Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa/Archive 95

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97

Hi Diannaa,

I notice a message on my talk page wherein you mentioned Indian government works are protected by copyright for 60 years.

On this, please note that Indian government works those published in official gazette and laws are all exempted from copyright infringement.

My edit which is deleted relates to copy paste from a court decision which also is specifically exempt.

Suggest you to refer to Section 52 of Indian copyright act, 1957.

aditional reading; https://spicyip.com/2008/01/are-indian-court-judgments.html

Request make suitable edits to your policy to create exemptions as per Section 52 Ved548 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The place where I got the information is at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India which specifies that "copyright subsists until 60 years from the year in which the work is first published." This includes "any court, tribunal or other judicial authority in India." You can also view the actual legislation here, where it says:

"(k) “Government work” means a work which is made or published by or under the direction or control of— (i) the Government or any department of the Government; (ii) any Legislature in India; (iii) any court, tribunal or other judicial authority in India"

— Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
What makes spicyip.com a reliable source for information about copyright law in India? — Diannaa (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The Commons guidance falls a little short because it fails to mention the exceptions for government and judicial works. It's just listed as one of many copyright templates in a list. See c:Template:EdictGov-India which indicates that the court decision would not be under copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Well I've undone the revision deletion, but now I'm not so sure that I should have, because the content does not appear to have been copied from the court documents (nor does it closely copy the citation provided, which was this page). Instead, it is a match for this document, which is an analysis published by the Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas law firm in Mumbai. @Ved548: have you got a link to the actual court document/judgement so that we can see what was said there? Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa
Please see the case law.
Refer to paragraph 11: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126246109/
The same text appears in multiple court judgements
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1350290/
Ved548 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Dianna, happy to pitch in. SpicyIP is a credible source of copyright and IP law in India. Further the analysis pointed out above i.e., government publications and judgments being exempt from the ambit of infringement under Copyright law appears to be in line with the Copyright Act in my understanding too. 183.82.124.144 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello 183.82.124.144, IP from India. How did you happen to run across this discussion on your fifth edit, your first in nearly two years? It just looks like Ved548 logged out to try to show a random person supporting their position. Not cute, and not actually allowed. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ved548:Thanks. When I compare the Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas document with your prose, Earwig's tool shows a 61.7% overlap. But when I use the same tool to compare your prose with the actual court document, it shows only a 33.3% overlap. In other words, there's a lot of prose in your version that matches the law firm document that is not present in the actual court document. So I am not going to be able to restore it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I get your point. I have modified the text this morning (India time) to more closely resemble the text of the Court decision.
The conclusion as per my understanding is neither the law firm nor we have the right to copyright in that text.
If you still unconvinced, I am fine for you to remove the text. I will rewrite it over the weekend. Ved548 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I have re-written the content to comply with our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, That was my acquittance who wrote the response from the IP when I discussed with him the copyright law and the discussion with you on Wiki.
This was not intended by me. I am aware of Sockpuppetry rules. Ved548 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Neither did I ask him to reply in my support. That person is new to Wikipedia editing and actually does not have any Wiki account to my understanding. Ved548 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Diannaa
Can we please delete the text that has IP address visible to everyone as it has potential to reveal identities. As someone who is aware of strict sockpuppetry rules, I would never ask someone to come in my support.
Thanks Ved548 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
If you mean revision deletion, sorry, but I don't think that is one of the purposes allowed under the policy. — Diannaa (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
No. I am talking of the reply and your reply to this IP 183.82.124.144
I am fine with revision deletion. Ved548 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I will move the whole conversation to the archive. Would that work? — Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Diannaa. That will be helpful. Ved548 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


Boxer (armoured fighting vehicle)

Hello, I note your revision but I've just compared the text of the piece you mention to the text in the Wiki article, and they're different.

Here is the actual text you reference:

The Australian government signed a production agreement with Rheinmetall Defence Australia on 10 April for over 100 Boxer Schwerer Waffenträger Infanterie (sWaTrg Inf) heavy weapon carrier infantry vehicles to export to Germany. The company said in a press release announcing the contract later the same day that it would be Australia's largest foreign military export to Germany. The vehicles are being procured under a government-to-government letter of intent signed by Canberra and Berlin in March. Rheinmetall's Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence (MILVEHCOE) in Redbank, Queensland, will produce the vehicles, with deliveries to the German government planned for 2026–30, the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) said in a press release on 10 April. A Rheinmetall spokesperson told Janes that the first 20 vehicles would be produced in Rheinmetall's Kassel and Unterluess plants in Germany, with deliveries scheduled for 2025. The sWaTrg Inf will replace the Bundeswehr's Wiesel 1 tracked tactical direct fire support weapon carrier and equip the German Army's new medium forces. It will be based on the Australian Army's Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV), which is equipped with a reconnaissance mission module, including the two-person digital Lance turret, armed with Rheinmetall's MK30-2 airburst munition (ABM) automatic cannon that is also the main armament of the German Army's Puma infantry fighting vehicle. The sWaTrg Inf will also be armed with the Mehrrollenfähiges leichtes Lenkflugkörper-System (Multirole-capable Light Missile System: MELLS), the Bundeswehr's designation for the Spike LR. The Bundeswehr ordered 123 sWaTrg Inf vehicles from Rheinmetall on 21 March. On 20 March the Bundestag, Germany's parliament, approved the EUR1.95 billion (USD2.1 billion) procurement, plus a EUR746.9 million service and maintenance contract. The Bundeswehr plans to have four medium brigades, including the Franco-German Brigade and one formed with the Netherlands. The brigades will be formed by five sWaTrg Inf and two armoured infantry fighting vehicle (AIFV) battalions, with the latter equipped with the planned Boxer AIFV, which could also be based on Australia's CRV, which is more mature and would therefore require fewer modifications. The sWaTrg Inf uses the rear of the vehicle for ammunition storage, while the AIFV could use it to carry infantry. Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger said, “We are integrating the expertise and capabilities of our Australian MILVEHCOE colleagues from our global Rheinmetall network to provide the German Army with the required combat vehicles as quickly as possible. This further deepens defence ties between Australia and Germany and enhances a sustained sovereign defence capability in Australia.” In addition to providing the Bundeswehr with sWaTrg Inf vehicles quickly, building them in Australia reduces pressure on Rheinmetall's German plants, which are busy producing equipment as a result of the war in Ukraine, and will allow them to switch production to other systems when MILVEHCOE starts producing the vehicles. Moreover, enhancing Australia's sustained sovereign defence capability supports the country's military modernisation in the Asia-Pacific, an area in which Germany has also expressed strategic interest.

This is the text from Wiki article.

The Bundeswehr will acquire 123 Schwerer Waffenträger Infanterie (sWaTrg Inf) HWC infantry vehicles between 2025-2023, the sWaTrg Inf based on the Australian Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). On 10 April 2024 the Australian government signed the production agreement with Rheinmetall Defence Australia for over 103 Schwerer Waffenträger Infanterie (sWaTrg Inf) HWC infantry vehicles for export to Germany. The vehicles are being procured under a government-to-government letter of intent signed in March. Rheinmetall's Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence (MILVEHCOE) in Queensland, will produce the 103 vehicles, with deliveries to Germany planned for 2026–2030. The first 20 vehicles will be produced in Rheinmetall's Kassel and Unterluess plants in Germany, with deliveries of these scheduled for 2025. The sWaTrg Inf is based on the Lance turret-equipped Australian Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV), but will additionally be armed with the Mehrrollenfähiges leichtes Lenkflugkörper-System (Multirole-capable Light Missile System: MELLS), the Bundeswehr's designation for the Spike LR. In service the sWaTrg Inf will replace the Bundeswehr's Wiesel 1 tracked tactical direct fire-support weapon carrier and equip the German Army's new medium forces. As of Q2 2024, the sWaTrg Inf vehicle is expected to begin fielding in 2027.

I've reverted your edit, BUT..., if you honestly believe there is a copyright infringement here, please highlight the specifics and I will act on them if need be. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I was bored so decided to rewrite it anyway. BUT..., please do highlight to me what you think was wrong with it in the first place or we will end up down this road again at some point. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk • contribs)

Hello @SurfaceAgentX2Zero: You can view the overlap using Earwig's tool. The new version is better but I would take out the part about the letter of intent and simply state that the Australian government ordered 103 units on 10 April 2024. (It's not very copyright compliant and it's a little too much detail.) — Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Excellent, I like that Earwig thing. I see it even gives a rating which is very useful. I will do some more work on the article today (hopefully) and even though the earwig suggests it's OK, I will tweak the affected a little more. I will see if I can work out how to use earwig going forwards. Thanks. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't actually use the rating; I inspect the overlapping text and see if there's any creative content that needs to come out. — Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
You were a bit quick with that Boxer text. I really did intend getting back to it. I just wanted to do a little more research and work on some words that could show the order timeline. I note your comments on detail, but in all honesty in this instance those dates are quite interesting. Anyone with any subject matter knowledge will identify from those dates that this procurement was lightening quick in military terms. Obviously brought about by the situation in Ukraine. Of course, I can't include anything in text that says similar to in a quick procurement process..., as that's an opinion and would likely be picked up as such. So I intended to include some dates and events, so that those in the know could work it out for themselves just how quick this process had been. That was the reason for my delay. Sources also do the usual with this sort of stuff and lazy writers substitute the word contract in place of many things that are not actually a contract, and here we have a Letter of Intent, an order, parliamentary approval, and a production agreement. And in various sources these all get individually labelled as the contract... Anyway, I've come up with a few words, and words that hopefully don't cause issues. I'll insert those later today.
And another query if I may. I don't understand why so much history in the article is now not accessible (black lines) after your revision. It's pretty much all stuff all over the article that's not related to your revision. I might be being dim but I don't see why this happens?
And finally, if you spot anything else in the article you think is an issue, would you consider a quick contact via Talk and when I pick that up I'll deal with it? Just saves deletion and disruption? SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @SurfaceAgentX2Zero and sorry for the delayed reply. Copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on this aspect of copyright cleanup (currently only three!), discussion of each individual violation is not practical, and for clear-cut violations it is not necessary. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. — Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes a great deal of sense, and no need to apologise for any delay in the reply. We are all volunteers as such. personally, I will endeavor to be more more careful of copyright moving forwards. I think I will adopt an if in doubt, leave it out policy. Regarding that RD1 though, just one point if I may. The vast majority of the changes hidden from view under criterion RD1 have absolutely no connection with the bit of text that was copyright. It seems wrong to hide these from view, but I di admit, I'm no expert! Is it an auto hide thing, or manual? Either way, as i say, the vast majority, possibly even all of them..., hidden are not connected to the copyright text. They're in different sections of the article, most of them. Look forward to your views. And please, no rush. I'm away for a couple of days now anyway. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2024 (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) 14:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

93 amendment of Constitution of India

Hello Diannaa, can u please tell me why was the page Ninety-third Amendment of the Constitution of India was deleted in 2016. I am thinking of creating new article page for 93 constitutional amendment. Nikrocks12345 (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikrocks12345. It was deleted for G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Mushroom9) in violation of ban or block. So were some of the others that are red-linked at List of amendments of the Constitution of India It's ok to start new versions of these articles if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Kakuda (film)

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at this edit. It's directly copied-and-pasted from the cited website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Himmler picture

Source is sa-kuva/Finna as watermark states, I got the description from Helsinki Times, so it should be fine? https://www.finna.fi/Record/sa-kuva.sa-kuva-37746?sid=4747041667 RKT7789 (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks okay now. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:NEWSPAPER copyvio

Hello! I would like to ask if you can do an audit of Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs). There have been continuous concerns raised about them over the insertion of possible copyvio items that appear to have been lifted straight off news websites despite previous warnings. See the following edits [1]] and [2] that I reverted for example. Borgenland (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Borgenland. If you've got five or more examples of prose violations of the copyright policy, please consider requesting a case be opened. That happens at WP:CP. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi again Borgenland. Sorry, I made a mistake. The correct place to request a case is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. It looks like issues with both photos and prose can be investigated. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! For transparency, I made this inquiry after one of the users mentioned below, who also happened to be editing in the same WikiProject as the three of us, asked me to confirm as a third party if there were grounds for suspicion, which I did find independently and in good faith. You may find the records of discussions in my talk page for verification. Since they appear to have more knowledge of the case and since I personally do not think the offending user is a WP:NOTHERE, I will also notify the user who asked me about this of these steps. Borgenland (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, good afternoon

Hi Dianna. First I messaged administrator Túrelio 08:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) regarding the pains I suffered and am suffering as editor. It started January 21, 2024 by a User who continued following me and I am pained by ad hominem attacks on my persona; the Accusation which terribly painful on 21:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I admit my mistake when you messaged me in my talk page, :"I made a mistake for quoting An AllKPop report regarding Limited quotation and Paraphrasing, sincerely yours, Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC). Wikipedia and copyright Hello Valenzuela400! Your additions to Park Bo-ram have been removed in whole or part.
Regarding my Manila Bulletin edit, I explained in Manila Bulletin, Controversy or legal issue 2024 why; thereafter, I revisited my edit and revised it, to the best of my ability here New edit; however, I was told that my edit was not yet sufficient; please allow me to explain why I chose to input the essential ingredients of the legal issues on Manila Bulletin; I am a law consultant, had been a Philippine Bar Examinations reviewer; my students - reviewers extensively use Wikipedia articles for research; I advised them to read the links and citation reference of the news, etc. however, Links abd citations die in time except BBC, Press Reader, among others; in my viewm, if all the important details of the alleged crime are input in the edit of the article, then in the future, students reviewers can have access of them even if the links would die and unarchived;
My edit on Mediatrix of All Grace offending religious feelings case may have been too detailed, perhaps, since as Catholic, I am a devotee of the Virgin, but objectively, I edited it to tell the current Pope Francis stance against them; it was revised by Blakegripling ph (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 12 May 2024, and finally by Borgenland; I respectfully grieve, since Wikipedia, I think and still ponder is collaboration; but I am singled and attacked here, my detractors are discarding all my positive contributions, eternally and non-stop following me; does Wikipedia allow this, with all due respect?
Currently, my Contributions include 4,867 edits in Wikipedia extendedconfirmed and 1,290 edits in Commons. The 4,867 edits were all done in good faith, and my contributions did a lot for Wikimedia Foundation; I stay here for our Valenzuela, Metro Manila 400th year one year Festivity, and we are making a coffee table book, hence my editorship here will enhance Philippine tourism; it pains me that One editor continuously followed me digging for mistakes like FOP, non free images, and now, Wiki not newspaper and very sadly Copy Vio. As a pillar or Dean in our Philippine laws, legal expert on these subjects, where I devoted 30 years of my stint, I am too sad to be accused a puppet of whom they continued to accuse Florentino Floro creating puppets here. Historically, Blocked Judgefloro contributed 1,706,705 Registered: 20:46, 29 April 2013 (11 years ago) Total edit count: 1,706,763 Number of attached accounts: 42 - never asked to be unblocked; all its 18 alleged socks were eternally followed and asked to be blocked by only One editor who was allegedly attacked by User:Judgefloro; sad to say this User non-stopped attacked Florentino Floro; now, I am deeply saddened to be singled out by Floro's nemesis.
In fine, I greatly appreciate your hard works, and I leave my fate or say Karma upon your hands, please, I humbly beg, protect me from these who made me feel sad; if I made great mistakes, then please revise them and leave me a note on my page; Mabuhay from Philippines very sincerely yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC).

A kitten for you!

Please help me, since I believe you are a fair administrator who created a great legacy on Wikimedia Foundation very sincerely yours

Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Serbianisation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. You claimed that I violated copywrite laws but failed to show where. You also deleted content unrelated to your claim, including an image that has been on wikipedia for a while and is fully aligned with copywrite rules.

If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

Aferditaa (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Addressed on their talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Abortion in Europe

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your message re. copyright. My intention has been to put together a readable and accurate table in the article (similar to what is printed in several encyclopedias or political textbooks comparing different jurisdictions).

I have paraphrased much of the text as the original was, in all honesty, often official and legal language (which most ordinary eaders find a tad strange and distant from everyday life!), and each entry has been referenced using information which is published in public domain.

Given the sensitivity of the issue, and the range of different circumstances across Europe, I've opted for this type of table with brief text points rather than colour-coded options (which I've seen in some articles but unfortunately simplify a sensitive issue rather than let readers see a full summary in one place).

I will give this some more thought but, as with other articles, I've followed the copyright guidelines in line with the source's permission (as far as I'm aware) but I will read more over the coming weeks, and I'm seeking to do my best to write carefully and calmly about an issue that can be very divisive. Thanks again for your time and patience. Gecko177 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The place where I found the matching content is here. It's a document published by International Planned Parenthood Federation. Looking at the document and at their website, I don't see any licensing information or any indication that the material is released into the public domain. (You may be confusing "publicly available" with "public domain".)
Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright and can't be copied here. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


Hi Dianna, please see my response on the copyright issues page. The website cites the public domain source right there on the page. I give specifics in the response. Thanks and take care. Boo Boo (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hhfjbaker. I will investigate and fix this when I get back from work. — Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio doubts

Hi Diannaa, I'm reaching out to you regarding this REVDEL you performed in 2022. I think you might have missed a paragraph, which I have removed today while checking for copyvio as part of an ongoing GA review. I am a bit hesitant to request revision deletion of all the affected history, which would imply hiding several hundreds of revisions, for a rather minor violation. What do you think? Broc (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Broc. That's a very good question. Personally I no longer do massive revdels of that type, — Diannaa (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why this content got missed by me during cleanup. — Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Then I will leave it as it is and will not request revdel. Thanks! Broc (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking vandalist

Hi, can you please check this user: Warsun99

judging by his contribution history seems he is deliberate troll who joined Wikipedia just to create mess Ahendra (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

These edits may be misguided but they are not vandalism. — Diannaa (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Professor Georgina Long AO

Hi Diannaa,

Thanks for your note about my major edits on Professor Georgina Long's page. However, I don't believe the content I included in my re-write infringed on any source's copyright. It was original content that Professor Long and I had worked on together so that her page would reflect an up-to-date biography and summary of her personal life, career achievements, sporting achievements and awards. She provided almost all of the content.

I will attempt another edit and include an edit summary to explain changes as perhaps that was the issue.

Thanks.

Sitalia1990 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sitalia1990, some of the content matched material already published online at https://www.melanoma.org.au/about-the-institute/our-team/. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder or have their permission, unless special documentation is in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page.
Regarding sourcing: Each piece of information that you add to Wikipedia needs a citation to a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details about our policy on biographies of living persons, including what is considered appropriate sources for this class of articles. — Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio claim.

Hi Diannaa,

I see that you reverted my edit to Peter Sutcliffe (the information on victim Ann Rooney) claiming that it was a copyright violation from execulink, then left me a warning on my talk page – the first of which I have ever gotten in my 19 years as an active editor. I did not copy word for word the information from the reference. I used the reference as a source and paraphrased. If that paraphrasing was a little to close to the original, fine. But, to claim I outright committed a copyright violation isn't the case. ExRat (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

While you did paraphrase the material a little, I still had to remove quite a bit of content that was identical to the source webpage. That's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The Saddle Club episodes - 15 Plot summaries rewritten

Those plot summaries were copied, but with some edits. 86.129.82.17 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The edits were not enough to prevent it being a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
So what would I have to do to prevent it being a copyright violation? 86.129.82.17 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Watch the episodes. Then, write your own plot descriptions. That's what I did at Queer Eye (2018 TV series) for example. — Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Message from Performer Researcher

Hello Diannaa, This is Performer Researcher. I worked on the page for Marc Douglas Berardo. I added some additional references. I added to the description, radio and recognition. If you have any guidance on how I can ensure that this page will not be deleted that would be great. I also added the new singles to his track listings.

I received a message about copyright on a record I added The Beauty Of This Now and I think also on a very old track. I can't figure out why for Further On Tomorrow. Thank you so much.

If you help me with those issues, I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Performer Research (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There was a paragraph that matched content found here. Please don't copy prose directly from your sources, — Diannaa (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi There,

You left a note on my page claiming I copied material from a link that you provided but did not work. This is incorrect. Instead, I went to the German version of the Ernst Roehm page, and did my own translation of his time in Bolivia which is sorely lacking. It is my own translation of information that doesn't exist on English Wikipedia. Just clarifying! Happy editing! Jjazz76 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you "removed" what I had already deleted as not relevant (the copyrighted material), but I cannot fully check as I cannot see the change from the prior version. It was added by someone who does not have expertise in tribology, see the talk section just above yours at User_talk:Lfstevens. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed some content copied from https://newatlas.com/materials/superlubricity-friction-machines/. It was the paragraph starting with "To get it to work...". The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. — Diannaa (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That material should not have been in the article in any case as it has zero relevance. I have removed some more nonsense from the article, which really needs a TNT. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Murugan

I am just expanding and improving the article Murugan in order to make it a good article on Wikipedia by removing the redirect and typos in it and adding good and accurate content there but you are reverting my good faith edits always. I am telling you to not revert them for this reason and let me improve and expand that article. 2409:4072:58F:337A:D8FA:F659:D54E:5CD4 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The content you added appears to have been copied from another website. You can't do that; it's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
When you know that it is the only problem in it, remove all the copyrighted text alone and leave all the other remaining own written text alone it that, so that other editors can improve and correct that Murugan article now into a good article instead of removing all content in that article and corrupting it also, so please revert your revert now as they are legitimate edits only. 120.56.171.3 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That was not possible. It was a 97 percent overlap. — Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft Draft:Aubrey Milunsky, MD DSc FRCP FACMG DCH was deleted on 18 Jun 2024, due to a copyright infrigement. However, the link that was provided was a bio about the same person, that Dr. Aubrey Milunsky helped prepare himself. I tried to write a similar bio for him, and I believe that is why it was deleted. Is there a way to bring back this draft to be edited again, and how can I change it so that it will be accepted? 50.198.77.241 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2024 (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 or have their permission, unless special documentation is 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.
Sorry but I cannot restore the draft, as Wikipedia cannot host copyright material, not even temporarily for editing, not even in sandboxes or drafts.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you...

for your removal of plagiarism from the Vineyard Theatre article. Are you a part of some formal plagiarism-checking unit here? (I would enlist.) 98.206.30.195 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. Our copyright detection service, like everything at Wikipedia, is done on a volunteer basis, not in a formal way. The particular task I undertake daily requires me to have an account, and it's helpful but not mandatory to be an administrator as well. — Diannaa (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

False flagging

Hi Diannaa,

I have responded to your message on my talk page but wanted to reinforce that the revert on Clinical trial on grounds of copyright violation was completely in the wrong. I understand from your other responses here that there are only 3 volunteers in the anti-plagiarism unit; however, the website you linked (which I have never seen before) starts off by saying FDA issued a draft guidance. Public-facing FDA material is in the public domain and therefore not copyrighted, unless noted otherwise. Perhaps, Earwig's tool somehow incorrectly flagged my edits but nevertheless, the original material was in the public domain, so I ask that you undo the removal—I can't even see what my edits were, so I can't put them back myself. Motjustescribe (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Motjustescribe, if you could please provide me with th url where you found the content on the FDA website I will restore the material. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa,
Thanks for your prompt response and I forgot to thank you for your thankless job of cleaning up potential copyright infringements—thank you. Please see Introduction on Page 1 of https://www.fda.gov/media/174976/download (or click on the "Download the Draft Guidance Document" button here). You should find the glossary containing definitions of the different kinds of clinical trials that might need a master protocol. Motjustescribe (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see that on your talk page you did say where you got the content. In the future, could you please add a citation? If you had done so I would very likely not have made this mistake. Sorry for the mistake. I have gone ahead and restored the content along with the required citation.
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{source-attribution}} after your citation. I have done so for this article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I will remember that—I'm still learning about the many features of Wikipedia, so thank you for letting me know. Motjustescribe (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Texas State Historical Association

I reverted and revdeleted at Wayside, Armstrong County, Texas because of a verbatim copy from the Association. I then took a look at the editor who introduced the violation, and it appears to me that they may be doing that on other pages. For example, the History section of Sparenberg, Texas copies from here, although this time it's close paraphrasing rather than an actual copy. My primary question is whether the Association is claiming a copyright on the material; secondarily, if the material is in fact copyrighted, is the close paraphrasing in this particular example sufficiently close to remove it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. That's a good question. Their website is marked as Copyright © 2024 and their terms of use page sayss that commercial use of the material is not allowed without prior permission, so we can't copy from there.
Regarding the article on Sparenberg, they have paraphrased it adequately in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Diannaa!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Probable copyvio close paraphrasing?

Hello Diannaa. Is List of creepypastas#Squidward's Suicide (Red Mist) a possible copyvio of this article? It may have been paraphrased but I noticed parts of it being "close paraphrasing" not enough to not be considered as "plagiarism". Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi JWilz12345. That's a good question. Earwig's tool shows too much overlap. The paragraph will have to be re-written, or it will have to come out. — Diannaa (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Persian mythology, would you maybe be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to participate in that. — Diannaa (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
No worries Kowal2701 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Note

Thought you might want to be made aware of this personal attack. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I of course saw that, and am giving it all the attention it deserves — Diannaa (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, just saw the copyright deletion, and it was probably necessary. Just a few of questions and notes:

  • Would it make the content OK to write if I extensively paraphrase it (as much as I can)?
  • Can I view the old writing again to fix and paraphrase it?
  • I believe you also deleted some content cited from Anadolu Agency and the Brussels Times. I'm quite sure they weren't violating copyright, considering that content from those news agencies has already been used on Wikipedia multiple times. (I just thought something might have already proven a permission for usage from them, because they were used on several pages.)
  • In case the content from Anadolu Agency and Brussels Times is actually copyrighted and we have no permission to use them, some content from some other pages might also have to be removed, probably more in relation to Turkey and Belgium.
  • What portion of the source https://jabara.istopthearmstrade.eu/ would be small enough to copy? Maybe an estimate?

Viral weirdo (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  • All content you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words.
  • I removed the whole paragraph because almost all of it was copied from https://jabara.istopthearmstrade.eu/. The only parts not from that source were the two sentences "Belgium was arguably the main exporter" and "Investigations proved this to be false." I had to remove that content, because those two sentences when put together convey the opposite meaning of what you were trying to convey. I did not check to see if they were copied from your sources.
  • You shouldn't copy any portion of your source documents into Wikipedia. Everything you add here needs to be written in your own words please. Summarize, don't paraphrase. — Diannaa (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Cost And Management Accountant (India)

Hello Dianaa,

I was interested in adding the latest data and curriculum pattern of CMA. Yes, it's a course so mostly the data was similar/same to college prospectus.

If you think its copied, then I can write in my own word because the whole content seems incomplete. Avik Ian (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of it was copied from this prospectus. Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to give people such overly-detailed information about the eligibility requirements and curriculum. — Diannaa (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
okay, got it. Thank you, will take care of such overly detailed content in future. Avik Ian (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you check page Bioregion?

HI Diannaa,

Would you be able to check and review the revision history of the Bioregion wikipedia page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioregion

There is a user Karl BB who has made a lot of very specific changes and edits, including removing large chunks of what had been added. He's deleted a lot of cited material and is not maintaining a neutral view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

In addition, he seems to be gatekeeping the article, and monitoring for any new additions or changes.

He's the director for one planet, https://www.oneearth.org/contributor/karl-burkart/ Karl Burkart https://www.oneearth.org/what-is-a-bioregion/ which is promoting a very specific definition of bioregion, which excludes a lot of other definitions.

Otherwise - I can go back and just try to review and add back in what I think could also still be included, and which was cited and sourced.

Your opinion about best way to move forward is appreciated.

User:KarlBB CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time to help with this. I am busy working on copyright cleanup as well as real-life things. Perhaps there's interested people at one of the wikiprojects listed on the article talk page that might be able to help you?. — Diannaa (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
You should also have a look at the material already on the talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Will do. CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Between the article Alice White and the Hollywood Walk of Fame Alice White blurb.
I ran Earwig's copyvio tool and got a 68% chance of violations between the two.
Now, the problem is that I can't figure out when the Walk of Fame's content was written. I thought the Alice White Wikipedia article content dated back to at least April of 2010 but it's actually older, September of 2004. I didn't want to slap a copyvio template on the Wikipedia article when it appears that the Walk of Fame is the one that actually copied - as, of course they can - but what about some attribution to WP... Anyway, am asking you to please take a look and see if you can suss out which text was written when. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink. That's a very good question. Steps you can take include checking how far back the Wayback Machine has an archived copy. In this case the oldest archived version is dated Feb 18, 2014. At which point we already had this content. Your suspicion that they copied from us is supported by the fact they are using the photo we had in the info box at that time, and the remainder is pretty much identical as well. Digging back in the history, I see that the article was created by Rossrs, who was a good guy and a FA-level contributor. The odds that he copied that material from elsewhere are vanishingly small, so I would say we are in the clear from a copyright point of view. Something you can do: add a Template:Backwards copy to the article talk page to alert others about it. Thanks — Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Just placed that Template on the article talk. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! There are snippets of copied content throughout the flagged section. Please remove or re-write. It's okay to leave in the quotations.

I've gone to some trouble to eliminate in the CPI article the exact wording used in the NYer article. Is there anyway you can narrow down what needs to be eliminated as a copyright violation? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You can view the overlap using Earwig's tool. — Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
please check copyvios.toolforge and rewrite --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I will look tomorrow. Thanks for quickly taking care of this. — Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi You removed my edit from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority page referring to board and committees, for copyright infringement, the descriptions of the functions of the LCRCA committees and boards are public information https://liverpoolcityregion-ca.moderngov.co.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=67945 from this PDF, under pursuant to the British Government's OGL 3.0 and information stated by the combined authority in the Privacy Policy the information can be copied for non commercial informative use, while i acknowledge that is should have stated something along the lines of "according to the combined authority:" I simply forgot to add this due to the time I made this edit. I do not believe it would infringe on the Open Government Licence v3 copyright standards if I would add the source as a reference., all the best Knowledgework69 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Also just a quick note, the description's are taken directly from the an amendment to the Liverpool City Region constitution (a public document) therefore I would argue it would be improper to paraphrase verses from the constitution. Knowledgework69 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Knowledgework69. I don't see any evidence that the documents are released under the Open Government License. If they were, it would say so somewhere on the document, or failing that, somewhere on their website. I did check the Liverpool City Region website and it is marked as copyright. Publicly available documents are not always in the public domain. It's not the same thing. — Diannaa (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi no worries if I can direct you to this page https://www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/privacy-policy in which under copyright policy it states "All content is available under the Open Government Licence, except where otherwise stated" also due to its nature of being a public record pertaining to governance it does not fall under the exemptions of OGL outlined in https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/uk-government-licensing-framework/open-government-licence/exceptions-to-ogl/. therefore it is able to be copied and redistributed as long as it is stated that is the work of the combined authority. yet again i apologies i should've placed a note on the section detailing that it is from the LCRCA Constitution amendment of 2024. Knowledgework69 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
You also should have cited your source. I am repairing the page now. Please stay off — Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Finished. Note I included this message as part of the citations: " Text was copied from this source, which is available under an Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown copyright." You have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license.
There's also a template {{OGL-attribution}} but I have never found it to be very useful for inline use. — Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Alright will do in future, many thanks Knowledgework69 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Charlotte Deans

Hi, I have just trimmed the article, as it seemed to be a close paraphrase of the Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women article. See Earwig report Does the earlier version need to be revision deleted? I did not warn the author as they have not edited since a discussion of copyright violation in 2022. TSventon (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have gone ahead with revision deletion. Also, I cleared the same content from User:OdaraM/Sandbox6. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I just noticed you crossed 120,000 mark for closed cases on Copypatrol. That's incredible! Thank you for your incessant hard work. You are a hero! NKohli (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar Niharika! — Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to thank you for the citation that you added to the Mende article; since I was using my own book to create the reference, it didn't even cross my mind to cite myself, ha ha. But it makes sense of course! I've edited 20 African language articles so far, adding oral literature citations, and when I actually use a paragraph from my African Folktale bibliography book, like I did for this Mende article, I need to remember to cite myself. Thanks again! Laurakgibbs (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Di, could you take a look at this edit, [3] which appears to be copied in part at least from [4]. It may need a rev/del. I have left a message for the user. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Revision deletion complete. Some content was apparently copied from Murderpedia as well. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I only got as far as checking the first part and felt it was enough to report. I was lazy and didn't check the rest 😳
Thanks for checking. Knitsey (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it alright to ad longer quotes from sources in the refs like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=1240532808&oldid=1240532455

Ill remove it if its not. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Quotes inside citations are allowed. It's not a copyright violation, but unneeded or excessive quotation can be a violation of the non-free content guideline. Whether I remove quotations, especially lengthy ones or what strikes me as excessive, depends on the topic and on the accessibility of the source and on whether or not the material is likely to be challenged. A judgement call. WP:FOOTQUOTE — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please see the Delhi School of Social Work article. The same user has copy pasted parts of the website to the article. Regards. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 19:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Revde complete. Thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. — Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed your removal of a copyrighted poem from 1999 Aggie Bonfire collapse. The same editor appears to have added the poem to Muster (Texas A&M University) as well. Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the report, — Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

List entries

Hi Diannaa. I (mostly) took care of an edit request at Talk:Brian Greenspan for changes to Brian_Greenspan#Notable_clients, but wasn't sure about one of them. I saw you'd recently edited there, so I thought I'd ask your opinion. One the requests was for an individual called Niam Jain.. while the case appears to have attracted a fair amount of media coverage, I'm wondering if this is still a WP:BLP1E person. Also, the coverage of the connection to Greenspan is pretty thin. Is he really worthy of inclusion in this list?

That also begs the question, is any notable client of Greenspan's worthy of mention, just for the fact that he represented them? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of a reflected glory, isn't it? It's like when people mention in an article about an actor that the film also starred Liam Neeson and was directed by Billy Wilder. I think the whole list could come out. — Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_95&oldid=1247009094"