User talk:Diannaa/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Paja Jovanović

There's a new editor adding promotional material for this painter to various articles, as this article looks pretty dubious I did an Earwig check.[1] If it's correct it looks like there's quite a core of copyvio in the article, but I'd like a second opinion to make sure. Thanks. ANd Happy New Year! Doug Weller talk 14:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug. The Flickr page is dated July 2, 2009, and the other one is dated Dec 26, 2009. We already had this content on that date. So it looks like both these potential sources are actually Wikipedia mirrors. — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I mist have been looking at the wrong version of the article. My bad. Doug Weller talk 21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

University of Iowa College of Engineering

Good morning, Diannaa. The article was created with mostly plagiarized promotional content. Perhaps you can rev/delete it. And very happy new year! 73.186.215.222 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, hope you are having a nice holiday season. Task is done. Thanks, — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Message from ASuperEditor

Hi Diannaa, the citation included was:. This is a pdf of a patent. A patent, by definition, is open for viewing and use as part of its purpose in being published and putting the world at notice. It is not a violation of any copyright law to cite or link to it. I can remediate any "potential" copyright claim by putting the description in quotes (see below). Please add back or let me know if you have any questions.

In 1989, Dr. Jacob Lahijani, a researcher at DuPont invented "Balanced Ultra-High Modulus and High Tensile Strength Carbon Fibers." The patent states: “The carbon fibers are derived from a solvent fractionated pitch having a mesophase content of greater than 90% by weight and a quinoline insolubles content of less than 1% by weight. A crude pitch feed is sequentially heat soaked,solvent fractionated, and extruded to form as spun fibers. The later are stabilized or infusibilized and then carbonized by multistage heat treatments involving separate precarbonization, carbonization, and graphitization steps with an intermediate cooling step.” This ultra-high modulus carbon fiber is primarily used in space applications such as satellites and spacecraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASuperEditor (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't figure out which article you are talking about. — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

References

This was a post that was included on the Carbon Fibers page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASuperEditor (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've undone the revision deletion, but I was not the one who removed your addition, and it was not removed for copyright reasons. Please visit the article talk page and make a case for why this material should be included in the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Diannaa,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

MMXX~!! So cool. Thanks for the lovely greeting. Happy New Year! — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Query from DecentChap

On 22nd August 2019, a joint agreement between India and France was signed to begin the development and production of a constellation of satellites, AIS (Automatic Identification System) to automatically track merchant ships on a real-time basis.

On 9th October 2019, a handheld satellite navigation system GEMINI (GAGAN Enabled Mariner’s Instrument for Navigation and Information) was released, for fishermen to receive weather forecasts in advance.

Hey Diannaa, Is the above edit fine to be added to the vessel monitoring system page? DecentChap (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"development and production of a constellation of satellites" and "track merchant ships on a real-time basis" are both identical to the source here so those parts will have to be re-worded. You can check for overlap yourself using https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios. — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Sock?

Hi Diannaa, looks like we have a sock of User:Giubbotto non ortodosso as evidence here [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:70C8:2000:5446:D819:E20E:9D61 (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

?? User was unblocked in 2016. — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Diannaa!

Happy New Year!

Diannaa,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you! Happy new year to you also— 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones Copyright Issue

Diannaa,

I wish to clarify your misunderstanding that led you to delete my restoration of a large passage of the controversy section. I was restoring this passage, which Baidelan had deleted in December 2019 for shaky reasons (see the "Cleanup" section of the article's talk page). Furthermore, this passage was not copied and pasted from the allreaders.com message board to Wikipedia, rather it was the reverse, this passage was written for and published on Wikipedia, and then copied and pasted from Wikipedia to the allreaders.com discussion. I should know, because I am the person who originally wrote it for Wikipedia, and then later used it in the discussion on allreaders. I used to be mmyers1976 on Wikipedia (deliberately forgot my password when I retired from WP in 2016), and am also Mark M on allreaders. Mark Myers = mmyers1976 = Mark M. Look at the date stamp of my message containing the passage on the allreaders message board - 4/11/2011. Now go back and look at the version of the page after my final edit on 4/6/2011:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aline_Griffith,_Countess_of_Romanones&diff=422724632&oldid=422724569

(I apologize, I am rusty at harvesting diffs)

As you can see, the complete passage was on Wikipedia 5 days BEFORE it was on allreaders.com. It's original to Wikipedia, so can stay on Wikipedia (if we had to delete everything on Wikipedia that had later been copied from Wikipedia and used somewhere else, we'd be in a real pickle :) ) Thanks. 74.213.48.38 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have undone the revision deletion. Problems such as this can be avoided by leaving an informative edit summary when restoring content from an old revision. Thanks, — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios at El Salvador

Hi, Diannaa. An editor who refuses to engage on the article's talk page has been edit-warring to re-add content that appears to include some copyvio. Earwig shows content from Climate and Development Knowledge Network has been online since 4 December 2013; it wasn't added to WP for the first time until 29 December 2013, as far as I can see. Carlstak (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I have cleaned the article but I haven't done revision deletion as some of the overlapping content has been on Wikipedia for ~6 years. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. Carlstak (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your entry on my talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from MG 42 into MG 34. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I wrote and introduced that text in December 2017 in MG 42 and started expanding it.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case, sorry for the irrelevant notice. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Luis Alvarez Roure

Hi Diannaa, I've attempted to rewrite paraphrasing or copied passages. When you have a moment, perhaps you can discern whether any rev/deletion is needed. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

All done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like that article needs watching. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

possible copyvio

Howdy. I hope you are doing well.
Would you kindly take a look at Main Inkaar Karta Hoon? Its a recent poem, with entire lyrics on it. As its a recent one, copyrights apply. I couldnt find any sources that the poet has released copyrights in public domain, so we have to assume it is copyrighted. What do you think? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Thank you for reporting,— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you too. See you around —usernamekiran(talk) 07:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please take a look at special:diff/937254119? Earwig wasnt working, I found it coincidentally. The article is at AfD by the way. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That plot description is at https://www.imdb.com/showtimes/title/tt11331320. I will do a revision deletion. Unfortunately we have already run out of our Google quota of 10,000 search engine uses for the day. The counter re-sets at midnight Pacific time. I located the source by pasting the plot description into a manual google search. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

lol. I had already included the source in the edit summary of the edit diff provided above —usernamekiran (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah so it is, I don't know why I thought differently. — Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Request WP:REVDEL in Shelterwood cutting

Hello Diannaa, an anon editor added rapper prose to the Shelterwood cutting article on 1/04/2020, and it was reverted on 1/05/2020 by another anon editor. But the contents suggest that the prose should also be deleted from the article's History. Could you take a look? Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, can you have a look at this edit of mine?

Does it violates CLOP? Can you access the source? If not, I can provide the text through email. Thanks! Cinadon36 16:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have access to the source, so I am unable to assess— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I 've sent you an e-mail! Thanks in advance! Cinadon36 22:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks okay! Perhaps give the author credit: "According to George Wrisley,..."— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for looking into it. I understand the reasoning but attributing opinions too often risks to misrepresent facts or widely held opinions (That could be WP VOICE per YESPOV) to sound as if they are the opinion of a single author. I would rather avoid attributing if not necessary. Cinadon36 11:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wonderlust page

Diannaa I've twice tried to engage with you on the topic of the Wonderlust page, it links to the wrong disambiguation page. Wonderlust means lust for the sense of wonder, Wanderlust means lust for wandering (traveling aimlessly). Not even remotely the same thing even if they look similar. The Wonderlust (disambiguation) page does not exist at the moment, I was trying to create it but now I'm busy dealing with copyright feuds over text that I personally wrote and own because someone's due diligence effort ran out at taking a cursory glance over the wonderlust.fi page, seeing similar text, and reporting it without bothering to communicate like a normal human being.

I reverted your edit the second time to again try and attract your attention to the messages I left, but it seems that it's easier to abuse your editing privileges than engage in conversation. MariusPoenar (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

MariusPoenar. Sorry, I was not aware you had left me a message. All content on this site is subject to our copyright policy, including material in sandboxes and drafts. If and when the permission email is received, the draft can be restored. However, another administrator has deleted the draft as being worded like an advertisement. I suggest you visit Help:Your first article which gives guidance for new editors. Sorry you have had a bad experience. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Otto Kretschmer

Can you tell me why you think the content of this article was copied from HMS Graph!? I've never looked at the article, and in any case it's a bizarre connection. With the exception of 3, I have read/seen all the of the books in the bibliography. I'm curious to know Dapi89 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The article was listed at CopyPatrol, as a result of this recent edit. Searching, I discovered the content had apparently been copied from HMS Graph.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah right. If that is an issue I can easily source it to something else. Give me a day or so. Dapi89 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not the issue; the issue is that the other editor copied material from one Wikipedia article to another without providing attribution, as required under the terms of our license. So I added the required attribution via an edit summary. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more info on this topic.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make.myself clear. It will be re-written via a different source. That clearly seems to be the issue. Dapi89 (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not why I visited the page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael L. Tipsord

Dianna, For the article, Michael L. Tipsord, how can I see my original text so that I may edit it to be within guidelines? -Milo — Milominderbinder2 ^talk 19:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The article was listed at CopyPatrol. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap with the source webpage.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Nora Springs, Iowa

Hi Diannaa, looks like persistent addition of copied or closely paraphrased content here...also promotional. Please have a look when you can. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I will do it in the morning - I am watching a movie :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Current version looks clean. Revision deletion done. Thanks — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Similar issues may exist at North Iowa Area Community College. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that took a bit of digging but I located the original source using the Wayback Machine. All done. Thank you — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

:John Mace NZSAS.jpg

Hi Dianne thanks for your note about this image. The pic was given to me by my father (who was in John Mace's SAS troop), who is now deceased. So I can't ask his permission to use the image. Any advice here welcomed. (There is a publicly available photo on the NZ Historical site Natlib - perhaps I could upload that??) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Errolhunt (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Errolhunt. File:John Mace NZSAS.jpg looks like it is a crop from a regimental photograph, and you or your father are therefore not the copyright holders of the image and are not in a position to release it to us under license. Similarly, this image, while publicly available, is not in the public domain, and per the copyright statement, cannot be used commercially. Since our licenses require all uses be permitted, including commercial use, we can't accept that photograph either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hiya Dianne yes that's true, it was a posed photo of the troop so would definitely have been taken by the 'official' photographer. I have found another photo that (my understanding is) my Father took. This shows Mace in the jungle in Malaya with another NZSAS trooper (my 'Uncle Jock', in fact). I don't have evidence that this photo was taken by my Father tho - just that it was amongst his photos and has one of his best mates in it. Would that image be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Errolhunt (talk • contribs) 11:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No it would not, because you are not the copyright holder, and don't even know for sure who the copyright holder is. — Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dianne it looks like we can't use any of these images, which is a shame but perhaps someone else will have an image that can be used. I'll remove the pic. Thanks for explaining so patiently! Errolhunt (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Block User

Hi, can you please block User:Popoyow111? His last edit to DZOE-TV is highly disruptive (redirecting to other page base on my observation and despite the warnings he/she encountered to other editors). Thank you. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

no, im not im just improving all the articles here since theyre relevant all articles thet rite here in DWET-FM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popoyow111 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict):@Hamham31: There's been no further edits since your last warning. If the activity resumes, please file a report at WP:AIV. Your singature is broken; it needs one more </font> tag at the end please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

AGIOS PAISIOS is a persistent copyright violator

Hi Diana. AGIOS PAISIOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a persistent copyright violator. I think that many of their copyright violations may have gone unnoticed as well. Back in February 2019, you also warned them (and that's why I am reporting this to you).

You may help me decide further actions against this user as I am not really familiar with our blocking policy. A belated Happy New Year to you.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy new year to you also. I did spot checks on their last 50 contribs and found one more instance. I've issued a final warning and will monitor their contribs. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for information: the user has apologized on my talk page. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay cool. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with University page

Hi Diana, can you please help me while we address updating the page for Christine Riordan? I am a librarian working to update, can you revert the page prior to my edits today and I can clear up copyright with you?

Thanks! Krherold (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)krherold

Krherold, we need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, material that has a promotional tone is not suitable for inclusion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will remove the outside URLs and the promotional text. Am I clear to proceed with today's work? Krherold (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)krherold

You don't need to "remove the outside URLs" whatever that means. Independent third-party sources are what's needed. Don't add any promotional content; don't add any copyright content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Unlike a resumé, the material should be in chronological order.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Third party trying to give multiple permissions for others

Hi Diannaa, These two additions look like a possibly-authorized third party trying to give multiple permissions for others but I have a feeling that they may need to use OTRS to sort this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Both photos were previously published online, so yeah, OTRS is the way to go. I've nominated for deletion on the Commons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays and giving information

Hi, I hope you have had good holidays! I just wanted you to know that when I have been adding people to lists like The List of fugitives from justice who disappeared I have been rewording it, just like you have asked me to. Take care. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

can you stop editing?

I am doing assignment using wikipedia. if you and citation bot working every second, I don't know how can I keep doing my work. I got it what you mean, so please don't touch it when I am checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hejrim (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hejrim Don't add copyright material to Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing, and not even in sandboxes or drafts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

RT (TV network)

Hi Diannaa,

Just a quick question about the content you removed. Can I assume that the other content recently introduced by this SPA is not COPYVIO? I'm slowly responding to a bunch of discussions they've opened on the talk page, largely attempts to justify the removal of content. I was leaning toward reverting everything they have done, but there are a few additions (including the COPYVIO) I thought not to be hugely problematic. I haven't got around checking all the sourcing yet. All the best. TiB chat 16:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have now checked, and I'm not seeing any other issues with their additions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a good weekend! TiB chat 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Tapered double-clad fiber

Hi Diannaa, I am trying to respond to your message to me Neil at PULSE Project (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC) , regaring Tapered double-clad fibernot sure this the correct way to do it? I have read through the sectoins you sent, still not sure how to actually aquire a CC license. Also I googled the various sections and while there are hits which omce up that use fimilar terms and units, they are generally either the journal articles referenced in the page or about fiber amplifiers but not tapered fiber amplifiers - am I missing something? The wikipedia page is put together by me with inputs from collaborators who are also authors of many of the cited publications. Also, there was a comment about the page being to technical which I edited to make a more accessible, I have been anable to upload images which would also significantly help make the technical information more accesible. The message when uploading original images is there is insufficient information to ensure it is appropriately licenced. I have followed the links but there is no advice on what the actual file requirements are, only accpetable file types (jpeg etc.) and what you can't use. As you will have gathered I am new to Wikipedia and am a more of a scientist that a libriarian or copyright expert. Neil at PULSE Project (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Neil at PULSE Project : There's instructions for how to go about requesting that a copyright holder release material under a compatible license at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. For a paper like this one, all six authors of the paper would need to consent to releasing their work irrevocably under a compatible license. So a better option would be for you to re-write the material in your own words.

The Wikimedia Commons is our image repository. Here's some detailed information on what is acceptable : Special:Upload or the simple instructions at Special:UploadWizard. In a nutshell, please don't upload any images unless you are the copyright holder. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but a little help at Judith Curry?

Sorry for the copyright issue, but with this edit, the entire quote was removed.[3] Could you help out? Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Two different editors have removed the quote, stating the source is not a reliable one. I can't find it in the other 6 citations you provided either. Two of these were audio of a Corbett Report interview. Does she say the quoted remark in the interview? If so, where exactly?— Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Mark Sublette

Hi, I'm seeing edits like [4] and then later [5] (almost the same as the other diff but this time with no quotes!) from this editor. I see that you have given them several warnings in the past for copyright. Could you please review? In my mind there's no way they should be a PC reviewer and if this is how they contribute (since 2005!), they should be indef-ed and a CCI started. --Rschen7754 23:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That second diff, where he adds it without quotation marks, is a copyright violation. I have said so on his talk page and issued a final warning. I think his autopatrolled should be removed. Alternatively, I could monitor his contribs. Or we could do both. — Diannaa (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm worried that the problem could be more pervasive. For example this has unnecessary quotes. Compare Thomas P. Magruder with [6] - the text is awfully close in areas. I let my Newspapers.com subscription lapse but I suspect that diffs like [7][8][9] might be really close to the source. --Rschen7754 06:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CCI calls for 5 clear examples of copyvio and a case can be opened. Please go ahead and do that if you've got 5 clear examples. — Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mongoloid

Dear Diannaa: can I get your opinion on the Finns and Sami section at the talk:Mongoloid talk page? DerekHistorian is accusing respectable editors like Ermeneich of bias and reverting to the horrible original research section of that article. Also, please see my request for page protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Mongoloid

Cheers, Hunan201p (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to help with this. — Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Albul53

Gianluigi Gelmetti

Dear Sir: Be patient, this is the first time that I'm publishing on wik. There was no need of destroying in a wink the result of painful hours of work. I have acted in good faith and have referenced all the assertions I have made in the article. The © source that you quote from a Spanish institution, has been directly supplied to them by the undersigned. Nevertheless I added it to the refs: cfr. https://operastudio2.fgua.es/maestro/gianluigi-gelmetti/ Anyhow, if something that I published is infringing a copyright I'll be glad to remove it. Kindly let me know what precisely it is so I may proceed. have a Good Day. Thanks. Albul53 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albul53 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 January 2020 (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 the copyright holder has given permission, 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 a client or your employer is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Chipita Wiki page

Hi Dianna,

I am trying to publish some new descriptions on the wiki page of Chipita. Can you please tell me what is going wrong and you change them? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:110D:DDC3:86D:13E3:BD3:AE9B (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The content was copied from the company's website, which is protected by copyright. Sorry but it's not okay to copy from that website to Wikipedia.— Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Abdellatief Abouheif

Hi Diannaa, the bulk of this--the achievements section--looks like it was copied from its source and added in one swoop. Perhaps you can confirm and rev/delete is necessary. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:7D4C:D166:7CE0:B850 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Seven Ranges

Sorry to add this as well--it looks like the content I just removed was copied, too. Thanks again, 2601:188:180:B8E0:7D4C:D166:7CE0:B850 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It was copied from Buckeye Council— Diannaa (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Repeat reversals by previously warned user

Hi User:Diannaa The same user you’ve warned previously as per below, continues to engage in reverting all my edits (factual, relevant, accurate and not “repetitive” or “disproportionate”) on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards. They may also be violating the guidelines with their disruptive conduct: {{style-guideline|MOS:LEAD|WP:MOSLEAD}} Previous TW have had no effect. Any ways to have a neutral party/Administrator deal with this and resolve the endless reverts? Many thanks 🙏 Melroross (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

“ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Personal attacks belligerent and disruptive continued conduct by user:NormanGear — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)”

Melroross (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry all I did was notify them that there was a post about them at ANI. Twas not a warning per se. Admins don't adjudicate content disputes. Please see WP:DR for dispute resolution options. — Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Social justice

Oh, you know. Thank you for the rev/deletion in advance. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you--it's continuing. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes I know, — Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)  Done— Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are not busy

Hi Dianna. We have a copyvio pararagraph at Katerina Sakellaropoulou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) introduced here. I have removed it since but not in one shot since I did not recognise it immediately in its totality. If you think it is important enough, and it's not much trouble to remove, you can clean it up. Thank you, as always, and Happy New Year! Dr. K. 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dr K. I have done the revision deletion. Thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup.— Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks are reciprocated, along with the observation that this was a lightning-fast copyvio suppression. Your tireless work, not to mention speed, is greatly appreciated. Take care Dianna. Dr. K. 19:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue for ICRP 103

Dianna, you recently removed some content from the page "Relative Biological Effectiveness". I will try to rewrite it or perhaps quote them directly, however I was working on a couple sections and I can't seem to see exactly what I had written before you removed it. Can you show me the offending sentences? I'm worried that the information will be lost. Ajnosek (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Request

Dear Diannaa, You deleted the page "Draft:Emperor Penguins Colony algorithm" because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. Can you give me a chance to edit the page for dispelling your concerns? WikiEPC (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I can send you a copy via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. Note too that the draft was already declined once, for reasons other than copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, my email is activated now. WikiEPC (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail. — Diannaa (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you dear Dianna for this chance. I edited the draft and I fixed the copyright infringement concern. I hope the draft has no other problem. I should point out that the reason for the earlier declined was for the reference which was resolved. Regards WikiEPC (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Dianna,I want to ask you whether this edited draft would be reviewed by you?WikiEPC (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't normally review drafts. Please be patient, someone will do it.— Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Amor fati. Copyright ?

Dear Diannaa

Can you tell which part is covered under copyright?

Most of what I edited ---- was written by the copyright author --- Daniel Fidel Ferrer.

Thanks.

Sincerely yours,

Daniel Fidel Ferrer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielFidelFerrer20 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Copied from this paper, you added 10 quotations from Nietzsche and translations of same. The work by Nietzsche is in the public domain, but the translations generate a new copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa Thanks for watching out on copyright.

Yes, that book is in fact written by Daniel Fidel Ferrer (I am the copyright holder). I wrote that work and did the translations. First page of the book, 2011 Daniel Fidel Ferrer. So, can I use my own writings?? I did the translations from German to English. Yours, Daniel Fidel Ferrer. DanielFidelFerrer20 (editor ID). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielFidelFerrer20 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holder has given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Diannaa

Cushitic peoples

You removed a source I posted and the text attached to it, apparently since it’s under copyright. I am sort of new to editing and haven’t made all too many and would like the understand what exactly I did wrong so I can avoid it in the future. I quoted the abstract of this article in the Journal of African history https://www.jstor.org/stable/181512?seq=1

Was the problem that I directly quoted the abstract? Is it simply because it’s copyrighted and that’s that or because the full version is more or less behind a paywall? Would there be some way of being able to use the source?

Thanks in advance if you find the time to answer. MusIbr (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not obvious you intended it to be a quotation, since you did not use quotation marks. Regardless of the copyright issue, Wikipedia articles are constructed using prose we write ourselves, not by stringing together a bunch of quotes. The source is okay to use, but please completely rewrite the material using your own words if you intend to re-introduce it.— Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I’ll keep this in mind going forward. MusIbr (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct Formatting Re: Copyright Material

Hi, thanks for leaving me a note on my page. I am new to Wikipedia and hope I am formatting everything correctly. I see you removed the bio I added for Michael Oblowitz. I did my best to condense down to basic facts from the more editorialized bio that is available online, but I see it still does not pass muster. My questions is, how can I state basic facts, such as when a film was released, who is in it, and awards it received, without having the content removed again? I would also like to maintain the chronological order of his career, which again parallels the material which is already online. I tried to substantiate as many of the facts as possible using the <ref> tag, but some broader statements - such as "his work has been in action and genre cinema" - really can't be said in plainer language. How am I to best capture the facts and timeline without running into further issues? Thank you for your time. RudyAnalytica (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)RudyAnalytica

Just re-write the content in your own words. In biographies, your resulting prose will still resemble the sources, because the material will be in chronological order. But don't copy unique phrases such as "His other mainstream work has been in action and genre cinema" - it's identical to the source; and what does "genre cinema" even mean? If you can't figure out how to include it without violating our copyright policy, you will have to leave it out. How about this wording: "He has directed several action films." Don't use IMDb as a source; it's a wiki, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.— Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I am working with Michael directly which is why I'm finding references to substantiate his history as a filmmaker. I appreciate your help. RudyAnalytica (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You may have a conflict of interest. Writing an article about yourself or 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) 02:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the COI notice to the Talk page of the article. However, I am not a paid editor nor employee. Should I post proposed additions to the "Request Edit" section or can I continue to edit since the declaration is in place? Thanks RudyAnalytica (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's best if you use the "request edit" template. — Diannaa (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

About Aliens Deportation Act 1948

Hi Diannaa. The topic itself is stuff I guess I know fairly well. As for the copyright violations, like it or not, you still appear to be the WP:COPYVIO "Czarinaa". It's 43 degrees Celsius at the moment where I am, so it's a little bit difficult to concentrate on fine details. Please let me know if I can help out in any way. Pete AU akaa --Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Pete, thanks for stopping by. The editor has got it sorted now. 43 degrees, I can't imagine. It's never been that hot here— Diannaa (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hello! As per usual, I am at a loss to sort out which parts of this are actual copyvio, so I am taking the shortcut to the expert... you! My best guess is that the October 2018 version of the article is probably OK. Thank you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, It looks like they plagiarized from us. When plagiarizing from us, websites usually take the lede and select details, which is what was done in this case. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations over a long period

Hi Diannaa, how many block warnings does a longtime contributor receive before they have meaning? I ask because you've dealt with Jnyssen (talk · contribs) in the past, and their fondness for creating plagiarized articles is still evident, per EthioTrees. I can take this to ANI if you advise so. Thanks and have a good weekend, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh.... I just left a section on this at the same time. Quite the coincidence.💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Money emoji, I came across your edit to the new article, then took a few minutes to look at Jnyssen's talk page. This is an experienced contributor. Quite the record. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Normally I do 2-3 warnings and then a final warning, and then a block. Difficult to achieve a good result at CCI for someone who is copying material that is behind a paywall. The CopyPatrol bot will catch at least some of it, but Earwig's tool will not be able to see it. I will visit their talk page in a minute here. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. @Money emoji: For this particular case, nominating 5 articles for G12 in 2-day span counts as one event, not five. So July, Aug, Sept warnings, and now today the final warning. Please let me know if there's any further violations and I will block.— Diannaa (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Black Sea incidents involving Russia and Ukraine

My addition to List of Black Sea incidents involving Russia and Ukraine was correct, because source was from official site of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. All material on the site can be used, because Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Thats a some technical problem in english version but in ukrainian you can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergienkod (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, i understand. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergienkod (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Merging

Hi Diannaa,

I appreciate you voicing your concern about merging content with attributions. In the past couple of years, I've gotten templated messages regarding this, and I promise I'm working my hardest to properly attribute the merged text. On occasion, I accidentally hit the "enter" button before I'm able to type the required comment for the edit summary. I just wanted to let you know that I'm aware of this policy and there's no need to continue with the messages. I'm going to modify my preferences to prompt me to provide an edit summary to prevent this issue from happening in the future.

Cheers,

--GouramiWatcher^Talk 00:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I had a feeling you'd already received a notice but I had a lot of reports to get through and thus skipped searching your archives. — Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I would like to know what excactly was copyrigth on the Earth System Governance and Earth System Governance Project was...? You have deleted my work of the last weeks. I am happy to collaborate but my content is gone, now. So maybe you can undo it and I change the copyright?

Kind regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:1904:A400:998B:408F:6342:8708 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Content was copied from the following pages on Earth system governance:

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10784-010-9137-3
• http://earthsystemgovernance.net/publications/esg-journal/
• https://www.cambridge.org/core/what-we-publish/elements/earth-system-governance
• https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/series/earth-system-governance
• Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security: Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks page 1477
• https://www.cambridge.org/core/browse-subjects/earth-and-environmental-sciences/earth-system-governance

Content was copied from the following pages on Earth System Governance Project:

• https://www.journals.elsevier.com/earth-system-governance
• https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/research/task-force-on-accountability-in-global-environmental-governance/
• http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/people/lead-faculty/
• https://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2013/methodology-for-earth-system-governance-research
• http://www.earthsystemgovernance.net/oceans/?p=147 and multiple other task force description webpages at the Earth System Governance Project website

There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about yourself, your own work, or your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Content/Edits to Social Franchising Wiki vis a vis Copyright Use

Hi Diannaa, I rec'd your email regarding the content I added to the social franchising page in which I referenced our academic-research based RIFC Global Social Franchising Index, as well as links to our home webpage and to the index's page. https://www.unh.edu/rosenbergcenter/rifc-global-social-franchise-index%E2%84%A2 Our resources are available for free for anyone to review. What exactly do I need to provide in order to have our RIFC academic research-based content I provided re-instated on the social franchising page? Do I need to provide express written permission? Or do we need to investigate adding Creative Commons information to our RIFC website page? Please advise. Thank you. Lynnz22 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Lynnz22 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

CCI RD1 query

In 2007 Dr. Blofeld added some German text in this edit.

After a couple intervening edits, it was removed six minutes later: here

We don't want to leave copyrighted information in old edits even if it's removed, but my German is so rusty it's close to nonexistent, and I'm not up for trying to track down to see if it was actually a copyright violation.

Given that there are no intermediate edits other than by Dr. Blofeld, I'm considering revision deleting it as a precautionary step. While I normally don't like to remove something unless it's unequivocally a copyright violation, I think when someone is in a CCI and has committed copyright violations, we take a stronger view even to the step of presuming that edits are copyright violations. I'm not going that far but given the limited damage I'm tempted to go ahead and revision delete it. Any thoughts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sphilbrick, I don't believe that's necessary in this case – it seems that the material was copied from this version of the de.wp page. There's already attribution on the talk-page, so this one looks OK I think. Hi, Diannaa! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Thanks for checking, that makes it even easier. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(waves) Hi JLAN!— Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio in Bloodline (2018 film)

Hi, Diannaa. It seems that the plot section in Bloodline (2018 film) is a copyvio. I took the text off, but would you mind giving it a look? Thanks.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

HMCS Baddeck (K147)

Can you help resolve this please. Our article has a dead link www.navy.gc.ca/project_pride/ships/ship_e.asp?shipNumber=88 which mostly sources the Wartime career section. I looked for an alternative source and came across the official Canadian Government site https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/services/history/ships-histories/baddeck.html . The wording is almost identical to our article and wikipedia has obviously been used as the source for their article (wayback checked). I know they are free to copy us without attribution but I obviously cannot use their copied article as a source to support our assertions originally sourced from the dead site. I do find it concerning that an official site that should be regarded as RS sources information from wikipedia and then is likely to be quoted as the source in our article. Anyhow whats best to do, leave everything as it is sourced to the dead site (and forever have it on the error list), remove it in toto and risk someone adding it back sourced it to the copied site or what? Lyndaship (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lyndaship. I doubt the Cdn Govt copied from Wikipedia, I've never seen a case of such in the past. And I'm not finding any serious overlap between our article and https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/services/history/ships-histories/baddeck.html. Checked using Earwig's tool. Please tell me what you are seeing; I must be missing something?

Wikipedia:Link rot#Keeping dead links says that we should keep dead links; and you should definitely not remove content sourced to a link that is dead if other sources (including https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/services/history/ships-histories/baddeck.html, since as far as I can tell there's no overlap) confirm the content is valid. The same content is at http://www.forposterityssake.ca/Navy/HMCS_BADDECK_K147.htm. As far as I can tell this is different from the prose that used to be at navy.gc.ca/project_pride (I compared http://www.forposterityssake.ca/Navy/HMCS_KITCHENER_K225.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/20111002012243/http://www.navy.gc.ca/project_pride/ships/ship_e.asp?shipNumber=158 to make this assumption) but it covers a lot of the same facts.— Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. On re-checking I can see that the prose has been rewritten but the order and structure suggests that they have a common parent. Looking at wayback the earliest copy of forposterityssake is 17 June 2017 and the current Canadian government site 1 August 2017, our article has similar copy predating both of those. I therefore think all 3 have come from the now deleted project pride site and that the new government site is the successor to project pride with the same copy. On that basis I feel quite safe sourcing to the new government site. Thank you for help Lyndaship (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

copy vio question

New article St.Edward Parish (Chicago) is mostly a copy/paste from this pdf. No copyright notice in the document, but nothing to say it is freely licensed either, so we assume copyvio? Not sure about this one. Thanks. MB 14:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Same thing at Virginia International University, texted lifted from a university document. MB 17:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So it's safe to assume that everything you find online (or in books or magazines or newspapers) is copyright until proven otherwise. — Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You get the revision number from the url! For example your post here was revision number

OK, and I see you have taken care of everything already. In the future, my understanding of WP:CV101 is that I should revert such things and tag with {{copyvio-revdel}}. Is that right? MB 23:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct! If you find the template awkward to use, you can post here and I will do the revision deletion. Thanks for your interest in copyright clean-up. — Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not awkward to just add the template with no parameters and let you or someone else figure out the rest from my edit summaries. The template does say at least |url= and |start= are required. I can add the url, but I don't know where to get the rev number - that is something I've haven't yet even tried to learn. MB 23:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You get the revision number from the url! For example the edit you just did on my talk page is revision # 939198591. See here or here. In the second link, oldid= is the revision number before you made your edit, and diff= is the revision number that is the result your edit. There's more info on this topic at Help:Diff.

That said, it's true that a savvy admin will be able to figure out which diffs to hide even if you don't list them on the template. Especially if it's a recent edit. — Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Davis Lake Park, BC

Hi, Diannaa thanks for taking the time to message me so I understood the issue instead of just deleting content. Yes, I attributed the Provincial Park recreational suggestions - swimming, kayaking and hiking - with a footnote, but will also rewrite the three or four bulleted items in my own words. Perhaps stop by over the next few days and see if it meets your approval? Dirkvent (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dirkvent. I can do that. You can also check it yourself using https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios — Diannaa (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It only took 3 days.

I spent probably 50 hours the last 2 days on a article containing a story I’ve been reading since I was 5. Everything completely citied and everything as well as added Links. But in one highlight and delete EVERYTHING GONE. so Wikipedia is a bullies club and explains why 1 guys done 75% of the work. So I’m done it seemed fun but I GUESS nothing I did the last 2 days meant anything. I show where to get the article and generally who the author is. You smart people realize every journal of historical record is written by one person. Yeah they have a 200 year old priest that only writes the history of the school and adds to website(that was sarcastic). So like i said I just specifically wanted to thank YOU for pushing me out of Wikipedia. It took you 1 min to do that, your good. I’m sure your just deleting this but karma and all that. Need to spread my depression to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemurman (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

hi Theemurman. Sorry but it's not okay to add copyright material to Wikipedia.— Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio in The Cat and the Moon

Hi, Diannaa. How are you doing? I just want to report a copyvio in The Cat and the Moon. Kind regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wildlife on Haslingden Grane

Thank you Dianaaa for pointing out how close this section was to its main source. I've rewritten the information and hope this now meets Wikipedia copyright policy. Hard to deviate from the source, of course, when including a list element. Anyway, hope this improves the edit. Best regards, Bob (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Just picked up on the Copyvio app from your Talk page. Useful! I'll run this after future edits. Thanks. Bob (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio at Gullah

Hi Diannaa, I've just removed some copyrighted content copied-and-pasted from Hiram's 1555 Blog of 2007. Should be revdeled. Carlstak (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thank you. Carlstak (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Elvin Bell

Hello,

I don't see how there's copyright on a conversation Bell.. If you'll look at the Dutch version of the article the translated version of his conversation with Mort Seligman is in there as well. The content appeared to be much like the article over at Traces of War because both that article and the Wikipedia article are simply stating facts, such as the conversation that occurred, which you removed. It would be a chaos if people could claim copyright on conversations... You've removed a important part of the article which I believe is important to the page and its context. I would like to discuss this further and hopefully revert to my version of the page. I was wondering if you could e-mail me a copy of the article before you made edits to my e-mail.

For example, take a look at this conversation which you removed.

Bell, who was wearing a smoke mask, stepped up and said: "I'll go, Sir". "Are you sure you know how to reach them?" Seligman asked. - "Yes, Sir. I know the way." - "Do you realize that you may never make it, or, may never come back?" - "Yes, Sir. I do. But I still would like to try," Bell answered. Seligman gave his approval and assured, he would wait with some other crew members until Bell came back.

Simply because the conversation is posted at https://tracesofwar.com/articles/5223/Bell-Elvin.htm doesn't imply there's copyright on conversations. If it would be, anything I'd say daily and then put onto a website I could claim - So every time someone talks online about certain things and facts I can claim I own the rights to the facts. That's crazy!

-- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be okay to simply copy the conversation but you also copied all the surrounding prose. That's not okay. Also, (an observation not related to copyright) I question whether tracesofwar.com can be considered a reliable source.

I did look at the Dutch version of the Wikipedia page. The Dutch version of the Wikipedia page contains copyright content copied from the Dutch version of tracesofwar.com: https://www.tracesofwar.nl/articles/5176/Bell-Elvin.htm. The original account is from this journal article which has several differences from tracesofwar. — Diannaa (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for e-mailing me a copy of the original. I will update the article tomorrow with hopefully less "prose". Would you like me to discuss the changes with you first or just edit them to the page? -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I can add it to my watch-list. Can you view the article I got from jstor (this here ) or do you want an email copy? If so please reply to my Wikipedia email as there's no way to add an attachment to Wikipedia email. — Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not have access to jstor, I've replied to your e-mail. Thanks in advance for getting me the article! -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Email sent.— Diannaa (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio plots

I hope you understand that those copyvio plot summaries were added by me long ago when I was still an amateur. I was conditionally unblocked after promising I'd rewrite content to avoid copyvio issues. So I hope I don't get blocked again if my recent rewriting attempts on Desa Munnetram and Kalavathi weren't good enough. And there's no better gadget than Earwig? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I did use Earwig's tool on Desa Munnetram, and it showed a low number. But when I manually compared the source document with your new version, there was a lot of overlap. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in each sentence is still a copyright issue if the structure of the sentences is preserved and the changes are only superficial. It would be even better if you only add a plot summary if you've seen the film and can describe in your own words what you saw.— Diannaa (talk)

Jonathan Woodner

Help. I spotted some copyvio in this article earlier today, and just reworked it. But it's been in the article for a while, and I'm not sure how far back to go in revdeleting, given some of the intervening edits. This edit is the one which introduced it into the article in the first place. Mind taking a look? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead with the revision deleion.— Diannaa (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. Sorry to pester, and thanks for your help. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for deletion of copyrighted text

See Talk:MARCOS#Request for deletion of copyrighted text from 'History' section.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted text from McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology

Hi, I need a copy of the text that you deleted from McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology. I remember pretty crearly that the quote was specifically indicated with a <blockquote>, that it was followed by an inline citation, and it was very brief containing just a couple of phrases, therefore it was in full compliance of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. So the deletion is inappropriate and seems at least strange. In any case I need a copy of it (sent via private message or some other way) to rephrased it, since right now I have no idea of what was exactly deleted and otherwise the work I've done is going to waste. --OpenNotes1 (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Some of it was marked with quotation marks (not block quote mark-up) - the ending quotation mark was missing on one quotation - but a lot of it was not marked as quotation and thus was a violation of our copyright policy. It's okay to use properly marked quotations, but not to also copy the surrounding prose. Email sent.— Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I've got the text by email, thanks. Looking at it, and your clarification here, the decision to delete the whole three paragraphs seemed still draconian/strange. Yes, there was a missing closing quotation mark (for the sentence starting with "the students performed better.."), but there was anyway the inline citation, which showed that in fact the quote ended there (and after it there was also a new line marking the end of the parapgraph). All the rest of the text was mine, when not otherwise quoted under quotation marks (which in the guidelines are indicated as valid as the block quote).----OpenNotes1 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Here I have highlighted the overlapping content (excluding quotations) in bold. First the source paper:

Four randomized groups of university students were given the same information at the same time about the structure of preliterate languages. One group received it via radio, one from TV, one by lecture, and one read it. For all but the reader group, the information was passed along in straight verbal flow by the same speaker without discussion or questions or use of blackboard. Each group had half an hour of exposure to the material. Each was asked to fill in the same quiz afterward. It was quite a surprise to the experimenters when the students performed better with TV-channeled information and with radio than they did with lecture and print --and the TV group stood well above the radio group. Since nothing had been done to give special stress to any of these four media, the experiment was repeated with other randomized groups. This time each medium was allowed full opportunity to do its stuff. For radio and TV, the material was dramatized with many auditory and visual features. The lecturer took full advantage of the blackboard and class discussion. The printed form was embellished with an imaginative use of typography and page layout to stress each point in the lecture. All of these media had been "epped up to high intensity for this repeat of the original performance". Television and radio once again showed results high above lecture and print. Unexpectedly to the testers however, radio now stood significantly above television.

Your version (quotations are marked in green):

Between the 1950s and the early 1960s, the Center conducted and experiment that compared the effectiveness of TV, radio, lectures and print in learning. In the experiment, "four randomized groups of university students were given the same information at the same time about the structure of preliterate languages." One group received it via radio (audiotape), one from TV (videotape), one by lecture, and one read it from printed notes. Each group had half an hour of exposure to the material, and the student/subjects were then asked to fill in the same quiz afterward.

The outcome of the experiment was quite a surprise, since it was found out that "the students performed better with TV-channeled information and with radio than they did with lecture and print --and the TV group stood well above the radio group.

In the first attempt, all groups, except the reader group, the information was passed along in straight verbal flow by the same speaker, without taking advantage of discussions or questions or use of blackboard. Therefore the experiment was repeated (with other randomized groups), allowing each medium to "to its stuff" taking advantage of the specific enhancements that it offers: "For radio and TV, the material was dramatized with many auditory and visual features. The lecturer took full advantage of the blackboard and class discussion. The printed form was embellished with an imaginative use of typography and page layout to stress each point in the lecture. All of these media had been "epped up to high intensity." In the second run, TV and radio kept above print and lecture, but surprisingly radio now significantly outperformed television.

— Diannaa (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge School Srinivaspuri

Hi Dianna. Would you mind taking a look at this article? I came across it via WP:THQ#Unofficial wikipedia page. The content I removed was really promotional in tone and could possibly be re-written if properly sourced, but it also had copyvio feel to it. FWIW, I did an Earwig check which came out to be 15.3%; that doesn't really seem high enough to be a problem, but I'm not sure. i'm not very familiar with Earwig and its wording is a bit confusing at least to me: it states "Violation unlikely 15.3% confidence"; I'm not sure if that means "15.3% chance that a violation is unlikely", "15.3% chance that a violation is likely" or "84.7% confident that a violation is unlikely". I guess it's possible it came from another website, but don't know how to check that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any documentation on Earwig's tool. I've always taken it to mean that 15.3% of the listed potential source page has been copied. The more complete the overlap, the higher the percentage. I couldn't find matching prose on the school website but judging by the post at the Teahouse and the wording, the material has been written by a public relations person at the school. — Diannaa (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on Earwig and thanks for taking a look at the content in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Same content seems to have been re-added by the same editor; it still seems quite promotional, still is unsourced and still likely falls under WP:UPE. I did leave a explanatory template on the user's talk page after seeing their Teahouse quetion, but they might not have noticed it or understood it. The Teahose thread has been archived so also they might not have seen the responses their question got. Do you think you could try and explain things to them? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

OpenNebula

Hi Dianna, You removed some content from this page back in December, but footer at the source says content is under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Could you please double-check that? Thank. Maralpa (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. — Diannaa (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks for the clarification! Maralpa (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The material was copied from another website

LibrePcb gives me right to copy LibrePcb website on Wikipedia (see https://github.com/LibrePCB/LibrePCB/issues/628). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom* (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Doom*, Sorry, but that statement is not adequate for our purposes, because it only allows the material to be copied to Wikipedia. Our license allows the material to be re-copied and reused by anyone for any purpose. So what we need is for the material to be released under a compatible license. There's more information on how to do it at WP:Donating copyrighted materials and there's a sample permission email at WP:consent.— Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material

Hi there, I was wondering what was copyrighted on my Draft:Coast Guard Exchange article so that I know what to change and see where it was copied from? Thank you! Friersch29 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Friersch29

Hi Friersch29 , I had to remove the Hsitory section, because the material was mostly copied from https://shopcgx.com/footer-history.html.— Diannaa (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, whew...I thought the whole thing was going to be deleted. Thanks for the clarification. Friersch29 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Friersch29

Up (film series)

Hi, Diannaa. How are you doing? The article Up (film series) has a huge copyvio red tag on it, but apparently nobody reported it. The Earwig's Copyvio Detector is measuring 85,3 of possible copyvio. Can you give it a look? Thanks.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles with that template don't actually get "reported" anywhere; they get placed into a maintenance category, which doesn't attract much attention. For this particular article, we've had that content since at least 2008, so copyvio is impossible to prove at this point, since the purported source webpage was never archived. I have removed the tag.— Diannaa (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I undertand. Thank you again for giving it a look.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Text

Hello, Diannaa.

How are you? I hope your doing great. I saw that you deleted a "Copyrighted Text", but i have permission to use that text. So there is no problem using it. :-) Can you fix it please? Best regards,

MisterGamerNL (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

MisterGamerNL, Content was copied from two webpages: https://medium.com/@LAAgency/the-talented-dj-edy-marron-9bf158621749 and https://beatsradio.ca/artists/1680/. What you have to do if you have permission from the copyright holders of these two websites is to ask them to release their material under a compatible license. 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) 11:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for the reply. But thoose 2 websites have taken the text from the artists bio himself, so they do NOT have a license of the text. I asked permission direct from the artist, and its 100% okay. What can i do? Change the whole text to a different story? MisterGamerNL (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't take your word for it that Wikipedia has been given permission by the copyright holder to host this material. See my advice above as to what to do next.— Diannaa (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

/* Copyright Text */

Ok, Thanks for the reply. But thoose 2 websites have taken the text from the artists bio himself, so they do NOT have a license of the text. I asked permission direct from the artist, and its 100% okay. What can i do? Change the whole text to a different story? MisterGamerNL (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User

Hi I wanted to report two violations of the user in question:

- the first is that she completely ignored the prescriptions that she had assigned her (too long talk page)

-the second is the behavior not pertaining to the rules of wikipedia with regard to referring to other users.

You can find everything on his discussion page. I apologize if my English isn't perfect but I'm Italian. Please correct me in case. Regards

• User JN95 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have too much time to help you with this problem. When you have a content dispute, your first step should be to discuss the problem with the other user on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, please consider using one of the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I will give them a notice about how and why to archive their talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Quigley's Village

199.192.246.122 returned anew on this; are the same copyvio concerns present here, requiring a revdel? They're also going hog-wild in several other articles, so some mass-reversion may be needed. Nate • (chatter) 21:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's what they did on Quigley's Village; The Huggabug Club; more of the same in their other edits. So no, there's no issue of any kind— Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear, just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio in Killerman

Hi, Diannaa. Sorry to bother you again. The plot section in Killerman seems to contain copyvio. Can you give a look, please? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It matches IMDb. Thanks for reporting. Cleaned— Diannaa (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Operation Safed Sagar

Hullo Diana, You have deleted certain additions to Op Safedsagar by me. I will be inserting reconstructed sentences again based on the contents of Air Marshal R Nambiar and Air Vice Marshal D Patnaik's detailed interviews and articles on the subject in the media and otherwise. There will be no violation of copyright. Thanks.
Moitraanak ^(talk) 12:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC).

History removed

I'm the tech support for VLN and I copied the history of VLN from a VLN publication.

It was removed due to copyright infringement. All the content belongs to VLN. Who do I talk to about using our company content on our page. Who do I need to get permission from? Harshone (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. Please review the conflict of interest information already present on your user talk page for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio question

Hello, I just saw your work on Clermont Huger Lee. I did about a half dozen gnomish edits today on that article and never suspected a problem. I usually recognize blatant examples that sound overly-promotional, or are walls of text without wikilinks, or just don't sound like they are written within WP using our conventions. Just wondering what brought you here? An automated copyvio detector? MB 02:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The page was listed at CopyPatrol; here is a link to the bot report, which only shows some of the overlap (click on the iThenticate link). The same user added a bit of content from the same source to Mills Lane (banker). — Diannaa (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting; I hadn't heard of that one before. Thanks. MB 19:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

ZICTA page

Diannaa, I appeal to you to discuss my reinstatement of the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority page on its talk page. Let's discuss it and come to a resolution instead of doing what you did last time. Thanks. --Craig (t|c) 07:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Snow Squall Warning

Hi:

I hope you will not reverse my edition this time. I reworded to avoid copyvio.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Y Pierre cb (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

re: Copyright problem on Harris Museum

Hello Diannaa,

While I did use the information from the museum's website, I tried NOT directly copy and paste nor use all the information they provided, and put quite a lot of effort into rewording it and thought would be sufficient to avoid any copyright issues. Where I did leave it "as is" was for quoted, highlighted through the use of quotation marks which I thought was permissible. I will reword this again and republish the sections, and would appreciate it you let me know if you feel further changes are necessary before you edit any changes I make.

Happy to discuss further... Blammy1 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There were indeed a couple of short quotations, but the problem was pretty extensive so I removed your addition. Please go ahead and re-write and I will let you know if there's any further issues. — Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So-called 'copyright' on Protea repens

Hi Diannaa,

I dispute that I copied from the website http://plantworld2.blogspot.com/2016/09/protea-cynaroides.html?m=0 - in fact, they were the ones who copied word for word my own words, which I wrote on the Protea cynaroides wiki article in 2011. Please see here for proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protea_cynaroides&diff=next&oldid=445030088 Drakenwolf (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the content. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your sterling work! Drakenwolf (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Macrotyloma uniflorum

I am puzzled by the article Macrotyloma uniflorum. It seems to have some major copyvios, but I am unsure who has been copying whom. The section "Climate Requirements" is referenced to and identical to this source and was added to the article on 26 October 2017‎. It gives the date of the source as 3 April 2017, but right clicking on the pdf and clicking "view page info" it gives the referring url as "https://en.wikipedia.org/" and a modification date of 15 March 2018.

More clear perhaps are other sections of the article which seem to be lifted from this site by the same editor also in October 2017. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Funny, I am unable to access that info by right clicking on the pdf. I wonder if it's because I'm using a chromebook. But the Wayback Machine has an archive version of the PDF dated the day before the content was added to Wikipedia. I've been able to match the other content he added with copyright papers available online, so this one is done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, there's a ref named "nut-remed-hg" that's been orphaned in the resulting article; is this one that you can recover, or should the citation be removed? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for noticing that. Fixed.— Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Grumble

Hi, your edit to Icon left the first para with a nonsense sentence, and removed edits of mine to bits unaffected by the copyvio. Can you check I've now re-instated everything? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Johnbod, I did not notice the garbled addition while I was removing the copyvio. Everything looks okay, as that addition was not part of the copyright problem. Thanks for cleaning it up. — Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

DRAFT

... is the keyword here. You removed content from Draft:Eric Johanson (musician) before I have even had a chance to get into the meat of it and do my editing. Why are you removing content from DRAFTS?? I completely understand if I had actually tried to publish this, but I'm just gathering info from where Eric himself has led me and getting it here so I can work with all of it. You can OBVIOUSLY see that this is merely a very rough draft and not meant as a published article. Please give editors a chance to work with content before you come in and delete. Debraannclark (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but we're not allowed to host copyright content, not even in sandboxes or drafts. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations and Copyright

Hi, Can you help me with how to use citations while adding some source to the content but one of my content has been removed and marked as copyright content. so, could you please help me with citations on how and when to use?

Thanks.

Mercy k (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy k (talk • contribs)

The way we do it is we find some source material, which could be high-quality websites, books magazine articles, etc. Then we re-write the material using our own words. Then add a citation showing that the source confirms what you have said. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. Copying things from other websites is not allowed. It sounds like you are just starting out. Please consider visiting our help pages or talking to experienced users at the Teahouse to get advice on how to edit Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks for your advice and Yeah..! I am a beginner at Wikipedia.

Mercy k (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

How much copyrighted content necessitates the old revision view block?

Hello! A new editor copied one paragraph directly from a source: Two-factor authentication (2FA) was already possible on Ring devices; however, it was opt-in—meaning plenty of folks didn’t take advantage of the additional security. Ultimately, making 2FA mandatory is good for protecting users, even if some people might complain it adds an extra step. [here is the diff]

I removed that part from the article, but don't know whether that amount is large enough that someone like you should be alerted to protect the revision which contained that text?

Thanks for your time and advice!!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I went ahead with the revision deletion. You don't need to reproduce the copied content for me; in fact it's better if you don't. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, reproducing the quote was rather stupid of me, sorry about that. But my question remains, how much text constitutes a copyright problem? At what threshold do we consider copied text a problem? One sentence, two? X number of words? Thanks!---Avatar317^(talk) 01:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer that part. Entire sentences copied from elsewhere are a copyright violation. I would consider unique words or phrases to be a violation even if the segment is quite short. It could even be only part of a sentence. It's a judgement call. Bare facts are difficult to re-word (and often don't need to be re-worded), but unique creative prose is not. There's some examples of what I mean at WP:NOCREATIVE. If the segment is short - a creative phrase or descriptive bit - I will typically re-word it and not do the revision deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Florida State University College of Business

This article grew significantly today by likely COI editor. I haven't found that it was a massive cut/paste from the University website, but there does appear to be a lot of close paraphrasing. Not sure if it should just all be reverted as COI or if there is a copyvio here. If you have a chance to take a look. MB 23:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I started going through the content but Earwig's tool showed that they'd copied from about 40 different pages of the school website. So I removed pretty much everything. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

/* Copyright Text removal */

You are irresponsible. You have deleted copyrighted text ALONGSIDE serious drug interactions in Duoxetine page. Those interactions were not copyrighted material. Now I can't recover them You should have deleted only the copyright text *history* not the serious drug interaction citation which are from different source.

Duloxetine. The material appears to have been copied from this copyright journal article. The list of drug interactions appears in Table 1 on page 591, and the material I removed in my second edit is on page 590. It would be okay to copy the list of drugs from the table but you will have to re-write the descriptive prose that accompanies the list.— Diannaa (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Copywrite Armageddon (convention)

Hi, I see your message but I have no idea which text you are referring to I was adding the references to multiple sections on that page which covers 25 years of history of Armageddon in New Zealand can you please let me know which text you feel is copywritten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageradts (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed some material copied from https://www.armageddonexpo.com/. It's the 2 paragraphs beginning with "For those new to the event, Armageddon is a celebration of a diverse mixture of gaming, geekdom, ..." This is not encyclopedic content regardless of the copyright issue. — Diannaa (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Clean Draft:Anaplastic oligodendroglioma

Sorry, I don't understand the question. — Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you please check and improve this article again? Wname1 (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

2nd opinion wanted for copypatrol matter

Here is a report for an edit that pretty blatantly copied from Jatland.com, which appears to be under a free license. However, the Jatland article the edit copied from was created and edited by Lrburdak, who is currently the subject of a CCI here (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101122). So should the edit be reverted as a copyright violation out of caution, or should the user just be given a notice to free license copys? Thanks, Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi 💸 Money emoji. Jatland.com is not compatibly licensed, because the GNU Free Documentation License alone is not a compatible license. So it will have to come out. — Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, Thanks! reverted. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Earwig, but not about timing out

I know there are issues with Earwig, but I thought I just ran one successfully:

Earwig

I'm troubled by the fact that I ran an early version of an article, and Earwig flagged the current version [Economy of Bács-Kiskun] but claims a 0% overlap.

Any thoughts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's happening. When I compare revision 88202525 with the current version by placing its url in the search bar, I get this. When I perform the same search as you but on the current revision, I get a similar result to yours. You might consider asking the bot operator. It's probably because those urls are excluded. Fun fact: Blofeld added some of the same material to Bács-Kiskun County (diff). — Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, OK, I'll check S Philbrick(Talk) 23:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Technical issue

Hi Diannaa. I noticed that a user moved the page Hafsa Sultan yesterday. However, it seems that the links to other versions of the article have not been included on the new page, and rather have stayed a part of the redirect page. I tried to fix the issue myself on WikiData but didn't get any results. Would you take a look at it and see if you can solve the problem? I notified the mover himself, but since the links still don't appear in the corner, I thought I might need to ask an admin for help as well. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 22:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to edit Wikidata any more, because every time I try, they chew me out for doing it wrong. Perhaps you could ask the person who moved the page if they know how to fix it. — Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Text 2

Hi Dianaa

Please insert back all the changes I spent hours submitting as soon as you can. I have added quotes from MY book on the subject and properly referenced it, and also contributed MY OWN expert knowledge to the page. I am an internationally recognised expert on the history of the DMP and have published a number of books and articles on the subject. I am happy to re-word the quotes more if need be.

The historical information on the page now is incorrect.

Thanks

Best wishes, Anastasia Dukova (AnastasiaDukova)AnastasiaDukova (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2020 (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. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.— Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dianaa,

Thanks, I will look into that. In the meantime, can you share the edits with me so I can further rephrase them at least? I really do not understand why you had to delete historical factual amendments. I've only used about 3-4 quotes from my book and one from an article. I've also drawn on other historian's research, and cited it. I am an academic and I am generally aware of permissions and copyrights. All of that would have been easily fixed by some further paraphrasing of myself. I am sorry, but your actions were so unnecessarily reactionary.

I cannot seem to view history, I am new to this so.

I am serious that in its current state, the entry has omissions to a point of misrepresenting the history and structure of the organisation.

Thanks. AnastasiaAnastasiaDukova (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sending you the removed material via email. While a bit of the copied material was marked as quotations, most of it was not, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't re-add it until it's been released under a compatible license or completely re-written. — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Too much quoted material on talk page?

See [10]. I can see why but it may be too much. Doug Weller talk 21:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see why too, but it is a bit much, and the quotations should be more clearly marked to offset them from the analysis.— Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue, Relly Raffman

Hi, Diana --

I noted your comment on my sound file (sunnyside.mp3) in the article on Relly Raffman. The file was taken from an unreleased tape, not a commercial product or any kind of "official" recording, by the Clark University Jazz Workshop Ensemble. No one claims copyright on this recording -- not the university, the band, or anyone else. So I wasn't sure what kind of rationale to provide -- instead, I just put the MP3 file on my own web site and linked to it in the article. I trust this should put the article in compliance with the copyright rules -- if not, please let me know, and I'll try another approach. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info@kafalas.com (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, copyright exists on the material. Copyright is automatically granted to the author of an original work. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So that means Wikipedia can't host this material without the written consent of the copyright holder and its release under a compatible license.— Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Law or no, there is no party claiming copyright on this file. There is no author -- it's a recording of a band and vocalists -- it was not authored by anyone in particular, and 37 years later, I have no idea who actually recorded it. But I notice you didn't delete the link -- does that mean it can stay? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info@kafalas.com (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The link will stay until the file is deleted. That will happen on or around March 1.— Diannaa (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Lyrics added on Treat You Better

Hi, sorry to bother you. Is possible to cross out this edit? Because the IP user had added lyrics to this article and I believe it's a copyright violation although that the edit was made a long time ago. Raritydash (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you— Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dilemma

Dear Diannaa, let me first thank you for your audible clarification regarding such a sensitive issue as copyright, and for all the hard work you seem to be doing, in my opinion, perfectly for Wikipedia. I am sure that other contributors, along with me, appreciate and admire your efforts and neutrality you show when it comes to the above-mentioned issue (and that is said without irony or sarcasm). I have a great understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, however, at this point another similar sensitive issue emerges. But first, let me explain what I primarily do in terms of contributions to Wikipedia. I try to enrich relavant articles (especially those touching upon medieval military geniuses) with interesting myths and legends that make up the oral tradition of their descendants. I have to admit that I have been enormously lucky to have had a lot of glorious opportunities to talk to these people in person. Obviously, when we speak of oral tradition, it is clear that to include reference listing the source of the information acquired in the form of human communication wherein knowledge, art, ideas and cultural material is received, preserved and transmitted orally from one generation to another is nearly impossible as many of those local people still stick to nomadic or a semi-nomadic lifestyle and believe me, not many of them have an idea what internet is, never mind Wikipedia. And when I do find a rare source (for example, for that same story about Tamerlane and the ant) it gets deleted because of the copyright laws, and when I don't, it is removed because of lack of citations from third party sources. Therefore, I would like to call upon the admins, before they ruthlessly delete materials either because of the copyright laws or lack of reference to credible external sources, to raise this issue among themselves and come with an appropriate solution. Best wishes. Visioncurve 06:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Copying prose you find elsewhere is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy.The solution is to re-write the content using your owns words, and citing your source.— Diannaa (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I bet it will get deleted anyway. Thanks though!- Visioncurve (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Royal Falkland Islands Police

Sorry to bother you again! The copyvios I have found recently are related to upcoming Pictures of the Day. I can't promote the featured picture I want to if the related article is full of copyvios. In this case, it is Royal Falkland Islands Police which appears to have been edited by a succession of undeclared CoI editors. I have removed one large copyvio and asked for a revdel, but other parts of the article also flag up errors in Earwig and it is difficult to untangle the good from the bad. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

OK the wee article is now ready for prime time. Thanks for the report. No bother! Happy to help.— Diannaa (talk)

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"copyright"

The book: "who first used the site as a camping ground and then gradually settled there".
My text: "who camped and later settled there".
Obviously that is not "copied directly from the book". It is actually paraphrased about as much as possible without losing key information.
Your text: "who settled the area". It not only throws away key information, it is wrong (not the area but the site). Nothing in the copyright rules says that deleting information provided by the source is required. You even rev-delled my edit!! Your edit summary "that's identical to the source book" at Khirbat al-Buwayra is also a falsehood. Actually Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing, and neither of these two examples (my versions) were especially close anyway. Zero^talk 00:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. For Khirbat al-Buwayra I meant the original edit, not your version, and you are correct, it was not identical, as the source says "contained the foundations of a rectangular building that was equipped with cisterns" and the addition by Tibetan Prayer was " contains the foundations of a rectangular building with cisterns." Not identical, but a copyright violation/exteremely close paraphrase all the same. There's 790 articles where this book is used as a citation, so all these small violations will add up to a heck of a lot of copying. Today I found over 50 around 20 violations, and there's many many more village articles yet to be checked. Correction - I checked around 60 articles and found about 20 violations.— Diannaa (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You have indeed found some copyvios that need fixing, but I think your degree of strictness is excessive. Material that is only about one sentence in length can be presented in only a small number of ways and copyright law allows for that. (I'm not an expert but not ignorant either.) For Khirbat al-Buwayra, perhaps you can suggest how to properly paraphrase "contained the foundations of a rectangular building that was equipped with cisterns". Zero^talk 01:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason I visited these articles is because they are part of an extremely large copyright clean-up that a group of us are undertaking: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld. We started on January 15 with 24,563 articles and are now at 6751 as of this morning. I don't think the rectangular building so important that we need to violate the copyright policy of this website to leave it in. While it's not a requirement that the person discovering the copyright violation should re-word it, I did re-word a couple of his edits in today's batch, but the most important thing to do in an undertaking of this size is to get the violations out of the encyclopedia, not to stress about how to re-word unimportant details so that they can be left in. — Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really want you answer the question of how to properly paraphrase "contained the foundations of a rectangular building that was equipped with cisterns". I am perfectly entitled to put this information (not necessarily wording) into the article and I want to. You are quite right that you aren't obliged to correct copyvios by rewriting, but you shouldn't be reacting to someone's good faith attempt at fixing the problem by paraphrasing by reverting and revdeling. I've respected your work for many years, but I can't not push back against this way of operating. Zero^talk 02:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I found your new version to still be too close to the source document; that's why I removed it. Please feel free to get a second opinion if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To give a more direct answer your question: I would not re-word that material, as I would not even include it - it's an unimportant detail in my opinion. I daresay almost every village has a rectangular building. It's not such an important fact that I would violate our copyright policy to put it in. Please feel free to get a second opinion if you like.— Diannaa (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

That is bizarre reasoning.

I daresay almost every village has a rectangular building. It's not such an important fact

You are making a content call on a topic whose ramifications fly over your head, surely?Have you the slightest idea of the topic area? People are expelled, uprooted still, or court cases are argued for rights in the I/P zone substantially on the basis of what material infrastructure is, or might be, on this or that patch of ground. Several hundred villages were razed to the ground, and the only idea of what was there comes from fundamental sources that record the material infrastructure pre-existing 1948. I'm sure you don't mean to do this, or realize its implications, but it is unavoidable that systematically eliding stuff like this on that kind of grounds would effectively corroborate a known national POV which has executive force, to eliminate traces of prior existence by the Palestinian population in those territories. Therefore, this programmatic deletionism has, unwittingly, serious NPOV fallout.

Numerous pages where Khalidi is used aren't on my watchlist, so if someone is going through them and using this extreme reading of copyright law to maim them, the few editors who have edited them won't notice much of the, to me, unnecessary damage: In this area his work is fundamental: it is the basic source. The editors who use that work are all long-term contributors who, excepting myself, are extremely scrupulous, and, excepting myself, never yield on fatigue grounds if the threat of long hours of correction hovers in sight. The simple solution is to list all pages where a copyright violation is perceived for those editors' attention, and see to it that they do what is asked. Since automatic reverts and revdeletes have, in a numerous of cases been questioned, one should assume good faith and give time for the concerned editors to fix what might appear problematical. Otherwise significant damage might result from unilateral actions.

If one can't write 'The groundwork of a rectangular structure furnished with cisterns,' then 90% of FA articles are vitiated by copyright violation.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Nishidani for the second opinion. I am adding "with the foundation of a building with cisterns".— Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This general problem can be expeditiously resolved just by marking down a list of all affected articles where you see problems. There are 3 editors with intimate knowledge of the area who, at the drop of a hate or with sleeves rolled up, would fix attentively anything of this kind, if they are offered the opportunity to do so. It would also relieve you of a substantial burden of work, and with the possibility of checking each revision. The problem is solely to have their attention drawn to this stuff.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight and your offer of help. — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)