Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

Mark Paul

In regards to the recent AE you were pinged to (closed as "No action taken (without prejudice to another admin taking action)..."(unrelated users)[1], since ". Personally, the matter is too complicated and too much tied to content disputes for me to feel comfortable taking action; AE is beetter suited to relatively straightforward cases of misconduct"[2] (and I understand Sandstein's sentiment here - evaluating the claim is difficult, and does require some expertise (e.g. reading the sources for the misrepresentation, or copyright/plagiarism expertise for that claim). Could you please look into WP:PLAGIARISM and copyright - not of the citations which you've commented on - diff) - but at the prose itself?

Note Tatzref had previously - [3] - 01:42, 22 May 2018 Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 (not so long ago in terms of edit count - he's only made 216) - copy-pasted from a Paul work (which is easy to prove), and has used Paul as a reference - so it's not a "one time" association with the source.

The edit in question is this, this google search illustrates how I got to the PDF in question (basically pick any set of 2-3-4 sources (possibly adding page numbers - the google link there is without - just sub-fragments of the source name) - and you'll get to a Paul PDF - some of these works are very-very particular and have a very low citation count (e.g. in scholar)), and this is the alleged source.

I've prepared a page with the relevant text (attributed to where I copied it from):

  1. over here - the page is with references.
  2. over here - just prose.

Some claims in the text do not appear in the cited sources - the simplest one to prove in this regard is that "Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed" does not appear in the two cited sources (two very local histories by Kopciowski - each contains data of one courthouse (and applications only) - 240 in one and 291 in another (there error is Tatzref's - both Paul and the original source says 291) - there nothing remotely resembling "thousands" in them. I have the English PDF for Kopciowski2008 on hand, and I have looked at the Polish text for Kopciowski2005 (and can send it) - this is easy to prove for this sentence specifically since he cites only two pages.

The citations match from Paul (same order, mostly same style, same page numbers, etc.) - that's easy to check, but you indicated at AE that's possibly not a violation. The prose is not a verbatim copy (though it is a very close paraphrasing with some fragments copied) - but if it isn't paraphrasing that is "too close" - I am certain that the prose fits the bill of "Summarizing an unacknowledged source in your own words". Thank you for your time - whether you take this up or not. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to look at this case right now. I'll get to it later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problems - Karl König

Hi Diannaa, i would like to bring the Karl König listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 31 to your attention. I had made the report concerning potential copyright issues, but the author has subsequently freely licensed the content. Could you please verify that this is compatible for Wikipedia's use and close the listing? Thank you. Radiphus (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WEA Sydney

Hi Dianaa, Could you please give your opinion of WEA Sydney? Using Earwig copyvio tool a 51% Violation Likely result was returned. I've placed the copyvio tag on the article but not sure how to proceed. Be grateful for any advice you can give. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for your help. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Men – Tyva Men

This has the full lyrics and a translation of a new anthem. I don't know if it's copyright free or not. (I just realised that it could be copyright free as I was typing). I'm not sure how to find out. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Tuva has been part of Russia since 1944. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia states that government symbols are not subject to copyright. However the English translation is of unknown copyright status, and needs to be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I thought you might know the answer! Doug Weller talk 19:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and WP:REVDEL modification request

Thank you for protecting Wikipedia, such as from potential copyright infringement at United States energy independence with your WP:REVDELs.

If you could, please don't strike over my edits when possible, as collateral damage. Being able to "prev" helps retrace what I have done. X1\ (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment from 99.110

Thank you! I have removed all my previous uncited and unrefed contributions and have reverted each page to the previous state. Sorry for the trouble. 99.110.183.132 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.183.132 (talk)

Public Domain Source Material

Diannaa, I greatly appreciate your feedback on the new advocacy content I added to the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network's page. I wanted to confirm if the two sentences without a resource cited are the statements that you've flagged as copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain. I've drawn that conclusion only because the rest of the advocacy statements cite their sources. Please let me know because I want this important content to be in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines and available to the public, since 80% of pancreatic cancer research funding comes from the federal government. Thank you so much! Patricksteven77 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The content I removed came from https://www.pancan.org/get-involved/advocacy/advocate-for-federal-research-funding, a copyright website, marked as "©2019 Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. All rights reserved" so it's not okay to copy here, as our copyright policy does not allow us to host copyright content from elsewhere. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I paraphrased all of the statements that referred to content on https://www.pancan.org/get-involved/advocacy/advocate-for-federal-research-funding to avoid any copyright infringement. Please let me know if they are in compliance. Thank you, Diannaa. Patricksteven77 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That version is better. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for cleaning up my expeditionary energy economics draft, Diannaa! I now have to figure out how to publish my first wiki page :) Best regards and thanks again! Thymmons (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Information

Hi Diannaa,

Can we know why the information have been removed. For example, all those achievements and involvement in organizations are valid and verifiable with every organization and government agencies. Also, the family history is correct.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrteamrevilla (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The material that I removed was copied from elsewhere online, and that's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Your edits also removed a lot of well-sourced negative information about the person, which I restored. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Anthem of the Seas

Could you do the revdel on this please Lyndaship (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for edit and request to review

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for reviewing and editing the page Cambridge Centre For Alternative Finance. I have included your suggestions following the copyright rules and properly paraphrased the content. I am updating the page on behalf of CCAF. Can you please review the page again and please if you could avoid strikethrough on the previous version that will help in making updates. Pankajeshkr (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have once again cleaned copyright material from the article. Please stop adding copyright prose copied from the school's website or anywhere else online.
A 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) 01:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Gerald Loeb Award winners for Magazines

Hello again Diannaa, Earwig picked up this article for copyvio with 81% Violation Likely, I'm pretty sure it is the names of the pieces that have won awards that is setting it off but could you please take a look too? I've placed a copyvio tag on the article anyway and let the user know what I think and that someone else with more expertise would be taking another look. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The list is okay to copy, and the prose is not copied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yamada Denki

Hi Diannaa. I came across this article while working on something else. It appears from this edit made way back in November 2006 that a large block of content was translated from ja:ヤマダ電機 and added to the article. I think the edit summary which was left back then is probably OK for attribution purposes, but not sure. Also, I'm not sure how much of the content which was added was revised over the years. There was some in-article attribution added for Japanese Wikipedia in the "Sources" seciton, but that didn't seem the right place for it; so, I removed it. Should it still be there or should something be added to the article's talk page instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. There's a template, {{translated}}, for the article talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. I was aware of those type of templates, but wasn't sure if it made sense adding one after all of these years. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Curious to hear your thoughts

Was looking into the history of the Miss Tony page and saw that it's been previously deleted through AfD and then by speedy deletion. Was curious if you think a better rewrite and coverage in some recent sources would make it notable enough for inclusion at this point. I was thinking of a rewrite using the Baltimore Sun obituary, this article in FACT magazine, this feature from Vice, and this mention in an article from SPIN. Let me know what you think. ceranthor 15:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not very good at assessing notability.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian Americans article

Hi,

just received your message. Well, I did not made an entire "copy-paste", I used close pharaphrasing, merging and restructuring more information, copy-edit etc., just some fragments as is could have been identical partially that as far as know did not fulfill copyright violation if the whole sentence is not a direct copy-paste, but if I am wrong or there are new regulations, please tell me. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC))

There's no new regulations; adding copyright material to Wikipedia has never been allowed. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap, which is more substantial than you may have realized. Regardless of the copyright issue, this website doesn't look like a reliable scholarly source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Uline Arena - Edits with a bulldozer

You want on an absolute rampage on the edits of the Uline Arena! You removed not only parts that were "copyrighted" (you didn't even look at it based on your edits) but removed other sections that are not on the page you accuse me of copying. I did the research on primary sources! Fixing with a bulldozer like you did is sickening! You have no respect for the time and effort that was put in this! Shame on you! I am going to try to fix your disastrous edits tomorrow. Your behavior makes me sick!

Hello Blazingliberty and thank you for the feedback. I actually spent quite a bit of time on that, re-wording and trimming and trying to leave in as much as possible. Sorry you were not pleased with the result. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa You deleted stuff without even looking at the comments I put in. I had edited the intro and you revered all of that in the process. I now have to fix several sections to revered the heavy-handed damage you did! Look at the comments before going on your copyright crusade! There were edits to the Beatles section, the intro, the very end, etc. All of this came from news articles completely separate from the one you are accusing me of copying. You didn't even look at the sources! You even removed the picture which is on Commons and used on the main article. Stop using whatever automated tool you are using as it is indiscriminate in its edits. I am enraged by your lack of respect for the work I did. I spend hours researching and editing this article. There was information that had never been published elsewhere and you just go in with a wrecking ball. No one would be pleased if someone had completely trashed hours of work with their carelessness. The worst part is that I now have to fix your damage manually as it seems it can not be reverted automatically. So I am going to go line by line and make sense of all the mess. I take pride in my articles because it is my neighborhood, my home that I want to share with others and seeing this kind of damage is getting kicked in the face! It's disgusting! (Blazing Liberty (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC))
What I did was paraphrase and remove copyright content copied from https://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2012/11/28/bob-dylans-greatest-pic. I removed "The concert did not seem to have been reviewed by the Washington Post. This was surprising considering the artist was already well known at the time." I changed
"However, the concert was immortalized when the picture of the Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits cover picture was taken. The Life magazine photographer Rowland Scherman lives down the street from the Coliseum and went to the show with his wife, Joan. He was not assignment at the venue but brought is camera and used his press pass to gain access to the back stage. While security guards tries to keep him out, he brushed them off shouting 'I'm from Life' and was able to get close enough to Bob Dylan to take the shot"
to read
"The concert was immortalized when the picture of the Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits cover picture was taken. The Life magazine photographer Rowland Scherman and his wife Joan lived nearby, and attended the concert. Although he was not on duty, brought his camera and used his press pass to gain access to the backstage area to take a few photos."
I changed
"After the show, the photographer developed the photo and showed it to John Berg, art director at Columbia Records at the time. John Berg was dating scherman's sister at the time. He offered him $300 for the photo and the offer was accepted. Berg along with Bob Cato used the photo for the album cover in spite of Bob Dylan being opposed to the idea. It won the 10th Annual Grammy Award for Best Album Cover, Photography in 1967. The photographer's name was misspelled on the award in 1967 and remains misspelled to this day on the Grammy Award's website"
to read
"He brought the image to Columbia Records art director John Berg, who bought it for $300. Berg along with Bob Cato used the photo for the album cover. It won the 10th Annual Grammy Award for Best Album Cover, Photography, in 1967. The photographer's name was misspelled on the award statuette and remains misspelled on the Grammy Awards website."
That's all I did. The remainder of your edits were not touched. Some of your edits were hidden by the revision deletion, but they were not removed. The photo was removed by a bot with this edit. And here you can view your edits from Feb 11 through March 1. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry I unfairly accused you of this. You are correct. It looked like a lot more had been deleted based on the history and I do see the bot deleting the picture. Once again, I am sorry.Blazing Liberty (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove the picture, there is a rational. Look at the file page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bob_Dylan_-_Bob_Dylan%27s_Greatest_Hits.jpg Blazing Liberty (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay yeah, I see that now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Books Nash again

Hi Diannaa. Sorry, I know how busy you are, but it looks like blocked editor Books Nash is back. He appears to be using a range of IPs to input multiple edits of copyrighted material. The pages needing the most attention are Welborn G. Dolvin, Leonard K. Carson, Claiborne H. Kinnard Jr. and John F. Thornell Jr. There's already a copypaste notice up on Thornell's page. Kinnard initially comes up fine using Earwig, but when you submit a comparison with the veterantributes.org page, there's an 81% match. This is like playing whack-a-mole! Roam41 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert. Please see results of investigation at User:Diannaa/sandbox. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that was a ton of cleanup. Thanks so much! Roam41 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for being there Lyndaship (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology

I'm referring to your deletions from this page of material directly copied from their website. I also see your advise to the editor in question. The institution has provided an OTRS permission for one of their webpages but you have suggested leaving our their own prose. I will just copy and paste the current text from that page into the ticket and thank them for them license that prose. Whether any of it get used or not is a different issue and I suppose I don't need to address its use either. Your thoughts. ww2censor (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't look at the ticket as I am not an OTRS clerk so I don't know which specific page they gave permission for. They had copied from two different pages. Most of what I removed is unsourced accolades copied from their own website, not suitable for inclusion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
You can see the page here: https://www.lji.org/about-us/#history ww2censor (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
There's some usable stuff on that page. If you could add the OTRS ticket to the talk page I will add some stuff back into the article tomorrow. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done ww2censor (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
All done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes and Draft:List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes? The draft was submitted via AfC for review, but it was declined because it contains some copyvios that needed to be cleaned up. One of the editors working on the draft then apparently decided that he/she couldn't wait until that happened and did what looks like to be a copy-past move of the draft's content (copyvios and all) onto a redirected page. I asked the AfC reviewer who declined the draft about this at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 38#Draft:List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes, but have gotten a reply yet. In the meantime, others have started editing the article, and they might not be aware of the issue; so, I thought it would be a good idea to ask someone experienced in dealing with copyvios to take a look at this sooner than later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like all the episode descriptions are copied from copyiright sources, for example from here and here. Content in the draft was added to the draft on March 3 and removed from the article List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Adventures episodes on March 4 and added to the article List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes on March 5. Note the difference in titles: the source article and says "Ultra Adventures"and the other article and the draft says "Ultra Legends". I don't know which series these episodes belong to ("Adventures" or "Legends") but we definitely don't need a draft loaded with copyvio that already exists in article space and was copied from yet another article that's loaded with copyvio, so I am going to delete the draft. All the episode descriptions are likely copyvio, so I am going to list both articles at WP:CP as I don't have time to clean them today since there's still 76 copyvios reports to get through today and I already spent an hour on this just to do this research. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do all of that checking. I didn’t realize there were other articles involved as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'm referring to:

All appear to have multiple copyright violation issues derived from recent edits by several new accounts. The sources are both English and Italian--the latter were translated into English, and those translations were then pasted into the articles. At least that's what I found by comparing several using Google translate. Might be a bit of rev/deletion necessary. Whenever you have the chance. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Copy right issues

Hi Diana! Thanks for your feedback. Took another pass in my own words at the political views section for Chrissy Teigen. Does it look ok? Thanks!

Khv422 (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks okay from a copyright point of view. Just as an aside, you shouldn't start each sentence with the word "Additionally", since each and every sentence contains additional info. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Posting in my name largely erased 1

Dear Editor. Recently, the Wikipedia posting in my name was largely erased even though it had been online for a considerable period of time without challenge. The references and attributions in the text are meticulously detailed. I am re-posting the content with full attributions and references. If it is to be challenged, in the name of transparency and equity, the rationale and specifics must be provided. Thomas d’Aquino Eadiec (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Posting in my name largely erased 2

Dear Editor. Recently, the Wikipedia posting in my name was largely erased even though it had been online for a considerable period of time without challenge. The references and attributions in the text are meticulously detailed. I am re-posting the content with full attributions and references. If it is to be challenged, in the name of transparency and equity, the rationale and specifics must be provided. Thomas d’Aquino Eadiec (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. The fact that this problem was not detected immediately is beside the point; it's a violation of our copyright policy, so it was removed as soon as it was detected.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference

Rianna, thanks for your comment.How to reference my editing cause I lost everything I have edited. Sepadis (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Content you added appears to have been copied from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/bapedi-kingdom.htm. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, got a quick questions for you, if you have a moment. I was reviewing this new page, and realised that most of the text is a direct copy paste from this Wiki. They link to the creative commons licence, which says that anyone can use the content for any purpose, provided they give appropriate credit. My thinking is that, since we are not giving credit, this is a copyright violation and should be deleted - am I right? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can give me. GirthSummit (blether) 17:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Dharmapedia is compatibly licensed and we can use it as long as it is properly attributed, but the bulk of the prose was copied from http://www.srichinmoy-reflections.com/kapali-sastry and http://www.srichinmoy-reflections.com/kapali-sastry. So I have removed those parts and added attribution for the compatibly licensed material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!!

The Original Barnstar
You are making a difference. Thanks Tomnhz (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you,— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Clontibret edit

Hello Diana, I see you have removed my large edit from the Battle of Clontibret page. I actually wrote the blog for the Ancient Clan O'Neill page and the full text is available on my academia page at https://www.academia.edu/25677752/_Wonderfully_altered_from_their_Irish_manner_of_arms_the_Battle_of_Clontibret_27_May_1595 . It is my work and consent to have it used to improve the wiki page so please return the edit. Many thanks Dr James O'Neill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallowglas1598 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Also I see you deleted my additions on the comments from the Lord Deputy ans Norreys which were cited and in quotation marks. What for? Trying to make a poor page better

Hello Gallowglas1598. 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. A second problem is whether or not your own unsourced blog post can be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia. I would have to think not.
The only thing I removed that was in quotation marks was an unsourced quote Sir Ralph Lane noted the attack ‘was so rude, that they both were unhorsed’. Lord Deputy ans Norreys was not mentioned in the sections I removed, and there were no other quotations removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Extrapolaris block

Just as I feared he/she fell foul of copyvio again. My interest is in the Aircraft articles/stubs that he/she is generating. I patrol them closely and so far have not seen any noticeable copyvio, I am more than willing to act as a go-between, vetting his/her aviation output before mainstream, if that will help redeem him/her. Is the block in regard of his/her other paleontology articles? I fit is then I do not have the background to effectively patrol those articles. Whilst the aviation articles are stubs and unlikely to progress further than start class, they are still welcome as they help fill in the many gaps in coverage. I would like to see him/her continue as a contributor and look forward to helping rehabilitation, if that is possible.--Petebutt (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Alex Harvey (country musician)

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your keen interest in my draft on Alex Harvey (still in its very early stages). Typically when I write drafts, I gather some general information and then add in citations later. I don't move the article to mainspace until everything is properly cited and good to go. I noticed you deleted a section of my draft because it is unsourced. I am a bit confused about this, because at this point, there are no citations in the draft whatsoever. Isn't it okay for drafts to lack citations since they are in draft space? I am somewhat new to Wikipedia so I would really appreciate if you could clarify this for me! TaskManager (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A better way to do it is to add sourced content right from the beginning. For example, what's your source for the stellar list of names of artists who have recorded his songs? IMDb is not a reliable source, because it's a wiki. Right now it looks like a whole lot of name dropping without anything to back it up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nanaimo Daily News

Thanks for your feedback regarding the deletion of my recent edits to the Nanaimo Daily News page. I had obtained permission from the owner of the website (Nanaimo Community Archives) to reuse content from their page, but I didn't realize that it is more complex of an issue than that. I understand that I need to make more of an effort to paraphrase the content rather than reuse it directly, even with permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanIslander1234 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a couple of ways you can go: you can either re-write the content completely in your own words (not just a bit of an effort to paraphrase), or you can get permission from the copyright holder. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure to get documentation in place if you can get permission to use their prose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Government College University (Lahore) EDIT

Hi! Thank you for your feedback regarding Government College University (Lahore). The thing is that I am a student at the said university. The portion about CASP I added is in-fact, a real department in the university. Proof of its existence doesn't exist on the college website as I'm writing this response (guess they forgot to update the website). But it's reference/citation/proof of existence (whatever you may want to call it) is present in the form of a printed brochure. To quote the person above me, "...I didn't realize that it is more complex of an issue than that. I understand that I need to make more of an effort to paraphrase the content..." .
Anyways, the thing is that this department is state of the art research center, one of its kind in Lahore, so I think it should be present on the university page. How do you suggest I add it there? Any/All help will be extremely helpful !

SIDE NOTE: I'm not that comfortable with the Source Editor here, I'd really appreciate it if we talk via email, if that's okay with you? -- ASStoroid ; (mail) —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What you need to do is completely re-write the content using your own words. Don't include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay thanks!! I just have two more followup questions: <1> Can any other user view my sandbox? What I have in mind id that I'll summarize and create a draft of it in my sandbox, then you, or any other user, can check it. <2> As I stated above, there exists a rather explanatory brochure/pamphlet of the said department in physical form. How can I cite references to a physical copy? -ASStoroid (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Everyone can view your sandbox, and the same rules apply there regarding copyright. See if there's a copy of the pamphlet online and use that as your reference. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. 🙏 Atta Ullah 10:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASStoroid (talk • contribs)

Cannabis in the United States

Not sure where to start.... copyvios wmflabs.--Moxy (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. The problem originated with a recent massive addition by a new user, she of the 2 edits. I will restore a version immediately prior to that and warn the user. This edit was likely done as a school assignment. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bernarda Ruiz

Thanks for your message. I understand your concern. The passages in question are ones I wrote myself for Photo Friends and for which I retain copyright. I will request the copyright form or rewrite the paragraph. Windsong0425 (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, this was my first editing attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windsong0425 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

They are back.... despite your warning

Pls...see here.--Moxy (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moxy. Thanks for the report. Could you do me a favour, in the future when removing violations of the copyright policy could you please state in the edit summary where you found the source? rather than me having to re-do that work. It also helps keep a better record for the future— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Fun fact: History 379 is a course offered at the University of British Columbia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for what you do!

Regarding the recent email (that I just lost :P ) Merci! - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Phone!! :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Philosophical counseling

Thanks for the advice. --Hades7 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Diannaa, I hope all is well. I was looking for sources on the article Forward to forward contract and I think it is a copyright violation of this 1997 book, which by the way, is the only source I could find on this topic anywhere on the Internet. I know that the preview only shows the beginning of the sentence, but that's not an auspicious start, is it? Regards, RetiredDuke (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but Google is not letting me view any of the contents of that book so I am unable to help with this case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
So it's a magazine, not a book. I found another way to see it in full here. Copy-paste. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for speedy deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Belgrade Fortress-Kalemegdan Park

Hello. I wrote the text which I moved from BF to KP cause I think it suits there better. So I guess the attribution wasn't needed. Though someone tried to confuse me before with the same thing when I moved my own content and they couldn't explain to me why is attribution being done at all. I have no time nor wish to read about a zillionth rule on Wikipedia, as there are much more important things, both in Wikipedia and real life. In an encyclopedia open for everyone to write, this type of attribution is meaningless anyway and smells on vanity and future limitations and bans. A good thing would be to abolish a pointless rule. It would make things easier for both the editors and the administrators. Cheers. PajaBG (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

PajaBG: Sorry for the unneeded notification. Regarding the attribution requirement: Attribution is required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license, so the rule is not pointless or a vanity thing; it's a legal requirement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Social media and the effects on American adolescents

Hello Diana,

The sources I used for the edits were credible sources and I paraphrased them and cited them also. So I was wondering why it got deleted even though I paraphrased and cited them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.merchant1999 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello N.merchant1999. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap from one of the sources. Looking further, I found that everything you added had already been published elsewhere online, and is therefore copyright material. None of it was paraphrased very much, and most was copied verbatim, and therefore all your additions had to be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried paraphrasing a lot of it, some of it I didn't change because it'd change the whole impact of the quote. Would it make a difference if I put quotations after? How exactly can I use that information without it being plagiarised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.merchant1999 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. Please avoid using quotations; Wikipedia articles are written in our own words, with quotations used onlty where absolutely necessary. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module that I already recommended to you on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

DRAFT:Kingsprimetv

I am still working on the draft. I want to add more research work to it before i submit it for a review.--Joseph Ozojie (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

copyright material is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes and drafts. Do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Anna Windsor

Hello, copy-vio has been identified at this page: (not by me). Can you assist with 'revdel'? Thanks as ever. There's also some unsourced (since removed) derogatory material which the subject (unverified) has expressed concern over. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well yeah, i just did it, as requested, and have emailed the oversight team. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not realise it was you when I posted the above! I had been searching for the url! Eagleash (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

SHOOT & SHOOTonline.com

Diannaa Hi - I've updated SHOOT listing because info is outdated and because I own the publication and website (with my wife Roberta Griefer) thru our company DCA Business Media LLC including trademarks SHOOT & SHOOTonline.com, and ALL copyrights to ALL content for the past 14 years. This is request for advice on how to update SHOOT's current descriptive information on Wikepedia that you completely deleted. Unfortunately this is not the first time the owners of SHOOT have tried to remedy this outdated information without success. SHOOT has evolved from just covering commercials (i.e. Advertising") into a broader motion picture production & post platform for Film, TV, Music Videos and online video and Wikipedia seems to be tone deaf to this fact. Please advise how we can remedy and bring SHOOT's page up-to-date. Thanks, Respectfully, Gerald Dcapub (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Please note that Shoot (advertising magazine) is an encyclopedia article, not a business listing, so not all content is suitable for inclusion, even if the copyright issue is resolved. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Question unanswered and how to lock a page

Hi Diannaa,

Hope you are well. I sincerely apologize for my 2nd attribution request. I try my best to stay away from drama, and have apologized the last time something I did that was questioned, the last time anyways.

I now regret my phrasing in Luther Campbell when I wrote (content from solo album) it should have been (content from pages of projects added). To be accurate and it was sloppy of me.

Now the reason I do did that is that it is time consuming to put all titles between the brackets.

I also find that the suggestion you made is fine copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution but trying to retype exactly is nearly impossible, and copying and pasting it from my talk page is again time consuming.

I usually write content from [[page name]] when I do only one page.

Is it ok for me to do so, or must I write each time this exact same sentence?

Second thing I want to do is lock the page for the rapper Flo Rida. There as been a lot of in war edits between users and IP addresses regarding his associated acts section. This artist has a ton collaborations with other that charted and some that didn't. So people tend to add their favorite artist in there weather it charted or not. Associated Acts rationale list: Collabo on Top 5 US, Exception to the list(Fresh Kid Ice: influencer 1st celeb friend, and Pitbull: Close contemporary often compared plus charting collaborations), Collabo on Top 6 to 25 US, and Other artists featured in mega collaboration. I suggested that for a name to be added one must chart on the top 25 US and above to be there.

Obviously an Ip address came along butchered that, removed a huge chunk of these names, and added artists with whom he simply collaborated.

Also another or the same Ip address added a photo of someone who didn't look like him at all. So it's a gong show.

The associated acts edit wars are recurrent on this page. I believe I presented a fair rationale of who should be there or not. If someone want to add their two cents or disagree completely with the rational I present they obviously can.

Anyways have a great day.Filmman3000 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The suggested wording for attribution is copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. You won't get any flak from me though as long as you wikilink to the source article in your edit summary. Doing it yourself properly right from the get-go saves me the time of having to locate the source article, and doing the attribution for you, and sending you a (third) reminder – so make sure you do it each time you copy from one article to another. Regarding your second question, the place to go for page protection is WP:RFPP. Read the instructions as to what qualifies for page protection before making a request. For something like who-all should be in the associated acts list, you should be talking it over on the talk page as to what criteria to use. Some articles have a hidden note; for example, Sean Combs says "don't add acts who aren't *strongly* associated" and Beyoncé says "Please do not add to this list without first discussing your proposal on the talk page." The hidden note for Flo Rida says "place is not to place every single contribution he has made" which is a pretty useless note because it doesn't really set any firm guidelines as to who to include. Perhaps getting a discussion going on the talk page about citeria for inclusion and wording of a new hidden note would be a good idea. Then you could point to that discussion to back up your clean-up efforts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I am prepping an indef TBAN on that guy. If possible please wait until this is done before vaporizing more copyright vios that were already reverted by other eds so the version histories can be shown during the Tban discussion. As a rant at myself, I neglected to save 90 mins work assembling diffs and hit "back" on that tab then "leave" to confirm just to come here and ask this...... (bangs head on wall). That's my bad not yours. Just sharing to vent before rebuilding the work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Kaveri River water dispute - large copyvios from 2018

Hello Diannaa, I came across Kaveri River water dispute which seems to have large chunks of copyvio content added with these edits by Ani1311 (now removed a lot of it) Source sites are [4] (archive), [5], and [6]. Usually I'd just file a revdel request, but this problem and a possible revdel would affect dozens of later edits since 2018, and I noticed you have warned this particular user about a second separate issue. You are probably busy with lots of other issues and a revdel is likely unavoidable, but it would be great if you could double-check the situation please. GermanJoe (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this. The user's only activity was adding copyvio to these two articles. Unfortunately I found further copyright content added as far back as 2013 so far so I will have to think about whether or not to do revision deletion on so many edits on a controversial topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I see that you found several more instances. Thank you for looking into this and fixing the remaining issues. GermanJoe (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request

Can you action these two revisions Thanks, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Under which criterion does the edit qualify for revision deletion? As far as I can tell the info is incorrect but I am not seeing anything that qualifies for revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
According to the source the reason for the filing is unknown, so that makes the marijuana license claim false. I might be wrong, if I am nvrmnd. Thanks - FlightTime (open channel) 18:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Falseness alone is not enough. The BLP issue must be "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" to qualify. This particular incorrect information is not over this line. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Works for me, as always, thank you for your time  :) - FlightTime (open channel) 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Eichmann article!

Thanks for the heads up on the English spelling in the Adolf Eichmann article -- didn't know about that! Learn something new everyday!

PS: like that picture of the balancing rock at Garden of the Gods. Is it yours? Been there twice & it's one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen!

Tommyt (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not my photo - it's just a cool pic for my talk page. Regarding spellings, there's more info on some of the differences at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about these lyrics

Can you please have a look here. Thanks, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The lyricist is still alive, so the song is very likely still under copyright. We have to assume it is unless proven otherwise. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the lyrics but will not be revision-deleting the hundreds of intervening edits. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Thanks for cleaning up National service in Singapore‎‎. I still have a bit of concern about what was left. Could you provide further insight? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. I am pretty sure I did a double check so I don't know why it's suddenly finding moar stuff! Thanks, good catch. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again for looking into it. Glad to see it show up on my watchlist and being done. :) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thomas d'Aquino

Dear Diannaa, for a considerable number of years, the Wikipedia page referring to me was a full and accurate representation of my career spanning early years to the present. The entries that I observed were carefully referenced leaving no doubt as to their accuracy. Recently, and suddenly, most of the Wikipedia narrative was erased. I am asking that Wikipedia explain this action, especially given that the information that was erased had stood the test of time over an extended period. I strongly support the Wikipedia concept and have always believed that it stood by a respectful treatment of those who are listed by it. Sincerely, Thomas d'Aquino, CM, LLD (Tdaquino (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC))

(talk page watcher) Tdaquino, that material was removed because it had been copied from this external source, thus constituting what we consider to be a copyright violation, which isn't permitted here. I took a quick glance at the article history, and unfortunately it seems that problems of this kind go right back to the very first version of the page, which was copy-pasted from this page dated 3 March 2005 or some similar source; there was large-scale copying from the same source later, too. Diannaa, I'm happy to blank and list this – unless you prefer to deal with it yourself? (just asking!). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, please go ahead and list it for cleanup. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

{{reply to |@Justlettersandnumbers|@Diannaa] Hello, you said the material in question was removed from "this external source" thus constituting what we consider to be a copyright violation. Since the material in question, ie. THOMAS D'AQUINO, B.A. J.D., LL.M., LL.D. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES HISTORICAL BACKGROUND is owned by me and meticulously referenced, and in part was sourced from original Wikipedia postings, what is the issue? Tdaquino (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems. 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 yourself or someone you are related to is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. It could also constitute original research, which is not permitted either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(remove copyright content copied from http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.com/1993/03/case-of-woody-allen.html) and (paraphrase and remove copyright content copied from https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-shocking-custody-case-court-documents-that-shed-light-on-the-dylan-farrow-woody-allen-saga)

Hello Diannaa

I have not copied a single line from either of the two sources. Tell me what you want me to do to prove it.It is impossible for me to have written copyrighted material from either of the two sites.--Tais de Atenas (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

One of your edits was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Checking further, I found and removed other copyright material. Some content, including the material I found at the Daily Beast, is present at multiple places online. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I see now the bot report, but as far as I know court judgments/judicial decisions are not protected by copyright and are entirely public domain. Of course, as public domain content that is, it can be freely reproduced in countless sites. I understand that I have used in excess the literal quotation and that even if I quoting the source is not the correct way to write collaborating with wikipedia, but I have not copied anything from anywhere with copyrigth and I request that it be taken into account in subsequent editions that the decisions judicial are public domain. Thank you very much for your time and work. --Tais de Atenas (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

None of the content I removed is in the public domain. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(remove some more non-free content and some unsourced content) in Woody Allen sexual assault allegation:

Sorry for the work that I have caused you. My intention was to clearly justify the facts and be faithful to the sources, I understand that doing it as I have done is not the correct way to collaborate in wikipedia and I will try to adapt my interventions to the guidelines that you tell me and that --Tais de Atenas (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)I can deduce from your intervention.

Revdel request

This content is copied from here – copyvio report. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. NitinMlk (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hofele-Design

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at this article when you have some time? It sort of has a WP:C-P feel to it, and may also involve undisclosed paind contributions as well. I did a bit of clean up because the previous version had more of a product catalog than Wikipedia article feel to it. I ask about the possible COI, but was wondering if you could check to see if there's any copyvios either from external websites or possible de:Hofele-Design. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly. I checked and the article looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Last Vegas

Some of the same material you just scrubbed as a copyvio at Jon Turteltaub I just deleted from Last Vegas, but I don't have time at the moment to set up the entire marking for copyright violation (I do it rarely, so it always takes time recalling how it was done.) If you could tackle that, I'd appreciate it! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It's okay to post here as well, happy to help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Question for both of you.... The book, Below the Line, is about Last Vegas. It's narrative nonfiction about the making of the movie, Last Vegas, which was directed by Jon Turteltaub. It isn't advertising by the studio, or Turteltaub, or Citation Press. Anyone who is interested in either of those subjects would be interested in the book, and it's the only reference material about it. Condensed, detailed information about both of those subjects by a journalistic source. (A paragraph listing Jon Turteltaub's movies doesn't include Last Vegas. It's the second to last movie he made, so it seems as relevant as the ones me made 30 years ago. (It is in the chart at the bottom.) If I am understanding the issue is copyright? I know I don't see a page about the book itself on Wikipedia. Maybe that has to be there? I'm new here but eager to make a contribution, specifically adding sources. Thank you. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubermoviefan (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Ubermoviefan (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)(----) Ubermoviefan (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is that you appear to have a 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) 19:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, it's not advertising by the studio... the matter you inserted in the Turteltaub and Douglas pages (and a different user account - also you? - inserted at the Last Vegas page) - is advertising for the book, copied directly from the promotion website for the book. That is both a violation of the copyright of whoever made that website and it's inappropriate material for an encyclopedia, as the goal of an encyclopedia and a hype page are quite different. But even once we get past that, we don't have reliable third-party sources covering the book in such a way that show us it's significant in talking about these topics. In fact, it looks like we can't even use it as a reference for factual claims about Turteltaub or Douglas, as it appears to be a self-published book, and our guidelines say that we cannot use self-published works as a reference for biographies of living people, except for works by the subject themself. So basically, copyright is the reason that past revisions that include the material had to be hidden from view, but it's not the only reason the material was deleted, and would likely be deleted again even if it appeared in non-copyright-violating form. (And I think that it's unlikely that this book would, at this point, pass our guidelines on what books can be subjects of articles.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that explains it better -- thank you for taking the time to explain. I don't think it's a self published book, since it has a publisher. (Not sure.) But it is good to know that independent journalism, if it is in the form of a self published book, is not allowed. Again, thank you for your time. Ubermoviefan (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Both Amazon and Google books describe the book as "independently published". Citation Press is/was a printing house, not a book publisher per se. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. This was the review. https://www.artsatl.org/below-the-line-offers-a-behind-the-scenes-look-at-movie-making-in-atlanta/?fbclid=IwAR2TaV4kIVWuSeZr7lgX7cdY6CJAZoYdSNHb5nsldEZQWh4eThsN0sOkUxo Ubermoviefan (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry first time user

Hi Diannaa,

Thanks for helping me out. I am sorry for the mistakes and welcome the changes. It was my first time and I need to learn a bit how to add quotations and the such. I am happy of the guidelines you kindly shared and will follow them going forward.

Thanks again Ald81 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ald81 is editing Logical Investigations (Husserl) while logged out to continue an edit war. User has been informed of Wikipedia's rules on this here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

First Article

Hello Diannaa, Thank you for your help with this article "Nin Brudermann". Could you look at my latest edit and let me know if it is cited better? Also, what is the next step if it is ready? Do you think it is ready to be published? Emily Glascott (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. To get in the queue to get your draft assessed, please click on the blue box in the draft that says "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

D.F.A.

Sorry for the improper post on this page. I thought I was doing it right but I guess it was more involved than I thought. I guess some things are best left to the professionals. Krvest (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Attribution to "iron" in "allotropes of iron"

Hi! Sorry for not putting the proper attribution in that edit to allotropes of iron. I usually do that (check the recent history of ferrocene for example), but missed on that one. Thanks for adding that note to the history. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

copyvio issues at Husayn ibn Ali

Hi! Would you please look into copyvio issues at Husayn ibn Ali? Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 02:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Medication labels

From what I understand these are not written by the US government, but written by others and simple approved by the US gov.

Thus from what I understand they are not PD.[7]

Your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You are correct I think. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BilCat (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied. - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Task complete. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm going back to sleep. I hate colds. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with page protection and revision deletion?

Hi! I'm reaching out to you for help with unproven allegations lodged in a student newspaper that are being continuously added back to a former professor's Wikipedia article. The material (which violates WP:BLP and has been added by single-purpose accounts and IP addresses) is also present in the edit summaries. I'm wondering the revisions with the allegations can be deleted (or at least the edit summaries blanked) and if the page can be semi-protected so that only logged in users can edit it. Can I email you the name to keep the Streisand Effect from happening, or get it to you another way? Wilipino (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The content as added appears to be true, so I am not sure revision deletion is appropriate. Please feel free to get another opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPF states Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources....Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. WP:SUSPECT states Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. and that's for people accused of a crime, which is much more serious. I am disappointed that you read an article in a student newspaper that interviewed two college students and published defamatory articles, and take it as "probably true" even though there was no completed investigation and no finding of wrongdoing by the university.
The allegations are supported by one source (a university student newspaper) that has published five articles. The first article's source is "according to three sources close to the student" alleged to have been in a relationship with him. That student never confirmed the allegations. The second article's source is a former student that alleges he had a relationship with her. That article cites the previous article and the link anchor text is "engaged in a sexual relationship" even though sexual activity is never alleged in that article. The third article is editorial and not reportage. The fourth said he'd been removed from teaching an honors course while the university investigated, which is standard for any investigation and not a finding of wrongdoing. The last one rehashes the previous ones and states that he resigned. He's not a public figure and these allegations violate WP:BLP which is why I removed them from his article. The only established facts are that he was removed from teaching duties pending an investigation that was dropped when he resigned, and such facts do not belong in the biography of a private citizen. Nor do they belong in his edit history. I'm asking you to uphold Wikipedia's commitment to responsibly presented information, regardless of your views on the subject. Wilipino (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan

How do you do! Sorry for bothering but I'd like to thank you for advices, I appreciate it. Also, I'd like to ask you to allow me to paraphrase the article called "Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan". --Acdc88 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

IKt's okay for you to edit that article but everything you add needs to be written in your own words, not copied from elsewhere online. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

removal of changes on Root microbiome

Dear Diannaa, I suspect that my changes on Root microbiome article were removed because of similarities of text that was detected automatically. If you would compare the text to its source, you would see it was rephrased where possible. I assure you, that I comply to the rules of citing and not copy-pasting. I think the problem arises due to several sentences where there is a listing of bacterial species, which is unavoidable and gives stretches of identical text. I hold a PhD in Science, and Microbiology is my subject; In fact, I edit Wikipedia as a volunteer for FEMS, who are holders of license of article I was citing (to know about project see here: https://fems-microbiology.org/network/types-of-involvement/volunteering/). FEMS grants me the access to their journals, which is one of my major citing sources. For the future, I need to know what to do in such cases - of course I can try to be more stringent and reshuffle the text even more, can I then put it back? Although in my opinion this is just taking time and not giving more value. Anyway, let me know how to proceed for this article. Regards, Dukas.ju (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Dukas.ju

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Google searching shows that there's even more overlap than was revealed by the iThenticate tool, far more than is acceptable on Wikipedia, and that's why I had to remove it. Having access to an article is not the same thing as having the right to copy it here unaltered. Shuffling things around is not adequate; you need to re-write the content in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So Percussion

Hi, Diannaa. I got your note that said I couldn't use the exact words from So Percussion's own site. Thanks, I wasn't trying to plagiarize. I just figured it was such a minimal fact, that the name suggestion came from a member's sister, that it didn't matter much to rephrase it. But I will rephrase in the future. Just out of curiosity, are you the one who changed it? I'm surprised you didn't keep the fact that she lived in Japan at least 20 years and worked as a translator? --Greg Dahlen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Dahlen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed it because the wording was identical to the source. That's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge cleanup

Thanks for your help with the copyvios. I think I would have gotten to it eventually, but either way, better it's gone as soon as possible. You know... the stuff added by that account was so full of weird misinformation (even if well-intentioned) and red flags, my instinct was just to mass-revert all of it rather than take the time to pick through it all. Next time I'll trust my instincts. Thanks again. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft in Catherinelegge's Sandbox

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your monitoring of copyright violations. The work that was present in Catherinelegge's Sandbox was part of a project for the International Politics undergraduate class as Memorial University of Newfoundland. Three students were working on that draft, and they would like to rectify their errors. However, their draft was blocked and deleted, and they do not have an alternate copy of their work, as they were drafting in that sandbox. Would it be possible for you to reverse the block and deletion of their draft in Catherinelegge's Sandbox so that these three students can revise their work to be in compliance with Wikipedia's copyright policy? Thank you! Griffyn1987 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts, so I can't restore it. If any of the students has activated their Wikipedia email, I could email a copy. But the work would have to continue offline, as we can't host it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Diannaa, for your speedy reply. At least one member of the group, Jjpandy, has an active Wiki email at which they could receive a copy of their draft, which they will revise offline. They were a little surprised that their work had been lost, but they've certainly learned a lesson on the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's copyright policy. Thanks again! :) Griffyn1987 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Email sent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BilCat (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about revdeleting copyvios

When a copyvio is found and removed, How do you A) tag the diff for removal, and B) determine weather or not it's worthy being removed? (For example, would this or this be removed?💵Money💵emoji💵💸 14:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Marking of material that needs to be revision deleted is done with the Template:Copyvio-revdel. It calls for the person adding the template to add the revision number of the diff where the content was added as well as the diff where it was removed, and the source url. All violations of the copyright policy should be removed, and they should all be revision deleted, but different admins will have differences as to how far they are willing to go with this. All the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests are experienced at doing revision deletion and will make similar but not necessarily identical decisions as to what to do. If in doubt, remove the violation and tag for revision deletion, and the patrolling admin will decide what to do. If you are not comfortable using the template or find it awkward or tricky to use, please feel free to report here with the details and I will look at it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Remember the Ultraman pages you have protected?

Back then you have protected the pages The Return of Ultraman, Ultraman Ace, Ultraman Taro and etc because of an anon, but this anon returns in an account and he has re-doing what you reverted. That user's name is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oon835. Zero stylinx (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to look after the Ultraman pages any more. Please post at WP:RFPP if you want protection. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Look, I don't want protection, because doing that means I can't edit the page too. All I want to point out is that your previous action is a waste, unless this user is given a suitable action.Zero stylinx (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't follow that I must continue to police this suite of articles. I am prepared to live with the fact that my previous efforts were in vain. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You have warned this editor about copyright violations before in their talk page, it seems like they doing again in Man on the Moon: The End of Day [8]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Which part of the edit is copyvio? from which source? I have a feeling you are counting the two quotations as being a violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The two quotations are taken from this source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Are quotations a violation of the copyright policy? Asking for a friend ;) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The quotations are okay, right? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Short quotations are okay to use — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, just making sure. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible COPYVIO Brandon, Mississippi

Hello Diannaa, According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, there is a high probability of copyright content added on March 3, 2019 to the History section of the Brandon, Mississippi article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again Diannaa, but the copyright content has been reinserted on the Brandon, MS page by the same offender. Woodlot (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I will watch-list the page and have written the user a short note which I hope will get his attention. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

2405:204:A0AA:82FD:9DDF:22F4:C609:CBBB

I am having difficulty trying to tell is user:2405:204:A0AA:82FD:9DDF:22F4:C609:CBBB is a vandal because they keep making these subtle changes to peoples heights. Could you please give me your opinion on them. CLCStudent (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this belongs at WP:AIV — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, the only reason I did not report them there is because it was hard for me to tell if they are a vandal. CLCStudent (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I would say yes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cordeaux

Hi Diannaa,

concerning your removal of text I added to John Cordeaux (ornithologist). Sorry, if I crossed the border of copying "nearly verbatim" (as you mention it) and summarizing in my own words. Of course that was never my intention. I cannot really check what I have done wrong, because you removed the text. Could you please copy it to my sandbox, so that I can further work on it and ask your help, if I don't manage to handle this?

I had the intention to "combine" this text with other (scarce) biographical notes on Cordeaux I found. I was still working on this. But it is something that I do beside other things, so it can take some time. Apart from that, English is not my native language, and I do not always find the right words. Sorry for that, again. But I'm happy to continue working on it in my sandbox first, before putting it in the main namespace. Many thanks in advance for your help, --Dick Bos (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright content on this wiki, not even in sandboxes or drafts. Instead, I have sent you a copy of the removed material via email. The email address you have listed for nl.wiki since you don't have email access via en.wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Cyamites2

Hello. You changed a portion of my edit on the Cyamites page, and while I now understand not to state ancient opinions as fact in Wikipedia's voice, and can reword those things, I want to make sure we agree before I make any further edits.

  • Firstly, Theoi's Copyright ended in 2017, as stated at the bottom of their website, and at the beginning of 2018, Aaron J. Atsma of [Theoi.com] was quoted by an interviewer at [9] in saying "The aim of the project is to provide a comprehensive, free reference guide to the gods (theoi), spirits (daimones), fabulous creatures (theres) and heroes of ancient Greek mythology and religion". It now allows users to copy text from their website which was previously not an option, and other sites cite Theoi such as [10] as an example of a proper citation.
  • Secondly, I had deleted the third note, listing Pausanias Description of Greece 1.37.4 because it did not fit with its original statement being in regards to the stand near his temple, as this cite is in regards to him having a temple on the Sacred Way where only those who had been initiated at Eleusinian or had read the Orphica would understand. I admit the citation needed fixing, but I'm not sure if you deleted it for the same reason as the first. Can I add these again if I say they are quotes from such-n-such?
  • Thirdly, is in regards to the difference in names, and that of ancient opinions versus the historical record. The Eleusinian Mysteries are discussed throughout the Socratic dialogue#Platonic_dialogues, and Plato's Cratylus which discusses "whether names are "conventional" or "natural", that is, whether language is a system of arbitrary signs or whether words have an intrinsic relation to the things they signify". A considerable amount of time is spent discussing the origin of Hadês' name whose earliest attested form is missing the proposed Digamma in the third line of Homer's Iliad, where dropping it destroyed the rhythmic structure and left the meter defective according to [11], but that is argued in its comments.
  • To further support this, I'm working on the following, but I do not know how to include an image of it in case you cannot see it due to not having Archaic Greek fonts installed on your system.

In Ionic Greek, Digamma, waw, or wau (uppercase: Ϝ, lowercase: ϝ, numeral: ϛ) is an archaic letter of the Greek alphabet that originally stood for the sound /w/, but had disappeared before Homer's epics were written during the 7th century BCE, yet its former presence can be detected in many cases because its omission left the meter defective. The word Anax ἄναξ "(tribal) king, lord, (military) leader".[1] would have originally been (Greek: ἄναξ; from earlier ϝάναξ, wánax) and is attested in this form in Mycenaean Greek[2]. Further evidence coupled with cognate-analysis shows οἶνος from earlier ϝοῖνος also used /wóînos/[3] (cf. Cretan Doric ibêna, cf. Latin vīnum and English "wine") when the meter was defective.

Because of the above, and that Cyamites is said to be an epithet of Hadês, I think both versions can be asserted with the proper citation and wordage.

Thanks for your help, Davidlwinkler (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There's two reasons I removed the content. First, the page is marked at the bottom as "© Copyright 2000 - 2017 Aaron J. Atsma, Netherlands & New Zealand". "Free to use" is not the same thing as being in the public domain. Second, you added " I cannot state for certain whether he was the first to sow beans..." without stating who said this. The way you added it, it looks like Wikipedia is saying it. It's okay to use quotations as long as they are properly attributed and you put quotation marks. For example, it's okay to write "Pausanius said in his Description of Greece: 'I cannot state for certain whether he was the first to sow beans,' Hope this makes it clearer why I removed it and what you should do next. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ἄναξ. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project.
  2. ^ Chadwick, John (1958). The Decipherment of Linear B. Second edition (1990) Cambridge UP. ISBN 0-521-39830-4.
  3. ^ οἶνος. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project:
    Ϝοῖνος Leg.Gort. col X.39
Just to clarify for the user, "Copyright 2000 - 2017" doesn't mean the copyright runs out in 2017. It means that there was new material added in 2017, so that material is under a copyright that began in 2017 but will run for decades to come. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Nat Gertler, thanks for that. I've found some other citations to make a decent page out of it, but I need to spend some time reading about credible citations to help recognize poor ones in the future. Thanks for the tip!Davidlwinkler (talk) 18:13, April 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, I've worked diligently in my sandbox for this Cyamites page, and it's pushing what seems to be about 20 pages. Once I finish, I'd appreciate it if you would edit what I have prior to my submission, but wondered if you could take a look at the Pythagoras page. I noticed a citation to a book by Richard J. Simoons I'd wanted to use, but it is copyrighted. In fact, it seems that the big update this page received is full of citations to copyrighted material. Thanks in advance,

Davidlwinkler (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time or interest in going through your sandbox. Most of what's there appears to be quotations. It's not clear what I am supposed to be looking for. I don't understand your second question either: pretty much all of our source books are copyright, and what we do here is write our own prose using such sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought since Wikipedia editors review sandboxes when submitted for review, they might also give suggestions prior to submission. I have some particular questions about my article, such as its flow, and if all of it can be combined into the one article, but haven't been through the submission process to know what it entails. There is a lot I need to learn about citations; however, your response just explained the freedom I have to write an intro. Thank you. The quotes in my sandbox are properly sourced, but most of the statements are from other Wikipedia pages, and were in Wikipedia's voice. Thank you again. - Davidlwinkler (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't have the time or interest to work on this with you. Please note that copying within Wikipedia requires attribution. Please see WP:copying within Wikipedia for details on how to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

remove copyright content copied from https://www.thehindu.com/2004/04/29/stories/2004042905070400.htm, https://eci.nic.in/eci_main/Exhibition_Panels/Panel5.pdf

Hello Diannaa, Please understand that the information put up by me from the source is in Public domain. Info. about new design & technology added as per new manual uploaded by the Election Commission. Only a part of the manual was used in the wiki page. Further, there is an ongoing elections in India and the information will be helpful in understanding about the design of the EVM used in the country. Please republish the material I've posted on the wiki page. This will also help eliminate the fake news circulation about the voting in India through EVM. Keeping the old info. on the page is a regressive action. Please let me know about your view on the page. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekraj170 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but both pages are marked at the bottom as being copyright. That means you can't copy their contents here - it's against Wikipedia's copyright policy to do so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please visit this link for the info. on copyright material. https://eci.gov.in/website-policy/copyright-r4/ You please republish the material and I'll edit the same. Abhishekraj170 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That page says that "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context", and we can't guarantee that, so this license is not liberal enough to be compatible with our license. And that license certainly does not apply to The Hindu, which is not a government publication. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the part of material taken is used in a useful and accurate manner for the awareness of the common people about the EVM and never used in a derogatory manner as the copyright info. page said. If there is any discrepancy, please let me know. I'll edit the part from 'The Hindu'. Or you can yourself edit or remove that part. Please re-publish the removed material. Be assure that I'll rewrite in my words from next time and will take care of the copyright content. Thanks! Abhishekraj170 (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that anything posted on Wikipedia is free to share under the terms of our license, and we can't guarantee that re-users of the content as required under the Government of India's copyright policy. Therefore you can't copy it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Dianaa. I see that you warned BoogaLouie about copyvio in 2016, and the editor's talk page shows warnings in 2010, and two from 2012. This is a 2017 problem, as is this. And another with straight cut-and-paste ("Less than two per cent of reported crimes are prosecuted.") He is still making a lot of content contributions; has anything been done about watching or mentoring this editor, or is something else needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. If the most recent violation you can find is from two years ago, it's likely the violations have stopped. Monitoring or mentoring in such a case would not be a productive use of my time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Dianaa; I hadn't actually checked beyond that one article, but if you're not worried, I'm not worried! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I edit a lot of articles that are controversial where using quotes avoids complaints about accuracy, on the other hand wikipedia policy forbids "quote farms ", and I've had text deleted on that grounds, so sometimes you are caught in the middle. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Short properly attributed quotations are okay to use. No worries there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

mikhail shishkin (writer)

Hi, Diannaa

Thank very much for your attention and for helping me to write the article!

I agree with some of your removings. Nevertheless I have some questions:

1. You removed the information about Shishkin´s education and the very important information that he moved from Russia to Switzerland. Would you be please so kind to explain the reason?

2. Why did you remove the information about his debut? The short story got the literary prize for the best debut of the year.

3. You removed the quotation from Shishkin´s Open Letter. What is the reason? It is a quotation. Should I shorten it?

Mikhail Shishkin declared in his Open Letter:

A country where power has been seized by a corrupt, criminal regime, where the state is a pyramid of thieves, where elections have become farce, where courts serve the authorities, not the law, where there are political prisoners, where state television has become a prostitute, where packs of impostors pass insane laws that are returning everyone to the Middle Ages – such a country cannot be my Russia. I want to and will represent another Russia, my Russia, a country free of impostors, a country with a state structure that defends the right of the individual, not the right to corruption, a country with a free media, free elections, and free people.[1]

5. The article got this alert:

Cite error: The named reference taplin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Is it because you removed the reference which was before?

6. You removed the link to Shishkin´s literary Agency? why? Should it be posted on another place in the article?

thank you very much for your support! I will appreciate your answer to my questions.

Schischkinm (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed some material from your post. Here are answers to your questions:
  1. The material was removed because it was copied unaltered from the source. You can't do that; it's a violation of our copyright policy.
  2. The material was removed because it was copied unaltered from the source. You can't do that; it's a violation of our copyright policy.
  3. I meant to restore the quotation but I forgot. It's back now.
  4. There is no question #4.
  5. The cite error is gone; it was fixed by a bot.
  6. We don't normally include the name of an artist's agent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shishkin´s Open Letter in Russian, German and English

Enjoy the Spring Season!

I hope that this Spring brings you some good moods and pleasant thoughts. Thank you again for being a good woman! Sincerely, Michael

MichaelPeiper0331 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Diannaa, thank you for the message you left on my profile and for the attribution on the Azerbaijanis article. I was not aware I had to do this, I am still somewhat new to this and am reading the rules as I progress, thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. Migboy123 (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Le géoparc des dinosaures du pays de Hateg

Hi Dianna. Per WP:THQ#Je ne peux pas télécharger mes propres photos sur un article que je viens de créer, this might be a good faith attempt to get an article from French Wikipedia translated into English for English Wikipedia. How should this be attributed since it seems to technically be more of a copy-paste move than a translation of content found on French Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I added a note on the draft itself and in an edit summary. If and when the draft gets translated, we can add a translated template to the talk page. I've also left the user a note about how to do attribution when copying compatibly licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Free Burghers

Your instructions with regards to copy right guidelines are highly valued, thank you. I will make sure that edits as well as proposed articles will adhere thereto. Please accept my apology. Part of the article has been altered to make good the cited error. Also; I will, to put at ease, re-visit the article with due diligence once more. Warm Regards Bhistory 09:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for your guidance, these are delish with coffee or tea. Bhistory 09:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

How to know if a web site is good for citation.

Hi Diannaa,

In my original edits I used a web site called IMDB as a reference for the articles I worked on. This web site is no good and I am going back to my earlier edits and fix that.

Regarding databases I was wondering if TCM, and TV Guide were good?

I also found the The Classic TV Archive Homepage at: http://ctva.biz/

This page would be minor miracle if it could be used as a citation.

Is there a list to find out what web sites are acceptable or not in Wikipedia? Filmman3000 (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The place to go to find out which sources are considered reliable and okay to use is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There's a list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you don't see the source listed, you can search the archives, and if you still can't find it, you can post a question. What Wikipedia is looking for is websites that themselves use reliable sources and have editorial control over their content. ctva.biz is not considered a reliable source; IMDb is not considered a reliable source; TV Guide is okay to use. I was unable to find anything out about TCM, and was unable to locate any content on their website other than lists of things for sale. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks strange about TCM below is a link to the citation I use.

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/88611/Roogie-s-Bump/ Filmman3000 (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


I just found out what was odd about TCM when you googled them. Basically the first page that pops up is their store not their home page.
Thanks for the feedback! I have brought this subject to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
I wrote the following and on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It will help figuring out if TCM is a reliable source when it comes to their database. :::also contacted them to see what they had to say about this.
Link to discussion: :::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_would_guys_consider_TCM_%28Turner_Classic_Movies%29_especially_their_TCMDb_section_for_sources_and_citations.
What I say about it:
Turner Classic Movie has a solid Database for film. I also believe that it is NOT user-generated. Check out their TCMDb section. They seem reliable :::when it comes to year of release, cast & crew, even some areas have a Leonard Maltin reviews.
Main Page: http://www.tcm.com/
TCMDb section: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/?ecid=subnavdatabasehome
"To Have and To Have Not" film page: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3190/To-Have-and-Have-Not/
If you can join the discussion on the Notice Board it would be appreciated.
Thanks again for your feedback and time. I truly appreciate your good guidance on this site.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Dear Diannaa, I would appreciate your input on MotherFatherSon#Episodes short summaries; this shows that since the revision as of 20:29, March 28, 2019, I have been dealing with blatent attempts to copy 'n' paste.
Your intervention would help an old Welshman who appears to be hitting a stone wall. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. There was copied material right from the first edit. I've restored your clean version and hidden most of the editing history. Their last edit was only a few minutes ago so hopefully they will see my message and stop now. I will watch-list the page and will semi-protect if the activity starts up again. Blocks won't work since the activity is coming from a coupla different dynamic IPs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for such a quick action. I am most grateful. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard E. Cole

Hi Diannaa, you helped me with some copyvio issues on the Richard E. Cole article last September, and we were able to save the article from being deleted. Col. Cole passed away today, and I'm glad we had his article published in time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio, 92.4%. Could use a second opinion.

This BLP, Daniel Heath Justice is pretty much wholly copied and pasted from the sites listed here. Clicking on show all also brings up 92.4% confidence on the entire "Personal Details" section. Article looks to have been created by one of the contributors to the BLP's anthology, promoted in the article, and a co-editor on another of the projects promoted. This is pretty overwhelming, re: Do we need to delete all past revisions? Should we just delete the whole thing? Indigenous girl is attempting cleanup now, but even the lede includes copyvios. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, even after being gutted, even what's left, that isn't direct quotes, is copyvio[12]. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
However it's not a bottomless pit of copyvio. Versions prior to March 2018 are okay, so I've re-worked the lead, partially with content from the older versions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to say, I am concerned about the unsourced categories and date of birth so I am going to remove some of that stuff. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nouvelle Experience

Hi Diannaa! Thanks for adding in the citation on the Cirque du Soleil article I edited. You noted that it was copied over from Cirque wiki, but it was actually taken from a contribution written by (TruSilver in 2007, almost two years before the article on Cirque Wiki. The content was removed by someone for whatever reason. How do we go about keeping the attribution to wikpiedia and not to an external source that merely copied what was lost on wikipedia already. Thanks! Sam 128.250.0.195 (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you could state in your edit summary where you got the content so that I can locate it readily. Once the material is removed from the source Wikipedia article it is difficult to locate, as Google searching won't show it - it will only show the mirrors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ecocide

Hi Diannaa, You say you have removed material I added to the page on Ecocide. As far as I can see, what I added is still there...? Freedained (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Only part of your additions was removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

How to change the class of an article

Hi Diannaa,

I have worked on several articles that I believe can receive a class upgrade, especially those that were in stub class, and start class. Unless it is allowed, I don't want to be the guy who upgrades his articles on his own, just to avoid another sticker debacle on my wall. What is the normal procedure thanks.

And thank you for your help one day I will glue a barn star or a pancake sticker on your wallFilmman3000 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Filmman3000. I think any editor can make the decision to upgrade an article from stub class to start class. Remove the stub template from the article and change each of the wikiproject ratings on the talk page. Anything beyond that I think I would post at a relevant wikiproject page and ask one of their people to re-assess. Good Articles, A-Class articles, and Fearured Articles all have formal review procedures before those grades can be assigned. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to say: Here's a chart that shows the levels: Wikipedia:Content assessment— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Alberta Odell Jones

It is hard to infringe on something when you are the author. Check the University of Kentucky article that I wrote on this over 6 years ago. Also, my grandmother is her sister, check WHAS11 news for this verification. What I wrote is truth and since I live with the person who knew her best, her sister and she had me to correct the info, because New York Times and several quote sources have stated things that are not correct. No copyright issues when you are the original author as well as have the living blood relative who is the contributor. I am the niece so I think I would know the history of my aunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole8134 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Well Diannaa why don't we bring suit against you and Wikipedia for publishing about my Aunt without our permission or even verifying that what was originally published was even the truth about my Aunt's life or legacy. I will check with my grandmother Mrs. Shanklin to see if she would like to bring suit against you all since you did not have permission to print or even have the decency to verify what was written was even truth. We will consult with our attorneys to see what we can have done about this, especially since it was published without consent or knowledge. So where do we have you and Wikipedia served? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole8134 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

While you are welcome to contact your lawyer or initiate legal action, threatening people with legal action is not permitted. You need to immediately retract this threat of legal action or be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You all should be required to get permission considering all news sources do not print what is correct. You all need to check those references before publishing anything and if the person is living or the person handling the estate is living you need to require permission. As I stated there is no infringement on what I wrote, since I was the one who wrote what was published over 6 years or so ago, which can be verified by the UK archives. What is written on your site does not hold all truth. You all are scared by attorneys so, to try and keep your stand point you threaten to block people from editing information about themselves, their family, etc.That is a cowards why of doing things, and if you where not concerned or know this to be true then you would simply reach out to the family or the person either by phone or email, since that is how all the others have reached out to us when they are going to cover anything about her. My grandmother is not happy with you all and wishes for you to remove her sister from Wikipedia. You did not have permission from her or our attorneys to print without prior consent or preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole8134 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't need permission from your family or its attorneys to write an article about a given person - US law (which is the governing law here as Wikipedia's servers are hosted in California) makes this clear. And of course we'd be scared of attorneys - who wouldn't be in a system where SLAPPs such as what you intend to file are routinely filed? Even in states with strong anti-SLAPP laws (like California, again) the goal of such lawsuits isn't actually to force an action - it's to bleed the victim dry. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar
For the grace under fire you have displayed in this thread, I hereby award you the Purple Barnstar. Don't thank me, you've earned it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Lists of facts are not subject to copyright. Medical conditions are defined by a number of clinical features. To describe a condition the specific clinical features must be listed. Because there this particular condition is rare any listing of its features will look similar. Nonetheless it is no harm to have the attribution listed.Virion123 (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I will edit my words only. The mistake committed because of lack of source . Thank you BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Jstor journal

Hi Diannaa, I note you have yourself down with jstor access. I am looking at using this journal in this article, though I can only see the first page (of 3). Are you able to access the remainder, and if so, how would I be able to access this? Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've downloaded it - if you could activate your Wikipedia email I can get you a copy. I can't send an attachment via Wikipedia email though, so you will have to email me and I will send the attachment in my reply. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes thanks for pointing that out - I was going to change it but never got round to it, so have put it back to original. Should be ok now. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I've sent you an email - you need to reply so that I can send the attachment. The Wikipedia email system does not allow attachments, so I can't send it until you do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Email received - the PDF should be arriving at your inbox momentarily. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Received, thank you. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

History of homeschooling

Hi Diannaa

You have removed content from one of my Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeschooling_in_South_Africa. However, the quotations that you removed were copied from one of my own articles on the website www.sahomeschoolers.org (which is my personal website) or an article written by myself on www.pestalozzi.org. Given that I am chairman of the Pestalozzi Trust, I can also give permission to copy text from that website. If I copy my own writings, I do not view this as an copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouwevandereems (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We can't take your word that you're the actual author. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how to formally allow Wikipedia to use your writings. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 05:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Markham, Ontario

Hi, I have noticed that my edits from April 15 on the article "Markham, Ontario" have all been removed due to copyright violations and plagiarism. I am sorry if the content that I have added resembled content from other sources. However, I have not intended to plagiarize as I already know the information off the top of my head, and I added the citations to ensure that what I have written down is verifiable. Would it be possible if the version from April 15 is restored so that I could restate or summarize my work to avoid future copyright issues? I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, 209.221.91.117 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.91.117 (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but we cant't host copyright material on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to add that information again if I make sure to not write similar wordings as the source? 209.221.91.117 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.91.117 (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Material sourced to an organization's own website is not actually the kind of content we're looking for. Please see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

my computer was lagging thanks for putting it in for me!!! I got the info I put in from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire


Jack90s15 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft page copyright claim

Draft:NorthBay VacaValley Hospital

Hi Deanna, Received your message that you believe the content on my draft page is copyrighted material. No specifics, though. What is it that you are saying is copyrighted? RobinEMiller (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)RobinEMiller

I found content copied from https://www.northbay.org/about/northbay-vacavalley-hospital.cfm and http://author.northbay.org/about/accreditation-awards.cfm. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. More than that was removed though; the bot report was just a starting point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Deanna, I see you're point but is re-writing it into my own language going to work? I am trying to keep it factual only and not sound like advertising. I want it to be a just-the-facts kind of entry. RobinEMiller (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)RobinEMiller

I'll tell you what's not going to work and that's copying directly from someone's copyright website. That's not permitted under Wikipedia's copyright policy. And it's not an "entry" - it's (potentially) an encyclopedia article. Regardless of the copyright issue, the draft has been declined as the organization is not considered as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for information on what makes an organization notable. The main thing is to locate significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Material found on the organization's own website is a primary source and therefore not useful for establishing notability. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Robot-Assisted Surgery

Hi Diannnaa, I had noticed you removed the information that I had added to Robot-assisted surgery, and I was just wondering what specifically flagged the removal of those changes? I would appreciate it so I can understand and fix my mistakes and try to resubmit it properly without being flagged again. Thanks so much! Best, --AdamHPS322B (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you copied from https://www.wkhs.com/cancer/cancer-treatment-services/surgery/robotic-surgery/robot-assisted-laparoscopic-procedures and https://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/consensus-document-robotic-surgery/. Both of these papers are copyright. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, so those two sources were the only issues? If I were to resubmit the other changes instead of those two aforementioned sources, I should (hopefully) not be receiving a coypright strike again? Thanks! Best, --AdamHPS322B (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Those are the only two issues that the bot found. I cannot say for sure that the article is now free of copyright issues. I don't know what "other changes" you are referring to, since the only material I removed is the material identified as copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I apologize. On the "view history" section of the page, I noticed all my edits' time/date stamps had a strikethrough and in gray lettering. Initially, I had thought that meant all my edits were deleted, but once I went on the actual page, I realized they weren't (besides the copyright ones, of course). If you don't mind, could you explain what the strikethrough and gray lettering of the time/date stamp on each of my edit means? Thanks so much! Best, --AdamHPS322B (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This process is called revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Editors Examine Reliable Sources and Report Accordingly

Diannaa, shalom. I find it disconcerting that you, of all persons, would make the claim that an editor who researches a certain topic by examining reliable and verifiable sources cannot summarize, in his own words, the content of those sources, and to make note of its reference in a footnote, saying "You should not re-add the content, because it is based on your own research – first-hand reports you collected and then reported on your blog." (see here). I'm sure that your intention was not as I understood it to mean. First, I have no intent to re-add the exact same content. However, if the conclusion at which we have reached is confirmed by an independent writer, and if the addition adds greater understanding of the subject matter at hand, I see nothing wrong with adding the author's view. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with me, my blog, or my own personal views on the same. Please advise if I am wrong in my judgement. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you've got independent sources that's great, but you cannot re-add content that comes from your "conversations with the Jewish elders who came up from Yemen", which is where your blog post says you got the information. That's original research, which is something we don't do here on Wikipedia. What we're looking for is material sourced to secondary sources such as books, magazines, and reliable websites. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand that and I have no objection to that one restriction. There are other sources besides my own personal inquiries.Davidbena (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

Sorry I just am now seeing your messages. I am new to a lot of this and was not aware of what I had to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealfredprice (talk • contribs) 11:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Mexico

First thank you and i understand about that and sorry Will try to be more careful next time

Hello I was planning to create a Timeline of LGBT history in Mexico (which i did now) u can find it in the history section that is still there I was going to leave the history of precolumbian and moved to the history part that there is now And move the timeline section to a new timeline page (I hope its clear) A pity now that there is some editor who erased all the first history part containing timeline And now its blocked and i cannot find it to move it to the new intended article of timeline of LGBT History in Mexico Any idea how can that valuable content of the first removed history can be found and moved to the new page Any help please Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I saw the post on Kwami's talk page and have restored the material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio on Storm Boy (2019 film)

Hi, Diannaa. Sorry to disturb you. I was reading this article and I realized that the film's plot was copied from here. I removed the content but maybe it would be important to suppress it from the article's history. I don't know how to report it, so some admin can check it. However, I know that you do this kind of job because you removed copyvio I, myself, committed long ago. hahaha. If you are able to check it, it would be great. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Kurrajong Heights Hotel

Hi Diannaa, I was wondering if you could cast your eyes over Kurrajong Heights Hotel. Earwig says suspected copvio but I think it is mostly on quoted material. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, most of the content had to be removed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! U reverted my edits a while back!

How do you like my 100% constructive edits to the talk page of User:Yobbin?

How do I batch delete a whole bunch of revisions at once to hide a copyvio section that's been there for 7 months of edits?

There's a way to do it that's quicker than going diff by diff, isn't there? Copyvio plot section on Puppet Master: The Littlest Reich first added last September. I've hidden some versions, but there has to be a way to do it all at once. Asking before mucking about and exploding something. Looks like there are two accounts doing these copy and pastes on some interconnected articles. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You can do a batch by ticking one box, holding down the shift key, and ticking the box at the other end of the string you are trying to hide. This will add tick marks to all the intervening boxes. If you try to do too many diffs at once you will get an error message to the effect that the string is too long. This means you will have to break the task up into several batches. Hope that gives you all the beta on how to do the task at hand — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! It worked, and I did not blow up the 'pedia! :D - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yay! Happy Easter! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Cow vigilante violence in India articles

Could you please check these pages out please? I've tagged both for copyvio, but one has a history of reversions that I'm loath to get involved in. Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 and Cow vigilante violence in India Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not a trivial thing to do. There could be dozens of violations in each article. Finding the source and removing each violation could result in several days of work, and I don't have time to do that right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't mean to trivialise the work that you do in any way...one of the articles has been redirected into the other one now, I'll leave the tag in place and put a message on the talk page and attempt remove the sections that Earwig says is copied. Sorry for any offence caused. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not offended, just not able to help right now. Cool of you to apologise though. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries, also want you to know how much I (and others) appreciate what you do. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Backlog issues

I think you are aware that I had a bit of a hiatus from copy patrol work due to dealing with a family illness. There's no reason for you to know, but it won't surprise you that my hiatus wasn't just copy patrol, but also Wikipedia in general and specifically OTRS where I had been very active.

A few weeks ago I became active again in copy patrol, but only yesterday decided to return to OTRS work. My informal goal at OTRS with keep the backlog for the English Wikipedia down to about 100. In my absence, it climbed to 450. That number might not seem very high if you think that in terms of copy patrol backlog counts, but copy patrol items take minutes while OTRS queries can take hours. For the last few weeks, most of my "Wikipedia day" has been copy patrol, but as I tried to ease back into OTRS work, there are only so many hours in the day and I anticipate that copy patrol work will suffer. A few months ago, that didn't seem to be an issue as you were taking on the bulk of the reports, while I and a few others picked at the rest and managed to keep things under control. Unless I'm missing something, it seems like the number of reports is up, as I know my involvement is roughly triple what it was before and I still feel like we are falling behind. When I cut back, I don't think it's fair to count on you picking up the shortfall.

I'm open to a discussion about what to do. One possibility is to put out a plea at some noticeboards asking for help in general. Another option is to personally reach out to some editors who have been active in the past but the less active recently. Yet another option is the possibility of making the process a little more automated. I have given a little thought to this and can flesh it out if you have any interest.

I'm not quite sure what would happen if you were to retire from this task, so I'm interested in options that spread the work wider rather than expecting you to step up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick and sorry for the delay in replying. Reports have not increased – I did a little research and discovered that when I started doing this task in 2016 we were getting 100 to 130 reports on weekdays and less on weekends. Nowadays we typically get 75 to 100 reports on weekdays and less on weekends. I would say that we are not falling behind either, as most days we are meeting my informal target of clearing all of the previous day's reports and some of the current day's reports. That's very good, and it's likely why the general trend has been a reduction in the number of reports as word gets out to Wikipedians and the public at large that we are cracking down on copyright issues. It is my intention to keep working on copyright for the foreseeable future, as I work only part-time and prefer to do this task over playing video games or other pastimes as I feel like I am contributing to society rather than just wasting my life and my skills. That being said, 50 reports a day is about the maximum I can do in a day without feeling overwhelmed. I think a good place to start would be to ask a few skilled people from the leaderboard or other folks who have experience in this field if they could commit to assessing 5 or 10 reports per day most days to help spread the workload around a bit and ensure that if one or both of us is no longer able to do the work that people will be well positioned to take our place. A similar call for help could be sent to some active OTRS agents – you would probably know better than me who should be messaged. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, Thanks. I'm happy to hear that reports are not increasing. I had not done any research it was just an anecdotal feeling. I'm also very happy to hear that you are committed to doing this for the long term, but I do feel it would be good to have more people involved. I'll try reaching out to some. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that would be awesome, if you think you have the time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Just checking if I did the right thing in regards with WikiProject Biography/Assessment: Revision history

Hi Diaana,

Since I am requesting a "WikiProject Biography/Assessment: Revision history" I figured I'd review a few. So I read a few of these articles and promoted them to the next class when I found them worthy, and removed them from the list. I also noticed that some of these articles where already reviewed and received an upgrade so I removed them. I did read "How to assess an article" and was baffled and confused that some upgraded articles were still there.

As I got into trouble several times on Wiki and with in regards to: copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution.

Please have a quick look to what I did in the: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment&action=history

Did I leave the right type of comment because I want to avoid another sticker debacle on my talk page? LOL

Thanks for everything by the way it is appreciated.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Filmman3000 and sorry for the delay in replying. It looks like you are doing it the same way as other people, so you should be okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
No delays thanks for the feedback.Filmman3000 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Davies (footballer)

Hello, sorry to trouble you (again!). I spotted a copy-vio at Arthur Davies (footballer) beginning with this revision. I did a bit of CE and then looked at the refs and the additions were pretty much a lift from here (second entry in 'births'). I've got the editor concerned to re-write it and I think it is OK now but not 100% certain, and will some revisions need to be revdel'd? Many thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nonviolent Resistance -- Gene Sharp's 198 Resistance Methods

Hi Diana, I hope this message finds you well. I'm messaging with regard to your removal of my addition of Gene Sharp's 198 Methods of Nonviolent Resistance to the Nonviolent Resistance page. You cited concerns about the work not being in the public domain, but I assure you that it is.

https://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

Please see Appendix 3, page 91. I can definitely cite the source better, but I am wondering if what you removed could be restored so that I might do this? It took some work to format it correctly, and I would prefer to avoid doing that again.

Thanks so much for your hard work on Wikipedia, Nonviolence International (NonviolenceInternationalMB (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC))

Hi NonviolenceInternationalMB. Unfortunately since "the author requests that no changes be made in the text, either additions or deletions, if it is reproduced", you cannot copy from that source, because our license does allow changes to be made (our license calls it "derivative works"). Note that an editor removed the material for reasons other than copyright, so you will have to make a case on the article's talk page for including the content even in a revised form. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Random Quotes" - context Brother Theodore page

Can you please explain why the QUOTES section was removed? Thank you.Emesz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  1. It's a list of random quotes without any context
  2. Non-free content should only be used sparingly, and for good reason.
  3. It's unencyclopedic. You wouldn't see it in a paper encyclopedia, and we don't want it here either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Night King

Here there be dragons

This is one of the reasons I'm backing away from NPP... Onel5969 TT me 02:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I know right? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for these tips at the student editor's talk page. I followed the Purdue OWL link, and it seems like they've reorganized a bit, as that one redirects to the home page. Perhaps it's one of these:

Thanks again, for the tips and the links! Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, good catch. It was this one. I will update my copypasta, which is located at User:Diannaa/Copyright. Please feel free to copy any or all of these blurbs. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

politics in India

I would appreciate it if you can check my edit on Candidate selection in this article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Helena Artillery

Hello Diannaa

A copy write violation was identified on Helena Artillery by Mobi Ditch. I have prepared a re-write of the article here that I think corrects the issue. could you review? Aleutian06 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed some part from Albania (placename)

Hi Dianna, Please can you argue me why you removed some parts of added content in Albania (placename)?

Thanks! Zoti Zeus (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed it because it appeared to have been copied from multiple Wikipedia articles without the attribution that is required under the terms of our license. See WP:copying within Wikipedia as to how attribution is done and why we have to do it. I chose removal rather than spending the necessary hour or two trying to determine what all articles were copied, because the material seemed to me to be unrelated or only peripherally related to the subject of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right with copied from multiple Wikipedia articles, in the coming days I will prepare a complete unique material in relation to this one I just added, leaving only the history of naming documented with sources!

"...seemed to me to be unrelated or only peripherally related to the subject of the article" In that article is literally written "Albania (placename)", I want to inform you that on the basis of the name is the same name as what i added in Albania (placename), of course, may have peripheral related based on the history of each country, but name is the same! Zoti Zeus (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Staten Island Sports Hall of Fame logo Staten Island New York.jpg

Hello Dianna

RE: Thanks for uploading File:Staten Island Sports Hall of Fame logo Staten Island New York.jpg, which you've attributed to uthor Staten Island Sports Hall of Fame. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

Thanks for your help. I received the logo in an email from the Chairman of the nomination committee of the Staten Island Sports Hall of Fame. What do I have to do to resolve this issues. Should I send a copy of the email to the permissions address? Thanks. Chris Cusack301 (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC) @Diannaa

Hello Chris. Someone else has already changed the image to non-free use, so no further action is required on your part. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

copyvio revdel tagging

Do I really have to go through every single article, put the big notice up requesting 2-3 diffs be deleted, on every single article that I remove copyvio from? I know the answer is probably going to be "Yes, duh" but I just want to confirm.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 12:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If you could that would be awesome. There's a script available to automate and speed up this task: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi dear admin. I completed a new Article a few days ago. The Article subject is Louisiana black church fires and I have a review request from you. The Article still is on Draft space and It's need copy right review.Forest90 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of overlap with your sources, for example from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/11/us/louisiana-black-church-fires-suspect-detained/index.html, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-church-fires-in-louisiana-arson-suspect-holden-matthews-charged-with-hate-crimes/ and https://www.thedailybeast.com/holden-matthews-arrested-in-string-of-louisiana-church-fires?ref=scroll. These are examples only and not an exhaustive list. Please put all content into your own words and then check your draft using this tool. Once it comes up clean let me know and I will check your work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I removed all copy right problems from the Article, this link. It's ready for your review when you have enough time. Forest90 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay I did some more removals and paraphrasing and the draft is now okay from a copyright point of view. Please review what I did so you can learn more about how strict our standards are and how to go about re-working the content so that it meets our copyright requirements. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much my friend.Forest90 (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

French article

Diannaa can you advise what to do here. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what your question is? I think what you are saying is that the English version of the Wikipedia article David Copperfield contains content copied or adapted from the French version. What needs to happen to provide attribution is to say in an edit summary where you got the content. Here's a sample edit summary: This section contains content copied from [[:fr:David Copperfield]]; see that page's history for attribution. There's also the templates {{Interwiki copy}} and {{Translated page}} which can be placed on the article talk page. Use whichever one seems the most appropriate for the case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. Sorry to have troubled you–on further checking I found a not very obvious acknowledgement on the talk page. Edits acknowledged translated sources.

Thank you

Thank you for your kind and helpful post to my talk page.Lostinspacetime1949 (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, just received message about additions removed in whole or part but can't find where or what has been removed

Hi

I have just received a message "Your additions to MMR vaccine and autism have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license."

but I can't see/find what has been removed; can you assist many thx Stogjol (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The content was originally removed for reasons other than copyright. It was copied from The Telegraph and you added it twice and it was removed twice. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rajneesh page

Hi , I see you have deleted all of the qoutes that I put on my new section, “Contradictions and ‘Heart to heart communion’.”

I was going to shorten the text down anyway, but I would like to leave just one or two of the qoutes there just to emphasise the meaning. I was going to write some of the qoutes in my own writing.

Also, you have removed “deliberaretely” , from my text, but I feel that this is an important stress as Rajneesh often said that he ‘deliberately contradicted himself’. Bamboobreeze (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Diana. You removed the qoutes that I had added to my new section on the Rajneesh page, I was going to shorten it anyway, but you have left my text alone(which is supported by citations) Yesterday I added one qoute to illustrate this most important part of his teaching epinoia then flagged the entire section as( overqoutated) . What do you suggest. And although you have not objected on my text (which is based on his own statements which appear multiple times throughout the years) , Epinoia is finding fault with that too. Although someone created a section on multiple qoutes on 'euthanasia and genetic selection' , (which is not part of Rajneeshs core teaching) , and this section had multiple qoutes, some without citations. Yet Epinoia did not object to that section at all, which was there for months, until I pointed out that Rajneesh contradicted himself and that those topics were not part of his main teaching.Bamboobreeze (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because some content has been there a while doesn't mean it's there permanently or is an accepted or official version. Especially if it doesn't have any sources or appears to be original research. You need to make your case on the article's talk page. I see you are already doing that. Content decisions are up to editors - not administrators. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Revdel needed

Here

Copyrighted song lyrics (Fuck Tha Police). Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)  Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-Attribution of Original Sources

Hi Diannaa, appreciate your feedback on the article surrounding MAST Academy. However, really don't understand why the source was faulty, especially since the information you're linking to at within "Defunct Amusement Parks" is taken from the same website/article that I had mentioned.

Plus, Planet Ocean (subject in question) was never an amusement park -- it was an oceanographic-focused museum that was the original purpose for the building Mast Academy is now housed in. Essentially, the museum became unprofitable, closed as a result, and they donated a lot of the installations there to be decorations to the magnet high school that is now there. MAST Academy has grown since then but this original structure remains.

And apologies if there's a better forum to communicate these replies, just wasn't particularly sure on how to "talk"/reply to your messages. Thanks again for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianBorja (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I don't understand what your question is. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_63&oldid=1140667970"