone's simply going around in circles, and I highly agree with the above view that a generic discussion about the suitability of revdel as used for COPYVIOEL links would be appropriate (i.e. don't say "this is the link that is being revdeled", but rather "when it is acceptable to revdel a link"). Primefac (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

TEC Edmonton

Hi Diannaa, I noticed you just declined the requested the deletion for TEC Edmonton. I believe the creator and only substantive author requested deletion here and here. I remain sceptical of the article's neutrality (paid creator/editor) and notability (particularly from the point of view of thin independent sources). With the author effectively giving up on the article, not sure how useful an AfD will be? Cheers, pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing his talk page is where I got the notion he did not request deletion ("I am starting to question your comprehension"). I do see now that he did actually request deletion, but I think the request was made out of frustration ("I give up. You guys are nuts. Just delete it", he states at one point). The article is okay now, I have personally checked for further copyvio and assessed all the cites and removed the COI tag. Please feel free to nominate at AFD if you think the article should go. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I have deleted a couple more statements: there is no source for the staffing level, in fact that exact number comes up in press releases attributed to the total of their client's staff level (not the incubator). I also think that the economic success of their clients is not primary to the subject, so I have also deleted that. It is unclear which role the incubator played, quite often this is driven by venture capital investors or non-execs brought on board in later stages. Attributing this to the incubator is puffery IMO. I have not found any (secondary) public statements with regards to the UBI ranking in 2015, so may delete that as well if I have no luck. I am somewhat critical (maybe overly critical) in general with articles about start-ups/incubators/venture capitalists. This is a very dynamic field, where lots of money can be at stake, business risks are high, prestige can be great and WP is often used for marketing or leverage to attain prestige. I'm still not convinced given lack of proper secondary editorial coverage. I hope this makes sense. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The copyright issue is resolved, which was my purpose in visiting the page, so I leave it to folks more adept at assessing notability to decide what to do next. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I definately agree with "Jake Brockman" that he is being overly critical on this matter. I am not receiving any compensation for this, it was just a project on the side which I wanted to complete. As for the for your reference to VC, if you expanded your search you'd realize that TEC has a VC arm known as TEC venture angels (TEC VA). But its fine, I realize that you have some kind of psychotic drive to get this page deleted. Another editor is now questioning the notability of it. Its genuinely shocking to me that a top Canadian accelerator run by a top 5 Canadian university is not notable enough for you guys (maybe it was American you'd have a different outlook?). Regardless, this whole situation has been incredibly frustrating and disappointing for me. I have been threatened with bans and constant accusations. I can assure you that I will be stopping my annual financial contributions to Wikipedia after this.
Diannaa, I appreciate your support and your neutral stance on this matter. Thank you for giving me some hope that not all Wikipedia editors are crazy people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
The main thing that we are looking for is in-depth coverage in sources independent of the subject of the article. That's how we determine whether or not an organization is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to be included in the encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria for more information on this topic. It's not too late to add such sources to the article if you have any such. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

York Green Belt

In response to your edit on the above site,

https://www.york.gov.uk/copyright states (ironically at very minor risk to copyright):

you may use the content contained in this website for reproduction in connection with presentations, reports, printed material, and other similar uses which are publicly distributed or displayed free of charge, including advertisements, posters, catalogues, brochures, and leaflets.

So, please clarify...

--The Equalizer (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not a compatible license, because our license permits any uses whatsoever, including commercial uses. Also, their license does not permit derivative works ("you may not modify, distort, mutilate or alter the content"), and ours does. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Hi, thanks for taking the time to reviewthe page TEC Edmonton. I noticed you removed the COI tag after your review, which I appreciate as it was the logical thing to do. Can I go ahead and remove the WP Paid tag on the talk page now? I don't think it looks very good and it is also untrue as I received no compensation. If that tag cannot be removed, then please go ahead and delete the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Since you stated here that you work for TEC Edmonton, you do indeed have a conflict of interest, whether you were specifically paid to write this article or not. Please leave the tag in place. Sorry you have had such a bad experience. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Joeymiskulin

Hello, I stumbled on the above TP after I went to leave a message about maintenance template deletions but found it full of 'content' or draft which appears to copy extensively from here. Seems this is a new user who might need some pointers. As the vio is in userspace, I have not removed it (yet) not being sure if that would be the correct way to proceed. Can you help? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The material was copied from Wikia, which is released under a compatible license, so I have removed it but not done revision deletion. See User talk:Joeymiskulin for more details. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I was wondering about licensing as it was from Wikia. Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

List of William T. Hornaday Award Gold Medal recipients

Diannaa- Re: List of William T. Hornaday Award Gold Medal recipients. Your critique seems to lack depth of content and, thus, frustrates the honest contributor. That is... I'm not sure I follow your argument. What I have offered is a simple, straight forward, highlight-reel, fact list of accomplishments of each recipient (as best I can find them and edit them) in a few phrases set off by semicolons or in one to two sentences. For the reader, this briefly helps explain why the recipient made the list. The entries are too short to pull discernible passages from anyone else's work - certainly nothing that would constitute "intellectual property." Nevertheless, I use footnotes and cite sources where the reader can read the source article and learn more, and... well... to cite sources for the content in the way that meets with generally accepted, academic standards. I will be happy to redraft something if you feel that I have missed the mark, but you will have to be more specific in identifying exactly what is at risk and how I need to make edits. The list entry you mentioned as being at risk for copyright infringement is a simple list of five facts, is footnoted and cited (in the footnote) with an external link to the cited source. In fact, I have sought to cite at least one source and external link for as many of the entries as possible. Perhaps I should ask what format would be more acceptable / defendable with regard to safeguarding copyrights? Should every paraphrased entry include the repetitive intro text "according to (cited source)..." before listing the accomplishment, or should paraphrased entries be set off with quotes, anyway, despite being paraphrased and cited? Please offer further detail and clarification. Thanks.B93 (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

We can't copy from copyright material even if we cite the source. That's a copyright violation. Short quotations are allowed, but in this instance there's no reason why that has to happen, as it's a simple matter to write it in your own words. So to put it another way: properly attributed quotations set off in quotation marks are okay, but only in cases where there's no alternative. Otherwise, re-work the content, re-writing in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
With respect... did you actually read the article and mine to compare the two? I contend that there is no copyrighted material copied into my article. I pulled identifying facts out of the article, not passages of text... and therefore what is read is offered in my own words. I still footnoted and cited the article as the source, including an external link. One example from the original text of the article reads (I am now copying text to make the point): "As an avid fly fisherman with a Ph.D. in conservation biology from Brigham Young University, Williams has worked as an independent biological consultant for his own company, Clear Creek Consulting, focusing on stream and habitat restoration for native trout, steelhead and salmon in the Intermountain West and Pacific Northwest." ("C of I Alum Awarded Rare Hornaday Gold Medal for Scouting Service". College of Idaho. August 11, 2017) I paraphrased, accordingly, minimally offering the following facts in Williams' listing: "PhD. in Conservation Biology; "for his work restoring fish habitat"." So, where is the issue? Cut anything else and there is simply no information at all. Shall I call him a doctor instead of a PhD? Out of an abundance of caution, should we strip the entire article bare of any content at all, beyond a list of names?B93 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the copyvio "focusing on stream and habitat restoration for native trout, steelhead and salmon in the Intermountain West and Pacific Northwest" and replaced it with "for his work restoring fish habitat." That was not your edit; it was mine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Near-death experience

Hello Dianne

I am working on the near-death experience page. Reference 47 is being used more than once. I have been trying to add a simple refname inside the first <ref> code, but do not succeed. References are insidea special code "Reflist | 30em" -- I am stuck. Any advice please? Have a great day Josezetabal (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Josezetabal: Your edit here seems to have resolved the issue. BTW, for future reference the '30em' code refers to column width and is now applied automatically when the No. of refs reaches 11. It can be removed from the {{reflist}} template in the majority of instances where it occurs. Eagleash (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Folco Quilici

Hi Diannaa. Please could you take a look at the article for Folco Quilici? A user is adding vast ammounts of text from another website, but they claim WP:MYTEXT applies. Any help with this matter would be much appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The source webpage http://folcoquilici.it/en/biografia.html is released under a compatible license (scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the license), so it's okay from a copyright point of view for him to add it here as long as it's properly attributed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi Diannaa, would you mind evaluating this diff for revdel? Mortee (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, and the edit summary as well. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! One more if you could: [6] Mortee (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I am at work now, no admin acct access, so if there's a talk page watcher who could oblige? I won't be home for 4 hours. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 16:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gestapo

D - see this article page. Would you please consider temp page protection for auto-confirmed users. Kierzek (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

​Personally I would say no since the offending IPs have been blocked, but if it becomes an issue you're always welcome to request protection at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
As is typical with our Nazi Germany articles, the vandals are schoolchildren. There's been vandalism all month on Gestapo. I would probably not decline this at RFPP. Activity has stopped for now. I will watch-list for a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Ring of Solomon

Could you look at the 'Plot summary' section of this article please. It has a tag from 2015 with the copyvio material available in the edit window. This looks like it's been reported twice and has a directly applied template. Debouch (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem was that the user added the tag to the article in 2015 but did not report it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 September 13 until 2017, which had by then already been archived. The listed source document is part of this document, which is dated 2014, and we've had the content since 2011. I couldn't find it anywhere else online, so it's okay to keep. Though excessively long and detailed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, reported once and the dates are ok. Thanks. Debouch (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

public domain

Hi.
Is there a template for displaying that the content in some article has been copied from a public domain? Specifically from {{PD-USGov}}? Kindly ping me while replying, regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 23:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: The one I use is {{PD-notice}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thanks. Do you think this is right? special:diff/823225304.
Is there anything that would state something similar to "This article incorporates text, which is in the public domain." at the bottom of the article?
Also, do you remember me? You were one of the first very few editors who communicated with me on wikipedia. It was almost an year ago. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course I remember you :) You did it right; {{PD-notice}} is perfect for incorporating inside a citation. There's a selection of US templates for Category:United States government attribution templates that are intended for use at the bottom of an article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

Thank You
Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Wannsee and Yehuda Bauer

Dear Diannaa, Can I ask why you removed Yehuda Bauer's referenced comment from the Wannsee Conference page? Bauer is without question the world's leading expert in Holocaust history, holding an esteemed position at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and therefore his opinion on Wannsee is surely of great importance? I am baffled that you have deleted it. Thanks for your time.BookyDong (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Your answer is in the edit summary for the removal "remove - overlarge quotation gives undue weight to this one opinion". Heiro 16:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
One opinion; the fact is there is more than one "leading expert in Holocaust history". Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
(1) Inserting that much from one person's opinion makes it look like they are the leading expert, and gives undue weight to that person's opinion. (2) The facts you presented are already covered in the article, so the addition is redundant. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of COPYVIO on E!/Brently Perumal

Last week, you reverted and warned Brently Perumal (talk · contribs) on E! about the addition of copyrighted material about the South African version of the network; the user restored the material and hidden-noted that they were 'one of the Editors on www.tvsa.co.za and the the authority', suggesting a definite COI account (the site they're with seems to be a press release regurgitation site with little original content). I dug in and noticed that Zee World has also had COI fingerprints all over it and I had to revert to a clean July 2017 version to remove all of those issues. I'm tagging them with COI but judging from the COPYVIO restoration, I think they haven't gotten the point at all about it. Nate • (chatter) 17:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally I noticed that another COI editor on that Zee World article, Judahgreg (talk · contribs), was under a 3m block from October 31 to today, but had returned as an obvious DUCK Judahpagoo (talk · contribs) during the block, so that needs some scrutiny too. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. I've done revision deletion at E! and added a COI warning to the editor's talk. Socking concerns on Zee World should be brought to the attention of the people who specialize in sockpuppetry investigations please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Principles for Digital Development

Hi there - just to let you know that I've now recreated the page, without the use of CC BY-SA 4.0 materials. Many thanks! Bjohas (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


RE John Kent (Newfoundland politician)

Hi, sorry about the copyright screwup. I thought I had sufficiently reworded it. My bad. Thanks for your help. I am just glad I didn't lose much more of the editing, which evidently passed muster. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem was detected by our automatic copyvio detection system. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Drake Foundation has been edited with authentic content.

Hey @Diannaa The Drake Foundation Wiki page is being edited so please can you take a look and approve please. Many thanks Sunil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil chauhan2018 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed some copyright content copied from https://www.drakefoundation.org/. It's now okay to submit your draft for approval. If you think it's ready, please add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft page. This will get your draft in the queue for approval. This process may take a while as there's quite a backlog. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyvio in Chatham Granite Club

Hi Diannaa. Could you take a look at Chatham Granite Club as well as Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 February 2 and make I did everything correctly? It appears that quite a bit of the history section was copied-and-pasted from the club's official website. I'm not sure how far back it goes who who intitially added it, but the content has been there for quite a while and has just been moved around a bit is some recent updates. I think it goes back to content added by IP 70.24.45.213 in September 25, 2015 at 22:49 (I'm not providing diffs so as to not create any more cleanup). This might mean that every edit since then will have to be revdel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You did everything perfectly. Thank you for your interest in helping with copyright clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:Chatham Granite Club#Copyvio. It might be that the content in question was actually on Wikipedia first, and that only later was added to the club's official website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Replied at Talk:Chatham Granite Club#Copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with a move

Hello Diannaa, ILoveCaracas has been moving some pages without first seeking consensus or discussing it in the article's discussion page. I left the user a message yesterday on one move with which I do not agree, this one since, that means, that, for the sake of consistency, other articles on Spanish cities or towns would also have to be moved to indicate the province instead of just, in this case, Zaragoza, as it appears in Spanish wiki. I could live with it, but this recent move, today, is not, in my opinion, correct. As I just explained to the user, there were several "Cortes de León" in different years, some more relevant than others, but this one, the one in 1188, was particularly important and has its own separate article also in es.wiki (there is also a general article for Cortes de León). I am not sure how to go about it, reverting to the previous title. Could you please help? Also, perhaps you can tell the user that before he makes any move, he should first seek consensus or request the page move so that there may be some discussion before the move is made. Many thanks, Maragm (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

In cases where the redirect has not been edited, it's possible for you to move pages back to their original locations. This can be done using the "move" feature. You should be able to do this yourself. There's nothing much I can do to help with deciding what these pages should be titled, and you've already explained your concerns. What articles are titled on the Spanish wiki may not be relevant to this wiki, as we have our own manual of style and build a local consensus as to how we want to do things. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, so you recently edited the Randal Bryant page, and I wonder how can I see changes between the current and prev version? Also, the image was added from Prof. Bryant website. If there's no claim of legal license, can I contact him personally to ask for permission? How can I show the legality to wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieswj (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the prose, click here to see what I removed. Regarding the photo, we need to have documentation that shows the copyright holder has given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see this page for an explanation of how to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

required attribution

Hello, I really don't get the difference between your edits and what was there before. In my last edits I said that the material was from Tunisian cuisine, what am I supposed to do more ? Also, the content isn't exactly just copied, it is readapted (and often shortened) to the context in which it is used from its references.Asmodim (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The latest one I spotted was his one about literature, not one about cuisine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Asmodim, to further expand on this point, when you give attribution to a page that's already on Wikipedia, you need to give a specific link to that page, as well as the "version" that you copied from. It's generally okay to say "the 1 February version" or similar, but you can also use diffs. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia gives information about what we have to do and why we have to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New cat

Tony just created Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters. It's probably different enough from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests to not be considered overlap, so I thought I'd point it out to you. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI to you and stalkers that I was looking over WP:CV today, and noticed that there wasn't an easy way to identify admins who were comfortable working in copyright, even though approaching an admin individually is often the easiest way to handle copyright issues for people who aren't that familiar with the policy. I went ahead and created the category to try to help. Thought you and anyone else who follows this page might be interested in it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Too slow! Primefac (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Now Diannaa knows twice TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Cool beans. Added :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

North Dakota State College of Science

Hello Diannaa, the usual--looks like nearly all of the history section was copied. Rev/deletion? Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

US-Asia Institute

And lots of the same here. For when you have a quiet moment. Best, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Also done. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is kind of obvious

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
But so very much deserved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ~! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Haywood Patterson

Hi, I suspect that most of this article is a copyright violation, because it was copied from here, 88% match to current version (it's PBS but it's still copyrighted, I believe) and the last clean version is this 13 November 2012. I wasn't sure what to do, so I contacted you because I saw you active in the copyright sections. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You came to the right place; I've done lots of these. I've removed the copyright violation and done some revision deletion. Thank you for reporting this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Confectionery copying and attribution

Hi Diana, Thank you for letting me know about Wikipedia attribution policy, which I did not know about. I have now implemented a link to Sugar candy. I am not sure how to carry out any other requirements that there may be, and would welcome your help. I am logging off now and may not be in touch for a few days. So please feel free to make any necessary attributions. 81.131.172.217 (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I already did. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Muchas gracias. 81.131.172.217 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


Wikipedia and coyright - "Healthism"

Dear Diannaa, I am writing about the modifications I recently did in the article about healthism. Thank you very much for your message and sorry for the absolutely involuntary infringement of the copyright code that Wikipedia adopts. Actually, I wrote the introduction of a special issue of an academic journal devoted to the topic of healthism and I thought to publish on Wikipedia a shorter version of this article, whose aim is to provide a map of this concept. Since the article is published under an open access journal (Eä) and then published in HAL, which is a French open archive where each author keeps their intellectual property rights, I would like to ask you, if I can release my intellectual property rights and publish on Wikipedia. Best regards, Mauroturrini (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Mauroturrini

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, you cannot add your own research to Wikipedia. Since the material you want to add is your own analysis, you should not add it. See WP:No original research for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I try to revise the text according the copyright policies, and I would like to ask you to check it if the result (in particular the first two sections) could be publishable. Thanks. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauroturrini (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Danna. I have just finished the mast section. I hope it will also be fine. -Mauroturrini (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am unable to view "Healthism: a new conservatism?" because it is behind the paywall, but I am not seeing any issues with your other additions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Didier Stainier Portrait.jpg

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your message. I actually want to delete the file but don't know how and could not find any information on this. The image is already available under the name "Didier Stainier, PhD.jpg" on the German Wikipedia and this is the one I used when creating the article in my sandbox. I will be happy to delete it if you point me in the right direction. Thanks! Scairp4 (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scairp4. Thanks for the message. Only administrators can delete files or articles. I have deleted it for you, as there's a copy at the Commons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Accelerated Learning Laboratory

Hello, Diannaa, here's one that requires repeated protection against copyright violation. More rev/delete fun. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Helpful Primefac has done the rev-del. It looks like he's got it watch-listed too. I am gonna add some page protection. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Terrific. My thanks to you both. Shortly I'll settle in to watch a bloated cultural extravaganza, whose outcome is meaningless. And I'm not referring to a Congressional session. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I never watch the Superbowl - especially this year. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This is User:Moscowamerican.

I used my "right to disappear" Wikipedia:Clean_start to change my user name because of the treatment that I was receiving. I have not edited this article or any other since I changed user names.

I would like to formally dispute the deletion of Head transplant material. I was thinking about a formal request for comment. WP:RfC.

But maybe, just maybe (cross my fingers), we can resolve this here amicably without a formalized process.

Thoughts ma'am? Infinitepeace (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Right to vanish means you don't edit any more at all! Regardless, there's zero chance I would permit the restoration of material you copied from Discover magazine or the Seattle Times. Copyright policy trumps local consensus, whether there's an RFC or not. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Clean start: "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Tanstaafl

Had an old 'watch this page' link to your page, found this icon (button?) and copied it. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of my all time favorit books. Cheers! Shir-El too 23:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh me too. I've read it many times. It's really held up well. It would make a great film! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Kelly Robert Savage draft page you deleted

Diannaa, earlier on Sunday, Nihlus moved this from the published status to draft status which indicated it required review. Which might take 2-3 months. But now, at approximately 0240 UTC 5 February, you have simply deleted it with no explanation per your note on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martha.Savage/sandbox/Kelly_Robert_Savage (I do not know the proper way to reference a deleted page to you here). Does this constitute a review, with zero feedback? I Billspindler am not the original author, that was Martha.Savage . She added the original COI tag. I reviewed it and agreed to publish it as I do not have a similar conflict of interest. Can your explain and suggest a path forward? Thanks... Billspindler (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The page was moved to Draft:Kelly Robert Savage. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, it is there now. Thanks.Billspindler (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald B. Smith redux

You scrubbed a stretch of the history of this article for copyvio, but I see the same IP restored text in this edit not long after. Am I being too cynical in suspecting it was substantially similar? If I should post this at some noticeboard, please let me know; I came to the article as a result of an AN/I report, and I'm not sure it's just the IP. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it was. I've revdel'd. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Duh?

I really should have thought of that. the "ampersand" nbsp thing. You'd think after all those years of computers and webpages that I'd get something so simple. Sigh - guess retirement isn't all it's cracked up to be. Oh well - Thank you very much Diannaa — Ched :  ?  — 19:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome; glad to help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing Comparative Advantage

Hi Diannaa, I am a PhD student working with professors of international economics (from SIS, American University) to improve the quality of the page on comparative advantage, which is often consulted by our undergraduate students. I do not understand why you deleted the latest iteration of the section on "Deardorff's general law of comparative advantage", as it is simply a summary of a seminal article that needs to be mentioned in the page (we also had changed the wording of this summary based on your previous feedback) and as we cite the said article. I do not also understand why the section on "natural experiment of Japan" has been partially deleted and the adjacent figure removed: it does no longer make sense. The owners of the graph (Profs Daniel Bernhofen and John Brown) gave permission for this graph to be used on Wikipedia. I totally understand concerns about copyright: in this regard, would you mind being specific when you refuse an edit? Again, we are simply trying to improve a page that is often consulted by students and that currently does not reflect the nature of the academic research and debates on this issue. All best, Manreiii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manreiii (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot (twice) as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. All material you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please. We don't accept copyright content. Also, we can't take your word for it that the copyright holder of the content on Japan has given permission for their work to be added here. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 1.0 not compatible with Wikipedia?

Hi,

I've been looking at the Creative Commons website (specifically, here and here), and they both say that CC-BY-SA 1.0 text can only be reused under CC-BY-SA 1.0. Unless I'm much mistaken, this makes it incompatible with Wikipedia (because it uses CC-BY-SA 3.0). Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright lists CC-BY-SA 1.0 as compatible, but provides no source to back it up. Is there a problem here? If I'm right (and I hope I am not!), Template:CC-notice needs to be updated, and there may need to be a mass copyright cleanup operation. I really do hope this is a false alarm, but the way I'm interpreting what Creative Commons says, I don't see how we can use CC-BY-SA 1.0 text on Wikipedia. Am I missing something? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

And I've just also seen this, which says: The version 1.0 ShareAlike licenses require that adaptations be made under exactly the same license as applied to the original work. Can someone (Primefac, TonyBallioni?) please tell me I'm an idiot who has got this all wrong? Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Adam9007, we are bound by the English Wikipedia copyright policy because we are not lawyers. The local policy is stricter in the law in places (our fair use policy, for example), but it always conforms with the laws of the United States, and in the past WMF counsel have given opinions on compatible licensing. As you are not a lawyer, you do not need to worry about what the law is. You only need to worry about English Wikipedia policy. The FAQ on that policy is clear. CC BY-SA 1.0 is compatible. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Do you know if the WMF legal team have declared CC-BY-SA 1.0 compatible? There are certainly discrepancies between Wikipedia copyright policy and what Creative Commons says. I don't think one needs to be a lawyer to notice them. If Wikipedia copyright policy is not in line with the law, it could cause big problems. I find it hard to believe that there has been such an oversight, so I must be missing something... Adam9007 (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Adam9007, it was added by Moonridengirl (who was our resident volunteer copyright person for ages, and now is a senior employee at the Wikimedia Foundation) with this diff. Given the edit summary, I am assuming that WMF counsel has reviewed this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Thanks goodness for that! It still beats me how it's compatible, but then again I'm no expert (hence this thread). Adam9007 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Robert Vancina page edit by Diannaa

Good day Diannaa Just received notice of deleting one edit I done on the page - Under Section of Scientific Publications I added to my own publication one picture and added two sentences describing 10 years of my research in it. That has nothing to do with autobiography as you claim, or violating authors rights - I am the author. Can you please read what you deleted and realize that has nothing to do with person on the page but in two sentences summarize work that has been done through out 10 years of research. Sorry if I misunderstand it and delete this note, thank you. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvancina (talk • contribs) 04:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, you cannot add your own research to Wikipedia. Since the material you want to add is your own analysis, you should not add it. See WP:No original research for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Jaiswal

Hi Diannaa I humble request to you. can you check the data in article Jaiswal Brahmin. There is maximum data without reference. Can you please remove unsourced data. Atrisomkshraj (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone else has taken care of this problem. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Angshuman Kar

Diannaa, there was apparently significant copyvio on this article. Given how much of the article has been deleted, I'm guessing that a number of revisions should be hidden. Can you please take a look when you get the chance? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thans for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Assam

Good morning, Diannaa, recent edits appear to have introduced copied content, and may require the mysterious magic of rev/deletion. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done; thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thank you

Can you delete the hymenectomy article so that I can get it right? I don't know what the problem is. This is the second time in two days that I've caused a copyright problem. I'm going to rework it offline to get it right and take more time in editing. Then I will re-create it. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 16:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Appreciation! Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfair use?

Hi, Diannaa, it's been a while! I though you might be able to give a quick answer to this: what do we do when we get a complaint that a fair-use image (this one) is being used without permission from the copyright holder? The file is taken from here, and has a large "copyright" watermark across it. My own feeling is that we should respect the rights of the owner if there's been an objection, but I wondered if this has come up before, and if so, what the outcome was? For reference, OTRS ticket 2017073110012929. Thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! good to see you. I did find this article which shows there's precedent for removing fair use images if the copyright holder requests it. I found a different image from a different website to replace. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Diannaa! My correspondent was quite upset, so I'm pleased to be able to go back and report this result. On a quite different topic, I posted here too late for anyone to take any notice of what I said (and I was anyway probably in the wrong place to say it). However, I see that as a possibly fairly major cause for concern. I don't know what ought to be done about CCI in general – even the requests process is stalled (in case you missed it, which I don't suppose you did, the most recent addition may be of interest to you). One thing's for sure, though – the current system isn't dealing with the problem. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's not enough people interested in helping with copyright cleanup to do all the required tasks. I do CopyPatrol and look after maintenance of WP:CP and clean up the occasional listing there. I also try to keep on top of cleaning pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations and am currently locating and cleaning pages with a copyvio/core template that were never added at WP:CP. Unfortunately that leaves no time for other things, including cleaning up the older copyvios at WP:CCI and some of the other tasks I used to do, such as re-writing articles for GA and the like. I was not consulted about the unblock of that newly listed person and decided to trust that the admin that unblocked would monitor and make sure they stopped adding copyvio. Perhaps I should have monitored myself, but I did not at the time feel it was my responsibility to do so, as I was not the unblocker. (Right now I have about six contributors that I monitor daily and prolly about the same number on a less frequent rotation.) The CopyPatrol system is for the most part stopping repeat copyvio offenders from getting established, other than a few like this one that fall through the cracks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

US-Asia Institute, redux

Hi Diannaa, same COI account returned for same promotional and copyright violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Images of Disney content

Hi again, Diannaa. I went to The Walt Disney Studio Licensing website, which tells users to ask permission and contact them for quotes (or somethig). I can assume that licensing any content belonging to Disney requires a fee, which is what Getty Images has done. How would this affect screenshots and posters, like Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) and one screenshot at The Golden Girls#Cast and characters? I thought about taking one of them to FFD, but I'd like to contact you first instead. George Ho (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

People can get a license to use Disney images. I am pretty sure we don't need to do this because we use their material as fair use. That's my opinion only, I am not a legal expert. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio at Paraiyar

This edit is copy/pasted from, eg: here. Please can you do the honours. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries - Sphilbrick has just done it. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition of material followed by immediate removal by same editor - why?

While I don't think this is a recent phenomenon, I happened to notice in the last few weeks a number of items brought to our attention as a possible copyright issue. An editor adds material which appears to match some source and then immediately removes it.

addition, followed by removal.

While it doesn't result in the addition of copyrighted material to the article, it does require some investigation in order to determine whether revdel is necessary.

If it happen once or twice, I wouldn't bother mentioning but I probably seen it a dozen times over the last couple weeks so I'm just curious whether you or any talk page stalkers know why this occurs?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

We do have a person who for years (since at least 2016) has been copypasting material from articles into redirects to those articles and then immediately removing it. It's typically done on articles about financial services companies. See for example this redirect or this redirect. The IPs geolocate to the UK. There's data on this in my sandbox and at User:Chrissymad/IPBlanker. These edits are all copying without attribution and a violation of the terms of our license. I think I have all his active ranges blocked since I haven't seen him for a few days. This case you mention however is not the same guy, as the IP geolocates to Toronto. Why does he do this? there's nowt so queer as folk. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

I think this edit might warrant a revdel. Onel5969 TT me 19:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Obviously made-up, but still. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 19:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Charles Paul Conn

Hi Diannaa, I have concerns that passages of this bio are not only a bit promotional in tone and derive from COI accounts, but closely paraphrase a source. If you have a chance, could you take a look? Thank you very much, 2601, or 73.159.24.89 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This one is done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Diannaa. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about statistical results in Wikipedia articles

I have a question about the passage you recently deleted from Placebo that I thought you might be kind enough to answer. Let me preface the question by noting that my intent is not to defend the passage: in fact, the passage's author Brisawhite has only made two edits to Wikipedia to date; I reverted the first and you reverted the second (which I'm now wishing that I had done myself), so we would agree that Brisawhite has not demonstrated superb editorial judgment to date: "o-fer" as they say in baseball. I'm asking because the deleted passage raised a theoretical question in my mind that I don't know how to answer: Is it copyright violation to cite, in Wikipedia, numerical data from a study? There were three sentences in the deleted passage, none of which appeared verbatim in the cited source. The first two sentences were basically reporting statistical results: "66% of respondents felt" x, "84% of respondents felt" y, "82% of" respondents who felt y also felt z. The third sentence defined the terms used in x, y, and z. I can see that some of the phrases in x, y, and z should have been in quotation marks because they came from the cited source. But the numerical figures themselves shouldn't be changed, of course, nor would it have been wise to change the phrases in x, y, and z much, if at all, as that would have misrepresented the results of the study. So, was the solution in this case (assuming the passage was kept, which I'm not advocating) simply to add quotation marks to the phrases in x, y, and z, or should this kind of numerical data not be reported in Wikipedia at all? Again, I'm not defending the deleted passage, just interested in the theoretical question for future reference. Many thanks for your tireless work on copyvio, by the way. Biogeographist (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. I've double checked the edit using that tool and manually, and feel that the passage was inadequately paraphrased and was indeed a copyvio. Some of the content is indeed verbatim from the cited source. If the person adding the prose is unable to paraphrase the content well enough that it's not a copyvio, perhaps it could be presented as a quotation. As to whether or not the data should be added at all, that's an editorial judgement best left to the people who edit medical articles. I know they have pretty strict sourcing requirements - see WP:MEDRS. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be the case that, as you said, Brisawhite "is unable to paraphrase the content well enough that it's not a copyvio" and that such material "could be presented as a quotation" instead. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your help, please...

See this diff by IP as it may need redaction. Also look at contributions of IP which are problematic. He has been adding to the comments of other users, and adding (copyrighted) incorrect information to articles and I'm thinking it requires an admin's attention. Thank you in advance Atsme📞📧 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done the revision deletion. I note the IP's user talk page is blank. I will talk to them, though this does not require advanced permissions :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • LOL* I hear you re: TP discussion. While I typically AGF, and will not hesitate to offer a helping hand to GF editors, I'm far more cautious about interacting with problematic IPs. I've had my share of unwelcome experiences with IP trolls, and I've also seen what a few other editors I've collaborated with have endured in far worse situations. Chalk it up to my WPTSD (Wikipedia Troll Stress Disorder). Fortunately, I've had more good experiences with IPs than bad, so I think it's best to hand the tough situations over to an admin who is far more conditioned for handling such matters.Atsme📞📧 15:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can learn to do this, using the simple instructions at Wikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values ~! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Starfish

Hello, there is a copy-vio at this page with this edit. It seems to be a direct copy of this web page. It came to light when the editor concerned came to the help desk with a ref error question. I fixed the ref and pointed out the copy-vio to the editor both at their TP and the HD, asking them to rewrite it as soon as... They have not done so and I believe they have probably seen one or other of the messages as I received a 'thanks' notification (for the edit). I have not as yet removed the offending text. Should it now be 'revdel'd'? It's a seemingly newish editor who might not understand about copy-vio. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the content and done the revision deletion. I also let the person who added it know what's going on. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RE Anna Braude Heller article

Hi. I am genuinely sorry about the article. I really did remove and reword as much as I could and thought it was satisfactory. I haven't been creating articles for a while and have been concentrating on maintenance, so maybe I am rusty. I would to rewrite the article as I believe the subject is notable. Perhaps I can keep rewrites in my sandbox pending your review(s). Sorry, again. I know I have been editing long enough to know better and I hate being a disappointment. Thought I had sufficiently reworded it but evidently not. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you review this version in my sandbox. Thanks. Quis separabit? 15:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The sandbox version still has quite a bit of overlap with the source webpage. Did you know, there's a tool you can use to check this yourself. Like this. Content has to be completely re-written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible (not always possible with chronological facts). Summarize rather than paraphrase. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio in translations

Hi Diannaa. I've tried asking Primefac about these questions, but he seems to be away right now. I wonder could you provide any guidance? Perhaps there is a handy exposition somewhere, linked from WP:COPYVIOCITE, to which Primefac already directed me. But I can't find anything. Many thanks for any help you can give.

1. Can a translation of a passage into a foreign language always be assumed to be a copy-vio? I mean, other languages use totally different words don't they, and express things in a different way, with different grammar?
2. If one doesn't know a language (like I don't know Esperanto, for example) how does one judge if it's copyvio? Is a machine translation (like GoogleTranslate) good enough to determine this?
3. Can links to what may be copyvio material never be used at Wikipedia, off article main space, for the purposes of discussion or illustration?

Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. Translations: the content guideline at WP:NONENGPLAG says that translation alone is not enough to assure that the material is free of copyvio. It need to be re-worded and re-worked into the editor's own words so that the rights of the original author are protected.
  2. Presenting the same material in the same order using similar wording and unique expressions is still considered a copyvio. Google translate can offer clues but can't be assumed to be definitive. You'd have to go over the content phrase by phrase to tell for sure. Knowing the language would definitely be helpful for this but a person could probably do it without.
  3. Copyright violations are not permitted in user space, drafts, talk pages, the whole shebang. So I would have to assume that even though WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER don't specifically cover this point, that it is not allowed. I've seen such links removed from (for example) ANI, so no. Don't do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, my problem is with where WP:NONENGPLAG says "direct translation". How does one judge that directness. How does one know how good an automatic machine translation is? I have no idea, for example, how epo does its translations, do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the clear advice. So en.wiki has "no responsibility" for the content of other language wikis, does it? I must have read that quite a few times in the 11 years I’ve been here. So what about all those other language links on the left-hand side of the page for most articles? How do we know they are not chock-full of copy-vio? Who’s job is it to check the content of all of those constantly? Quite an onerous task, no? Or maybe those links just get added "automatically”, so no-one is actually “to blame” for knowingly linking to something that might be a copy-vio? Maybe there’s some kind of “corporate responsibility" for this risk to "Contributory copyright infringement." I’m now somewhat curious. At any given moment I guess there’s all kinds of copyright violation going on in these 5,568,817 or so articles. Doesn’t Wikipedia have some kind of "can’t be held liable" get-out clause somewhere? I can’t recall ever hearing about Wikipedia being prosecuted for violation of copyright. Perhaps this just goes to show that the system is working. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You raise some very good questions but I don't know the answers. The risk is primarily to the editor who adds the content, as they are the one releasing it under license when they are not entitled to do so. The Foundation itself is not responsible for the content, but does receive and act upon DMCA takedown requests, per this article in the Signpost. Inter-language links are added via Wikidata. Articles on other wikis are just as likely to contain copyvio as ours. Perhaps even more so, if they are not well policed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Well I personally suspect they are not very policed at all. In fact, until I got a nasty and overbearing warning on my Talk page from User:Fram, I must admit I'd never thought of it before at all. In the past I've added many links to other language wikis never thinking that I could be engaging in "Contributory copyright infringement." One last little query for now - if I want to use a link to something that I suspect may be copyright, say for the purposes of illustration or discussion at a User Talk page, can I just remove the "http://"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Can I Do It... 'Til I Need Glasses? I wouldn't do that, and I'm not going to tell you it's okay. Better you should just tell people in general where to find it. For example, googling "Steele dossier uploaded by Buzzfeed" points to the content without the need to provide a url or partial url. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Haha, fair enough. I wish there were clearly written rules about this. As there seems to be some variation in the position taken by different Admins. Some are stricter than others. I try to add links only to things which I personally consider to be not copyvios. It's not always possible to tell, is it? But YouTube links can be tricky. I must say, with regard to YT, that this so-called risk of "contributory copyright infringement" seems to me a bit nonsensical - surely YT is 100% responsible for what they publish, whether it infringes copyright or not. And again I never hear of YouTube being taken to court - I imagine if they get what they consider to be a copyvio claim, they just take it down. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Adding: User:Mdennis (WMF) (Moonriddengirl, in her private-editor-incarnation) knows a lot about copyright and might be a good person to ask. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks, Diannaa. I probably will try and ask her, when I have a moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Jani Babu Qawwal

If you have time can you please check this article? Jani Babu Qawwal. I removed a copyright violation to imdb, but I don’t know how to remove the copy vio from the article’s history. Can you help? Thanks. Donald1659 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to do revision deletion. I've done that, as well as added a bit more data to the article. (Should the article be at the title "Jani Babu"?) You can post revision deletion requests here or use the template {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for helping. Donald1659 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Blog used as reference

Hello Diaane, on the Near-death experience#Cross-cultural aspects, the following blog site "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences: Cultural Differences" is used as a reference though there are peer-reviewed journal review articles dealing with the same topic. Do you agree there is no issue replacing it with the better sources? Your thoughts? Josezetabal (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The place to ask this kind of question is the reliable sources noticeboard. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Auschwitz

Hi, why you reverted my edition in Auschwitz? The article concerns Auschwitz - something that was - and is not (exists) anymore.

So an infobox should show the old location or if it is a more favorable location, it should be noted.

Auschwitz is not today. One of the things is that the Auschwitz Museum and Museum is located in Poland, but the camp was in Germany. This infobox is about the camp, so you must have it either in the old location (Germany) or in a more current location, but the current one should be noted because infobox concerns past. We can not combine the present and the past in one template

--Swd (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your addition does not make any sense, because it implies that the camp has moved. The camp still exists, though it's not in use as a camp any more; it's now a museum and UNESCO world heritage site. I suspect English is not your first language, so you may have to take my word on this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Diana, look it have sense. Because infobox is not about museum and UNESCO world heritage site but about somthing in the years 1939-1945. In fact, there should be two infobox there - one for the camp and the other for museum. In the other way we moving Former object from the past to actual localisation. Camp not excist anymore. It's same like battle was in the period of time and not excist anymore:

[7] Date 23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943 (5 months, 1 week and 3 days) Location Stalingrad, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union like you moving battle in the Soviet Union to Russia.

So if the infobox is about The Camp, should be location from the time of its activity. Former camp is former location, and of corse UNESCO and Museum location is in Poland. Look how we did it in the polish Wikipedia. Infobox about Camp is with former data, and about Museum with actual. Maybe should be in english "silver star" article similar. Location Former for camp, and acual for UNESCO and Museum. I hope you will be understand me better now. For my english I'm sory. ;)greetings --Swd (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand you better, but I still don't agree with you that this should be changed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

deleted page

Hi!

Why have you deleted Draft: David Urankar

I am David Urankar and owner of linked page: www.davidurankar.com

Best, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterd1 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi David. In addition to what Diannaa posted above about copyrights, I suggest you take a look at the following pages if you're trying to write an article about yourself: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyrighted information on multiple articles

Hello Diannaa, I noticed you removed a whole lot of copyrighted information on Hoa people and I've noticed the same source has been used on multiple articles about the ethnic Chinese communities of Southeast Asia (Chinese Filipino, Chinese Cambodian, Laotian Chinese and Thai Chinese). Just wanted to let you know so you can have a look if there's any problem with the use of that source. Thanks. (120.144.30.158 (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC))

Thanks for the report. I located and removed copyright content from Chinese Filipino and Thai Chinese. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that Diannaa. (121.219.8.166 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC))

Apparent copyvio at Naptha article

Hi Diannaa, you might want to take a look at this apparent copyvio re-addition of content copied-and-pasted from the Eagle Petrochem website to the Naptha article. It looks like a definite copyvio according to Earwig's copyvio detector. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the user merged the content from Petroleum naphtha and the data at Eagle Petrochem was copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The user has done multiple undiscussed merges, all of which have now been undone. There's a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Vorpzn and big undiscussed merges / renames. Thanks for the alert. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, you're the best. Carlstak (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rutter's

Hi Diannaa, this article has long been subjected to promotional editing by a paid account, who I've asked be blocked. But I also think that they've dropped in copyright violation passages that have since been removed. There may need to be a bit of rev/deletion. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the History section from the article as it was copyvio, added by an IP in 2011. I was unable to find a match online for the content at the article talk page or the user talk page (they are both the same material). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. For starters there's this: [9]. I suspect a lot of passages at the user's talk page, transferred to the article talk page, are similarly copied. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
And the gasoline business, from [10]. Probably most or all was similarly copied. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the content on the source website is in "frames", whatever that means!, and hence is invisible to Earwig's tool. I think it's all cleaned up now. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Diannaa. Best, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Permission for all the pics on Robert Jelinek (artist)

Hello Dianaa. Please have a look on [[Robert Jelinek (artist))] and stop the deeting process for all the pictures on that page. Volunteer Response Team Ticket here: [Ticket#: 2018021310008323]. Thanx! --Gantenbrink (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added the required {{OTRS pending}} template to each file. Processing your email will likely take a while, as they have huge backlogs right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanx! --Gantenbrink (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Harisal

Diannaa, the DYK review here talks about copyvio and copy/paste, and the article was tagged with the copy/paste template. I was troubled by the (false) assertion that a low Earwig score meant that there wasn't a copyvio, and I imagine that at least some of the edits should be hidden, given the examples in the review. Can I leave this in your hands? Thanks again for all that you do in this space. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Uploading profile picture

Dear Diannaa,

I have uploaded a new profile picture of Wim Naudé on his Wikipedia page. However, there seem to be some issues with the licensing part. I have adjusted now three times but keep receiving messages that still something is to be adjusted. Could you please assist? Thank you in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maastricht52 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but we won't be able to use this photo without the copyright holder releasing it under a compatible license, because we don't accept fair use images of people that are still alive, since a freely licensed image could still be created. If the copyright holder is willing to release the photo under license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Some revdels and checking

So I was looking through Special:Contributions/Rashid.ali and was cleaning up some of the copyvios he introduced - need some revdels: of

The copyvios are generally cited to the copied from source. Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

These are all done. I left another warning on their talk page in case they decide to return. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa,

Thank you for your message, I will take a deep look into these information sources you gave.

The most copyrighted material would be the style definitions, because they are definition from the academics itself, you mention "direct copy or too close paraphrasing" and you are right with your statements. Moreover I understand that Wikipedia use CC BY-SA and that the copying text of copyrighted material is strict forbidden if it is not compatible with CC BY-SA.

Probably the solution would be, to make a general statement about the different kind of styles, because then it isn't own research, but also not directly copyrighted, because only some words are used from the text and every word is refereed to the author.

I will solve the translation attributions as soon as possible.

I will take a look at the licenses of these documents.

Yours Sincerely, --Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi, I am wondering if I would be able to access the deleted revision of my sandbox page. I had an article I was working on there. Thanks Jk956 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the same content that was deleted yesterday at Food security in Mexico as being a copyright violation, so I am unable to comply with your request. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Need assistance with copyright violating content at Edward Rubin

Greetings. I come to you only because I saw your recent copyright work on Libyan Civil War (2011). I came across the Edward Rubin article today, and found it horribly non-neutral and violating copyright. In particular it was taking material directly from [11] and [12]. Earwig's copyvio detector found 70.7% and 58.1% confidence on those two hits respectively. I looked into the article's history, and the first introduction of the material began with User:Solntsa, a user who hasn't edited in >4 years, in 2010. I edited the last 'clean' version of the article, adding in some citations, category fixes that had been done, and wording changes to bring the article to date with his position now. Everything from this to this, inclusive, needs to be rev del'd. Could you assist please? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk)

 Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa Thank you for your email about my contribution to the article about Sacadura Cabral. I used only material that I own the copyright together with my collaborators. Of course I took it from the our publication that I put in the references. Is there any other article that you found similar? If that is the case, please send me the reference, because I own the copyright of the text I have used. Thanking you in advance, I remain, Yours sincerely, Jorge M M Barata (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I did notice that your username was among the authors of the source paper. All copyright holders would have to be willing to release the material under a compatible license for you to be able to add it to Wikipedia. We need to have documentation in writing. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mount Tabor Indian Community

@Diannaa: The following I posted following the information you posted on the Mount Tabor page. This is a problem, it is explained below.

@Diannaa: Since I am the one that originally wrote it, and copied by someone else and added to the site mentioned, and we are talking about a legal treaties that are on file at the Texas State Archives in Austin, there is no copyright issue and it should not be removed. There is no copyright instances on anything I have written except documents which are public from the 1840's and not subject to copyright. As a historian, genealogist, I may be lacking knowledge in Wiki, but not history. Nor as a former CFR judge would I determine any copyright of my original information. Please contact me before you start removing things. I welcome, tweeking to make it more Wiki friendly, as I have a lot to learn, but this nonsense has happened to me before about the Mount Tabor Indian Cemetery, where I put it on Wikipedia, only to have somebody say it was on another site and remove it. YES, information of mine on that site. Same on the Treaty of Birds Fort, where somebody took it off, only to have somebody else put it back up later. Suggestions is better than removal in this instance.

Terran57 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Terran57Terran57 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: a second thought those treaties were OUR treaties, my tribe, my people, my family of which I am the elected Chairman. That in it's self states you have no right to remove them. You may not understand tribal sovereignty, but this is a violation of such. Also, show me ANYWHERE on the net referencing the Treaty with the Fredonian Republic!

Terran57 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Terran57Terran57 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Terran57 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Terran57Terran57 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Double checking, I discovered that the content appears in an old revision of the Wikipedia page Timeline of Cherokee history. It appears that the external website copied from there. Not sure how it might be possible that you recently wrote identical prose, or perhaps you added it to that other article long ago? Regardless, I have restored the material and added the required attribution. For future reference: 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. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you for revisiting this. No I didn't write it recently, in fact it was first put out there on an MTIC website in the 90's. The words are mine verbatim and were initially seen by me on Wikipedia on the Battle of Salado Creek page, but that has since been changed. I have seen them or very close renditions on a number of other websites and Wiki pages over the years. I have no problem with people using my words, but I want to use them myself! I actually got that comment from a Texas State Representative over 20 years ago, who said basically the same thing, thus I jumped on the "never abrogated by Congress" and used that in briefs dealing with our state recognition as well as our thoughts of reopening the case for the Bowles Treaty that we last lost before the Indian Claims Commission in 1953 (I wasn't born yet to be there!). My contention was and is that the reason we received an adverse outcome in 53 was that Birds Fort treaty was not included. Anyway, that's why I know that statement. Since it has been rehashed dozens of times, I don't know if the author of the Cherokee page would know where they got it. It has been on there for a while. Again, thank you for your response. I have already had to fight about this site when one gentleman listed it fr deletion as fraud. He never bothered to look, but later apologized, but I am till learning Wiki and I have had things changed and removed, that should not have been, only in one instance for somebody else recreating it. Please forgive me for being touchy about this. My knowledge of comprehending Wiki [[ ]] or {{ }} is at this point beyond me. I am attempting to adapt as fast as I can at this point. About 15 years ago when Wiki was very new, I created several pages. I have no idea of the username I had then. I started Terran57 about 10 years ago, but due to health and changes I did not keep up with, I have been left long in the dust. Working on it. Never knew anything about signatures until 2-3 days ago! Believe me I have tried repeatedly to get others to build this page. I am supposed to be writing a grant for the next fiscal year right now rather than this, but I felt it imperative for reasons too long to go into, that it had to be done now. Again, thank you for your input.

Terran57 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Terran57Terran57 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. I have identified a seven-year-old copyright violation in Gregor Mendel Institute and would like to request some revdels,

  • 424692196 to 820696751 - the group descriptions were copied from the institute's annual report, also present on their websites, e.g. [13]
  • or possibly 424687216 to 820718889 - the history section added by the same user - the formatting and style strongly suggest a copyright violation, but I couldn't locate the original source and it was subsequently modified by an IP user, so I leave it to your discretion.

Thanks! Rentier (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I decided to hide only the material that's provably copyvio. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Dianna for the information you provided.

But I would like to object that the photo I provided is in the public domain, as I did add a citation. The portrait is owned by the State of Tennessee on display at the state Museum, portraits owned by the state are allowed for public educational use.(http://www.tnportraits.org/811062-dury-george.htm) This same domain use is allowed for Governor, state legislator or other state owned portraits. That this portrait being part of the state collection is open to public use.(http://www.tnmuseum.org/Visitors/Photographic_Policy/) As well I have direct permission from the person who took the photo for the state.(Which I could supply in written forum.) I did crop the photo from it's original size to Better fit the page.

(As well as the other citation from the gallery I wrote that myself on Dury.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin.P.L (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but that license is not liberal enough for our purposes, as our website permits reproduction for any purposes, including commercial use. The fact that you included a citation or cropped the photo has no impact on the copyright status of the photo. The photo is at the Commons so you may wish to comment at Deletion requests/File:George dury.jpg. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Diannaa, I happened to look at this, and saw that you'd removed a lot of copyvio. I've just declined the draft because it seemed to me that most of what remained was copied from here. If I'm wrong about that, please freely revert; if I'm not wrong, a further revdel (one revision) is probably needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I thought I ran it through Earwig's tool, but I guess not. Rev=del complete. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Earwig's tool is marvellous, but I don't find it infallible – it seems to me that it skips some sites in search mode, even if it can then search them in comparison mode. Who knows why? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Copy right issue in page Department of Agriculture Development & Farmers' Welfare (Kerala)

Thank you, Dianna for the information you provided.

The original content of the article is taken from the official website of the of Kerala and it is not a copy right web page. The site http://www.justkerala.in/kerala-govt-departments/agriculture-department has copied the content from the official website. So they have no copy right on the content (the right vested with http://www.kerala.gov.in). So I think there is no copy right problem with the content. But even if you are not satisfied with my explanation, I will try to re-write it.

Expecting your reply. Sanu N (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Govt of Keralacopyright policy says that the material "has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" which is not a liberal enough license for our purposes, since our license permits any usage whatsoever. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I've got it. I will sure to correct such issues. Sanu N (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

on the Daniel Zwerdling entry

Dear Diannaa,

I very much appreciate your point of view here. Please allow me to address your points, and another point that is independent of your recent edits.

First of all, without identifying myself (I assume that's a Wiki policy?), I should say that I am NOT Daniel Zwerdling. I'm a scientist and longtime chairman of a science department at a major university. However, as someone who believes that journalism truly is the 4th branch of government, I have followed his career for a very long time. I am NOT in the news, media, etc business.

My first set of edits were triggered by my having visited Wikipedia out of curiosity to see what was there for Zwerdling, since he has recently retired. I was shocked to see that someone (several different usernames actually) have made edits that change the nature of the Wiki entries from being factual and informative. Instead of what was there previously (for instance, before December 2017 when I last looked) there was a section about allegations of sexual harassment etc. These allegations are slanderous, biased, and there has been no due process to address them. I make no assumptions in the motives of the people(s) who have made the Wiki changes to add the allegations, however these allegations are all unsubstantiated, vague, and except in one case, anonymous. In my humble opinion, these kinds of things, until proven, have no business in something like Wikipedia, and accomplish nothing other than to serve as someone's way of "punishing" something they believe needs punishment. That is not how we do things in this country.

I am therefore asking your advice as to what the right thing to do is. I'm not sure of the correct process here, and I do not want to get into an editing war, however I feel very certain about this. If you think I should contact the person who made the edits today (2/18), then I'm willing to do so. Note that the username of that person is "StopEditingYourOwn", indicating that they believe Zwerdling is doing the editing, and clearly they are trying to punish him for what in their mind they believe to be true.

Now to the edits that you made to what I had done on Feb 17. I appreciate your email describing Wikipedia’s strict rules. They seem designed to help ensure accuracy and protect copyright infringements. That’s how I interpreted the links you sent, as well as your statements about not being able to quote more than brief passages from other sources. Perhaps I should explain what happened to prompt my editing on Feb 17. What I used for my information was material that I asked Zwerdling to give me. I did this on my own initiative, and he sent me the bio that was at one point on the NPR web site, plus some recent awards mentions. I edited the material and placed it in the Wiki page.

I believe that the material prior to when the slanderous edits about sexual harassment was made was itself inaccurate and so far from being the kind of comprehensive information that Wikipedia is known for that I felt that I had to fix it. For instance, previously he was referred to as a "reserve" broadcaster, when in fact he was one of NPR’s senior on-air personalities and one of the nation’s leading investigative journalists. I know, because I’ve closely followed and admired his groundbreaking reporting at NPR for almost 40 years. He has had a career that has had about as much impact as you can have in the journalism world, winning awards, and breaking stories that had national impact and resulted in changes in policy (from food to organic farming to PTSD and traumatic brain injury). As to the details of your edits, you cut the quotes by the directors of the Alfred I. duPont awards, one of the most coveted awards in journalism, calling him a “legend” in public broadcasting. I will review the Wiki rules but wouldn't this quote be appropriate if I noted a reference?

What I propose as far as the contents of his page is for me to go to the links that you provided, read up on what Wikipedia requires, and try to come up with something that conforms. I can then send it to you before posting, just to keep from having the page bouncing around, however I would very much like for you to restore it to what it was after your edits (16:12 and 16:06 today).

Please reply, and many thanks for all of your work. Wikipedia is a national treasure (as is Zwerdling!!!!).

Visitorfromthefuture (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Visitorfromthefuture, the long and the short of it is that if you write out the content in your own words, there will not be any issues with copyright. We of course want to make sure that Wikipedia contains neutrally-written, well-sourced information, and if there is factually inaccurate or unverifiable information it should be removed. Primefac (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker – please do not ping on reply)

Cleaned up an article

Dear Diannaa, Just wanted to let you know that I have cleaned up the content of the former page "Food security in Mexico" that was deleted and will be posting the content on my sandbox. Thanks, please let me know if there are any problems. Jk956 (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I found some copyright violations using this tool and removed them. Please review before I perform revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it. I have reviewed the revisions and added a bit more to the 'Introduction' section. I just wanted to let you know that it is ready for revision deletion. Thank you, please let me know if there are any other issues to address.Jk956 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Your new wording comes up clean. Hopefully you have learned a lot from this process and will do much better with your copyright compliance in the future! Thanks for your patience, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was the reviewer that initiated the copyright investigation of this article, and it came up on my watchlist as having been republished. Earwig gives it a clean bill of health, but I can still find what seem like copyvios of for example this site and this one by searching for certain phrases. Are you happy with the present version of the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I will look some more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cwmsymlog

Some years ago I already had contact about the drawing. The reaction was: "nice picture by the way". It is done by my late wife in 2001. I am her widower and made the photograph in 2001. We lived nearby in the house Tanyfoel (Below the Hill)Romeinsekeizer (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, We greatly appreciate your help, particularly from a senior editor. Unfortunately, the last time we worked on our Midshipmans Prayer article, we could not figure out how to communicate with you in order to relate that the prayer is not copyrighted and was created by my Grandfather, Chaplain Thomas, when he was Command Chaplain at the US Naval Academy and under the employment of the Federal Government as a Navy Chaplain. We hope this resolves the issue. We did determine that the Lords Prayer and the Gettysburg address are in full text in their respective Wikipedia articles and presumably not copyrighted as is the Midshipmans Prayer. We look forward to your continued assistance as we are novices at this process. You might take look at William N. Thomas, Wikipedia article which we did as our first article which is replete with citations and credits. Our very best Richard Templeton and Sharon HansenEaward24 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If the prayer was written by a US Navy employee in the course of his duties then it's in the public domain and okay for us to use. I have re-added it. Please provide a citation for the inter-faith version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

We need assistance with a change to the title of the page. We would like it to read Midshipman Prayer. We have been unsuccessful in our attempts. Can you please assist? Richard and SharonEaward24 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a rule that people have to be experienced before they're permitted to move pages. I will move the page for you. Please don't share the Wikipedia account. One editor per account please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Dana L. Robert

Hi Diannaa, I've removed some copyright violation--article has a promotional history. Could you rev/delete where appropriate, and check for further violations? At your convenience, of course. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not finding any further copyvio. Rev-del done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-08

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The explanation of the abbreviations on the recent changes page could overlap with the list of changes. This has been fixed. [14][15]
  • You can now see statistics for pageviews per wiki per country. You can see this on maps or in a table. [16]

Problems

  • Linter is reporting estimated counts instead of actual counts for some wikis. This is because of performance problems. You might notice a false higher number in linter counts for some categories. This will be fixed as soon as the performance problem has been fixed. [17]
  • Last week the way that Visual Editor displays references lists was changed. As a result, the references generated by specific templates like {{sfn}} are not visible in the references list whilst editing. [18][19]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 February. It will be on all wikis from 22 February (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 20 February at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 21 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixing Carlos Gallardo, pianist Page

Hello Diannaa, Thank you so much for your help and suggstions. I was working to update the content in a correct format and valid contents with references. Please, coulld you check if aaverything is according to the Wikipedia Law in order to publish the page correctly? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestValladolid (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The new version User:BudapestValladolid/sandbox. Copyright material copied from https://carlosgallardo.eu/about-carlos-gallardo.html and http://eng.liszt.art.pl/?gallardo-carlos,133. This is not okay. Everything on the page was a copyright violation. I have removed it all. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How to identify PD sources?

Is there a way to verify if a source is in public domain? For example, how should we check if https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-archive-1995/pr112895.html is in public domain? I mean, other than ".mil are usually in public domain". Is there any easy way to spot a declaration on these sites stating "we are releasing this information in public domain, no need to get your lazy butts in a twist, you can simply copy and paste this stuff wherever you want"? Kindly ping when replying. Also pinging Megalibrarygirl as she is literally a librarian, and also, familiar with PD works. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The particular page you use as an example has a link to a copyright statement at the bottom of the page. Many pages have such a link, and that should be your first source of copyright information on any given web page.
  • In general: Works of the US Government and its agencies and departments are in the public domain.
  • Most works of the UK Government are released under a Open Government Licence. Look for a link at the bottom of the page.
  • Most works of the Australian Government are released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license. Look for a link at the bottom of the page.
  • Works of the Government of the Philippines are public domain.
  • Works of most other governments are copyright (India and Canada, for example).
  • If there's no link or license at the bottom of the page, you have to assume the material is copyright, as under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. (Exceptions: US Govt and Philippines Govt webpages are always PD unless marked otherwise.) If copying copyright material or compatibly licensed material, attribution is required. This can be done with templates {{PD-notice}} or {{CC-notice}} or manually like this (for example): " This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Attribution 3.0 Australia Australia license." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
(EC) OK Usernamekiran, my rule of thumb is that generally any work of the United States Government is in the public domain. So are most images and works published before 1923 in the US. However, there are details involved even in collections of public domain works, as outlined very nicely by Stanford U Libraries here. Creative Commons has a way for individuals to waive their rights to copyright. I've seen some images licensed this way CC0.
Another issue is that many sites don't obviously state that something is in the Public Domain. A good example of this is the Handbook of Texas Online. This site normally has a blanket statement about the copyright of the pictures which is very vague and reads: "Image available on the Internet and included in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107." This, of course, tells you nothing. When in doubt, I would contact whoever is in charge of the site. While I use PD works myself, most of what I do is with images. However, I would still recommend paraphrasing PD information in your own words for the article as often as possible. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, both of you. The CIA's website states: Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Central Intelligence Agency's permission. Which is really relieving, cuz who'd want to contact CIA, eh? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wallace Collection

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.chohan (talk • contribs)

Maria Curie-Skłodowska University

Hi! I`m just back from vacations and I see my content about Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin was removed due to some copyright problems, BUT I work at this University (my University has all the copyright for this texts) and it was my task to update this article. What can we do with this? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NataliaDer (talk • contribs) 08:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion on copyrighted material

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monument_and_memorial_controversies_in_the_United_States&action=history

I cannot find the text you are objecting to for copyright reasons. How do I see it? deisenbe (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the copyright violations from the page history, under the WP:revision deletion policy. That's why you can't view the edits any more. Content was removed from several of your additions dating back to October, from the following sources:
What I'd like to know, and what you've put above does not inform me, is specifically what text you removed. For example, on the first one, the word Lincoln occurs five times. Which is it? Then I could possibly rewrite it. deisenbe (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I will send the removed material to you via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

African Lodge

Ok... did some revising... please let me know if this is enough to make it no longer a copyright vio. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There's still a ways to go; please check the copyvio report. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I am a bit perplexed... this article is a simple chronology of events, and there is only so much rephrasing that can be done with that. A lot of the duplication (as highligted in the report) are names and phrases that would be the same no matter what the source material is. I will try to do some more, but you might want to do some comparisons with the other sources that are now cited. They phrase the material in much the same way. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of overlap that's not just names or chronology. For example "It marked the first time that black men were made Masons in America" could be re-worded to "This was the first Masonic lodge to accept African-American members". "In 1847, out of respect for their founding father and first Grand Master, Prince Hall, the African Grand Lodge changed their name to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, the name it carries today" becomes "The lodge was re-named Prince Hall Grand Lodge in 1847 to honor Prince Hall, the lodge's first Grand Master". Please keep at it until all unique phraseology has been put into your own words in a similar fashion. I am going to the gym now, ttyl. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok... thanks for the feedback... me? I’m to bed. Will continue to work on it in the morning. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

African Lodge

Did some revising... let me know if I need to do more. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

See above — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nurse Anesthetist page

Hello, I don’t believe this is a copyright violation. The information I used comes directly from MY national association’s advocacy page. These documents were designed by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. The association allows its members, which I am one, to use these advocacy documents however we choose without concern of copyright violations. Bottom line, using the content of these publications is exactly what they were designed for. They are even referenced. Will you kindly restore the additions made to these pages?

Also, why did you remove the “also known as nurse anesthesiologist?” These changes were made by a board certified CRNA and member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Who better to authenticate legitimacy of the information?

The information on the OANA webpage, which is a state association affiliated with the national association, is the identical document produced by the AANA; a document that the AANA not only authorizes but encourages it’s members to use. We have full rights and discretion to use this information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftytoone (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. I did not remove "also known as nurse anesthesiologist"; that was done by someone else. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa Thank you for your notification on African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research draft copy. I am a staff of http://academicjournals.org/. You can verify from the email address I used in opening an account on Wikipedia. Academic Journals is going forward and wants all her journals and the company to have a page on Wikipedia. I will be glad if the content is not removed because i intended placing the other journals draft copies for review. Thank you for your time and consideration.--Samson at AcademicJournals 13:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson at AcademicJournals (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this website has copied many of Wikipedias articles Investoa (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Each of their articles has a notice at the bottom providing the legally required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Shivendra Singh Dungarpur

Hi Diannaa, can you have a look at this promotional article? I suspect there's a lot more copyright violation content than I found so far. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Spot checks don't reveal anything egregious or obvious but I will make time to do a more thorough look later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. No need to bother for the moment--has been deleted. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Although St Edmund's School Canterbury may need a little rev/deletion again for persistent copyvio. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Ken Selzer, specifically the most recent additions? The following pictures may be eligible for deletion as well: File:KenHeadshot.jpg and File:Ken Deb Farm 2.jpg. Thanks, Corky 17:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Prose was copyvio, but I can't find the photos anywhere online, so they look ok. Removed one regardless, as there's no room for 3 pics on a stub. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, File:Ken_Deb_Farm_2.jpg is in use on the candidate's web page, so I am nominating for deletion at the Commons. If you see the other pic online anywhere you can do the same. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for the quick response! I was just getting ready to show you the link for the farm pic! If I can find the other one, I will certainly nominate it. Corky 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Searchtime5

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Norristown State Hospital

Hello, You removed my content from this page. I am the author of both articles, wikipedia and Asylum Projects (my name is idetical with Asylum Projects), which are fundamentally different and composed for different purposes. Asylum Projects is interested in the the physical apparatus of the campus, not its broader social context. For that reason the content I created is different as it has a different audience. Moreover, a simply cut and paste job would not require so many edits as documented in the page history, nor would there be any public utility to such an article.

In terms of the question of intellectual property, I released this information to Asylum Project as part of a deal through NSH Historical Society. They do not possess the copyright to my work, nor is that work identical to what I provided them with.

In short, I have no idea why you removed my work. I understand that the article needs to be better tailored to the purpose I outlined above, but it is a work in progress. Please restore this page to its amended form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbiePocket (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Since you added it to the other website first, and that website is not released under a compatible license, I can't do that. We need to have documentation that shows that you are the copyright holder and have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see that you're more knowledgeable about this process, but it does seem deeply circuitous, as I would also need to get both Asylum Project and NSH-Historical Society involved as well... and they are not speedy with such inquiries. Particularly as the latter meets only twice a year. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to remove the content you believe is in violation of site policy, rather then simply throwing everything out? Much of the content you removed had nothing to do with Asylum Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbiePocket (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything I removed was copied from the source webpage, so I won't be able to restore. If the Asylum Project and NSH-Historical Society are copyright holders of some or all of the content, we need their permission too. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Diana, that is simply not true, and it is documentable that it is not true. There's no reason to be obtuse. I will take this to higher site official if needs be. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbiePocket (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:HerbiePocket - I don't know what you mean by taking this to higher site officials. What site? Do you mean Wikipedia, or the Asylum Project? If you have an issue with Diannaa's administrative actions, you can request the advice of other administrators at the administrators' noticeboard, but that will probably result in a decision that she acted correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Diannaa - If you want to add anything to my closing remarks at the dispute resolution noticeboard, go ahead; the editor's talk page is probably the best place. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention Robert, but that is not the nature of my dispute. My grip is this- yes, some material was taken from Asylum Project, but it rested in the minority. I understand that you have concerns with copywright. That much is clear. However, it was not the Asylum Project material that was removed. Everything was removed, which is not a matter of site policy, nor of intellectual property, and that it is what I am asking to have restored. You will see quite clearly in comparing the two documents that this Wikipedia article has several sections that have no parallel to Asylum Project (ie. List of Superintendents, Popular Culture, Modern Hospital). I am NOT disputing the site policy on copyright.

I have already contacted Asylum Projects and personally removed my content from there site until this issue is resolved.

Hello HerbiePocket. I have re-done my work in a slightly different way, which means that the List of Superintendents, Popular Culture, and some other content has now been restored. I removed some additional overlapping content from http://www.asylumprojects.org/index.php?title=Norristown_State_Hospital&oldid=34418 . — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

435th Security Forces Squadron

Hi Diannaa, this needs you rev/deletion magic again. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

79.70.158.48

Thanks, I didn't even think of geolocating the IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to watch more Pokemon ! Gotta catch em all... — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio on Saadat Hasan Manto

Hello. Could you please take a look at this edit on Saadat Hasan Manto? Copied verbatim from the source by the looks of it, by an editor with a troubled past here (blocked four times so far, for edit-warring, disruptive editing and POV-pushing...), who now seems to have branched into making copyvios too. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed, rev-deleted, user warned (second warning). Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Blog used as reference

Blog used as reference Hello Diaane, on the Near-death experience#Cross-cultural aspects, the following blog site "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences: Cultural Differences" is used as a reference though there are peer-reviewed journal review articles dealing with the same topic. Do you agree there is no issue replacing it with the better sources? Your thoughts? Josezetabal (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The place to ask this kind of question is the reliable sources noticeboard. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you Diannaa, very kind of you - best Josezetabal (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nurse Anesthetist

I understand your concerns regarding COI. However, that is a guideline and it shouldn’t be enforced when the information is irrefutable and cited. I only added facts from information that is readily available to the public and has no copyright infringements. Nothing I added is controversial or inaccurate and can be found with a simple search which makes it common knowledge.

The fact is, the Nurse Anesthetist page is inaccurate and out of date. How is one supposed to go about updating it? Who has that privilege? Isn’t it the goal of Wiki to have its pages up to date and accurate for the edification of its readers? Fiftytoone (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It goes without saying that we want Wikipedia to be up-to-date and useful, but we're not allowed to violate the copyright policy of this website and copyright law to make it happen. The web page from which you copied the content is marked as "Copyright © 2018 American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. All rights reserved" which means the material on that page is copyright and you're not allowed to copy it here. To do so is a violation of the copyright policy of this website and copyright law. Writing for Wikipedia involves using printed material or websites as a source of information, but not as a source of prose. All content you add here needs to be written in your own words. If you want more information on how to do that please have a look at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary copyvio revdel

this edit summary needs revdeling as copyvio of [21]. Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Never RD1'd an edit summary before... Primefac (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

The Secret Musical Life of Pets

Hi, Dianaa. I already made The Secret Musical Life of Pets as a hoax and I don't want the film to exist on Wikipedia, because it is not a place to collect made-up stuff. Joeymiskulin (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but the article was deleted some time ago. Unless I am missing something? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I better not do that again. Joeymiskulin (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diana, Thank you for pointing out my mistakes and making me understand Wikipedia in a better way. I tried to use the sources from a verified source, newspaper articles in my last edit. I still don't understand where it went wrong. I will take care of the points that you have mentioned in my last edit and try not to make those mistakes again in future. Mahi Jaiswal (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2018

Catalan independence movement

Hi, Diannaa. I don't think we've ever interacted, but I've seen posts you made to user talk pages patiently explaining copyvio policies so I thought you would be the right person to come to. Could I ask you to look at the Long-term Prospects section of the Catalan independence movement article, which was recently added by User:rolf h nelson? It is eight sentences long with six refs. So far, so good. But the wording of each of the eight sentences contains a copy and paste, or a close paraphrase, of a sentence in the respective source. I don't know if the editor could validly claim that each sentence only took a small number of words from each source, so it's not violating copyright. My gut feeling is that it is copyvio, but I'd rather have the word of somebody that knows the policy. Of course, I could just re-write the section, if I thought it was worth keeping, but I'm not at all sure it's needed. It has already been removed twice by another editor, and replaced both times. My other concern would be that the user might be doing the same thing on other articles – he is quite a prolific editor. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire and thank you for the report. I've cleaned the paragraph and warned the user. I did spot checks of a few recent edits and found nothing untoward so hopefully this is not a chronic problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
That's good news. Thanks for putting in the work. Scolaire (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, on re-reading it, it looks to me as though the current second sentence, at least, is still copyvio. See the BBC source and the two sentences containing "it would be hard..." and "many countries refuse...". Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, and removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a quickie—

—but is this OK for us? Hope you're well—sorry to bother you there. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129! Health today merely adequate :(. Your image upload is correctly tagged. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much diannaa. Very sorry to hear that  :( ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_56&oldid=1182773234"