Open main menu


 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is 2:56 PM where this user lives in Alberta. (Purge)

LennonWallImagine.jpg

Canajoharie CreekEdit

Hi, im pretty sure that the new section i made is ok to add to the article. I fixed the parts that were copyright violations. please let me know what you think or if any other things need to be dome. Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've done some more amendments and the issue is now resolved. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Pax geneEdit

hi, just wanna say that my content is copied from the public domain interpro. its actually quite obvious if you checked the bottom of the page. i dont care about whether the prosite people have copied interpro too, but please review your deletion. --Artoria2e5 🌉 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The page https://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/entry/IPR001523 shows a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, "Copyright © EMBL-EBI 2019". The papers you cited in the removed segment were http://www.jbc.org/content/279/32/33601.full.pdf and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11103953, and neither of those shows a compatible license. Not sure what I am missing here? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The EMBL-EBI terms of use, which permits use "by any individual for any purpose", and does not impose any additional restritions beyond what the (non-EMBL) contributors give, is usually taken as public domain when applied to text that EMBL people themselves write. This is the widespread consensus for people (including these EMBL/Pfam folks themselves) who edits protein domain articles. And there is a template called {{InterPro content}} for that sort of use. --Artoria2e5 🌉 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Artoria2e5, (talk page stalker) Some editors who work on copyright issues take the position that, as nonexpert volunteers, we should avoid interpreting nonstandard wording. The wording should either reflect one of the specific acceptable licenses, or be unequivocal ("this material is in the public domain"). While that phrasing initially sounded pretty solid, the first thing that leapt to mind was whether "individual" included organizations or only living people, and if it's restricted to living people can we make the argument (probably) that Wikipedia editors qualify and it isn't the case that it is being used by an organization (Wikimedia). But while I'm fairly sure, I'm not 100% sure which is exactly why there is a preference for standard wording.
However, I decided to see the terms in context. The phrase "may be used by any individual for any purpose" is in a sentence talking about software. It looks to me like they are making it clear that anyone can use their software but I don't think software means all text. Furthermore, item 7 says "we reserve the right to update these Terms of Use at any time". If someone makes a good case that the terms discussing software also apply to text doesn't this clause suggests they could retroactively change their terms which is contrary to our requirements?
I note that this is not a one-off use but a site that used repeatedly. Even if the consensus is that it can be viewed as public domain, in view of the multiple uses, I would encourage someone to contact the appropriate people and urge them to use standard language for licensing. However, while I initially thought that I was possibly being too picky, I am now very concerned that the material cannot be viewed as being in public domain. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I have sent an email to the EMBL folks to ask for some explicit copyright wording on this matter. Let's hope they will respond on that.--Artoria2e5 🌉 17:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Artoria2e5, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit history needs to be deleted for three articlesEdit

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicotine&type=revision&diff=900276420&oldid=900226164 Content was copied word for word. It was a copyright violation.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usage_of_electronic_cigarettes&action=history

Edit history needs to be deleted for the usage of electronic cigarettes article. When I forked over content to the usage of electronic cigarettes two of the citations had the attribution missing. Here is one of them I fixed.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=900000305 I eventually add the missing attribution.

Edit history needs to be deleted for the Electronic cigarette article. When I expanded the page at least one of the citations had the attribution missing. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quack Guru. I did the first one but not the other two. We don't do revision deletion for missing attribution. Just add the missing attribution and warn the user/advise them how to do it themselves next time. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy Patrol Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndromeEdit

I dropped a note to Doc James here User_talk:Doc_James#Copy_patrol_advice_requested. You are obviously free to address that incident as you see fit, but you might wait to see if he decides to help.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Help with party pageEdit

Please see Talk:Green_Party_of_California#Grounds_for_Ideology, please and thank you. Stevemario (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

/* The Voice Kids UK */Edit

Hi Diannaa people keeps changing the series to Jessie J in the last chair but Jessie is in the second chair. Can U Plz Help Me (TMarrofficialuser) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDitorTVCambodia222 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryptocurreny/Blockchain categoryEdit

@Diannaa: Hello! If it was from NEM's facebook page (which I am part of the admins) Is it still considered as copyright? Thanks! Mickieann (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is copyright. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright removal on Ages of consent in AfricaEdit

Hi Diannaa. This is in regard to your recent edit on Ages of consent in Africa. Because the revision has been hidden I can't see exactly what was removed, but from context it would appear to be an excerpt from the Zambian Penal Code Act? Zambian legislation is in the public domain - see section 8(2) of the Copyright and Performance Rights Act: "Copyright shall not subsist in a Bill introduced into Parliament or in an Act of Parliament." So in my understanding it does not have to be removed under our copyright policy. Cheers, htonl (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have re-added the legislation, but not the editor's interpretation of what he believes it to mean. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! - htonl (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Potential COPYVIOEdit

Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the LGBT History Month article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Woodlot and sorry for the delay in replying. The biggies were (as I expected) Wikipedia mirrors, but a couple of paragraphs had to be removed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyrightEdit

Diannaa, the content of my recent edit on the transport section for Green Party of England and Wales was within guidelines to the best of my understanding, as it was in the Parties manifesto! as a result, it's in the public domain, I know this as I'm a member of that party and other parties have lifted our material verbatim, and legally we have no standing as it's not copyrighted! Also, I'm on the transport working group, and I drafted part of that section... so I'm giving myself the right to edit my own work! I will be reinstalling you edit and improving the section! if you want to hear more about the Green party, I'm happy to fill you in on our policies... namely disability rights as I have complex visible and nonvisible disabilities! Also "... and welcome to Wikipedia" I'm sorry but it seems you have been a member for 5 months longer than me, so stop with the patronising statement, as a disabled person I get enough from society and from other members of the Wikipedia team I'm sorry to say! I don't wiki every day, and thus do not have the same rank as you as it takes me twice as long to write half as much as well as the fact as I'm working on my PhD!!! Regards The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but the page is marked at the bottom as "© The Green Party 2006 - 2019" so we can't copy it here unaltered or lightly paraphrased. That's a violation of our copyright policy.
If the copyright holder wishes 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) 18:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you not understand what I said! or comprehend the situation I'm in? I expanded the text, and added extra source material and substantial charges the section! I'm a member of the party and thus given myself permission, not least as I wrote part of the policy! reinstate my edit, please!
Regards The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I did understand perfectly, and I'm not allowed to take your word for it that you own the copyright to that website. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi The Emperor of Byzantium. In addition, to what Diannaa posted above, I just going to add that being a member of the party doesn't give you any special editing privileges or control over the content in the article. Wikipedia articles aren't owned by the subjects of articles, and your connection to party might be seen as being at least an WP:APPARENTCOI (just based upon your posts above) which means you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference.
Another possible issue with the content you added is that Wikipedia articles are intended to be written in a neutral voice which is balanced in how it portrays the subject. Most content posted on the websites of organizations such as political parties tends to be written in a way which promotes the party and its positions; in other words, in a way not suitable for Wikipedia's purposes. So, even if copyright was not an issue with the content you added, it still might be inappropriate to copy-and-paste or to closely paraphrase the content from the party's website. Perhaps, you can figure out a way to summarize the main points of the content in a neutral manner and then support that with a citation to some reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To all concerned... I know, why don't you bloody sort it out instead? OK? Just a thought???... Disabled people are still allowed to do that right? or are you going to correct me on that as well? OR say I'm not disabled either??? you won't be the first one too! Show some god dame respect to people who work hard to try and overcome grammar and hand-eye coordination issues... I do not need this crap! Happy Regards from the UK, unless you don't think I'm from there either! The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Diannaa did "bloody sort it out". Which is why the copyright violation was removed. Disabled or not disabled has nothing to do with it. Please attempt to understand WP policy and guidelines. Marchjuly's comments above are also quite appropriate.Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

DonglesEdit

This is an appeal to ask you to review my most recent edit of the 'Dongles' article now taken down by another editor.

I provided two simple statements backed up by photos of physical objects: one showing the Operations Manual for the Typecraft typesetting software describing the use of a dongle in 1982 and the other showing dongles used to protect the Wordcraft word processing software.

The statements were:

"The Operations Manual for the Typecraft typesetting software shows use of a dongle in 1982 (see photograph)."

and

"The Wordcraft word processor used dongles for protection on the Commodore PET computer, the IBM PC etc. (see photograph)."

Is anyone claiming the statements are untrue? Is anyone claiming the photos are faked? If so, any photo on Wikipedia could be a fake. I think common sense has been lost somewhere along the line here and I appeal to your sense of the reasonable.

Later edit: I have sent the permissions emails you requested for the images referred to above along with providing a category for the older, 2011, image.

This morning when I used the wizard to upload two images there was no indication that additional permissions would be required beyond those provided in the fields displayed by the wizard.

Later still edit: I apologise for expanding this again as I imagine you are a very busy person - I am retired (whooppee!) so I have free time. I am a totally stress-free, pretty laid-back, decent sort of person, I have enjoyed over half a century working with computers and I suppose I am an "expert" in the fields I specialise in - I have represented the UK on international bodies in some of those fields. I do my best to remain calm and to provide reasoned arguments - but I am afraid that editor MrOllie is trying my patience. He seems to have a policeman's rigid adherence to rules (I have read the ones he has referred me to, I agree with the vast majority but I am critical of others) and orders and I have no idea what position he has within Wikipedia.

At the risk of sounding paranoid (moi?) it seems to be open season in Trusley Mike at the moment what with him hacking away at the only two articles I have contributed to and you getting at me (quite rightly) about stuff relating to images (now sorted I hope). I can't help thinking that the two of you must have had a chat.

If you have a second could you please have a look at my latest response to his comment in the "Article needs some major updating/rewriting." section of the dongles talk page? I have tried to outline my concerns.

I hope that common sense, reasonableness and discretion will win the day.

Trusley Mike (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages. MrOllie and I have no connection. His status here is ordinary editor, like yourself, and I am a Wikipedia administrator. We both independently found problems with your additions to the article (in MrOllie's case) and with the images you uploaded (in my case). Just some advice: It's not appropriate for you to question the motives of either of us or suggest that we must be in cahoots. Sorry but I don't have time to help you with the issues discussed on the talk page. The problems seem to be that you are using primary sources and original research, neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia editing. Nobody is saying that the photos are fake; what he's saying is that photos are not considered appropriate sourcing. There's a difference. When you get into a dispute with another editor you should first discuss on the talk page, and if that fails, then proceed to dispute resolution (see WP:dispute resolution for how to do that.) Sorry if my remarks above are incomplete or over-simplifying; I don't have time to study all the nuances of your dispute. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As you can imagine, I am very disappointed with your response. I am not implying anything, but, like must people, I always question coincidence - especially when something put up eight years ago is suddenly questioned by two independent editors, one of whom is an administrator, within a few hours of one another. I accept what you say that it is a pure coincidence.

Wikipedia readers are being deprived of truthful and provable information and MrOllie seems proud of the fact that Wikipedia is a "regurgitator of material cited from elsewhere" - his words, not mine. An illuminating quote.

How do I get the provable facts into the article when there is no third party citation? It should be self evident to both of you, from the material and background I have provided so far, that everything I have said is true. Would you be happy with a barrister's sworn opinion that what I say would stand up in court?

Trusley Mike (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but if you don't have a citation we don't want the content. That's the way Wikipedia works: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright for Draft:Hindi impositionEdit

Thanks for your messages! I will keep editing this page until the problems are fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokoyaki28 (talkcontribs) 00:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Really?Edit

Valentine (film)

Really? You still remove my edit even though I had a refrence? Really? Really? Really? The King Gemini (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the content because it was copied from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242998/trivia, which is a copyright web page. That's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexandre CingriaEdit

I tried to rewrite the page some more, does it look better now? I'm pretty bad at it, but I tried harder this time.★Trekker (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but it's still identical to the source document. here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate report link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand, how am I supposed to rewrite it so that it's not a copyright problem while still relaying what the source actually says?★Trekker (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I tried again. Better this time?★Trekker (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's okay now from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yay!★Trekker (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

William Martin LeggettEdit

Hi Dianaa,

Most of my draft entry for William Martin Leggett has been removed as it appears to have added copyrighted content without evidence that source material is in the PD or licensed by the owner. Is it possible to be more specific pls? The problem may be that I based my draft entry pretty closely on my article on W. M. Leggett at AustLit (https://www-austlit-edu-au.rp.nla.gov.au/austlit/page/A127555). Do I need to seek their permission to draw on that article for Wikipedia, or alternatively ask them to remove my AustLit entry? Or does the problem lie elsewhere? - I'm not aware that I've knowingly plagiarised anything.

Regards Cvening (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing the content from the AustLit website does not change its copyright status. It enjoys copyright protection immediately and keeps it for the usual copyright term whether they take it down or not. You can re-write the content so it is no longer identical to the published article, or you can provide documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Eckford Article RevisionEdit

Hello Diannaa,

Thank you for your input on my article changes. I want to be able to properly add information onto this wikipedia page for Elizabeth using the details I initially wrote in. If you had any other contributions you can help me with in order to make the article flow better and remain free of any violations? I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

-Annampolk

Hello Annampolk and welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like the article is the subject of a class project. Please make yourself familiar with our expectations before you go any further. There's some exercises for students at https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training, or consider visiting Help:Getting started for information on how to contribute to Wikipedia in a useful way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

CopyvioEdit

Recent edits on Amaravati and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region.--Vin09(talk) 11:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I got Amaravati, but there are no recent edits at Andhra Pradesh Capital Region? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

CC contribution is missing attributionEdit

Hello Diannaa, sorry to bother you (I should probably know the correct templates by now), but could you double-check and add an appropriate attribution in Gamification please? The edit at [1] is clearly copypasted and adapted from [2], possibly by a fellow or colleague of the authors in good faith. Fortunately the source page seems to be published under a CC BY 4.0 license (see article info on top of source page "Under a Creative Commons license") and may just need a proper attribution to be fixed. Thank you for your help with such issues. PS just for clarity: the recent edits by Kacako in the same article are a separate copyright issue, handled via revdel request. GermanJoe (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe. Thanks for the report. I have added the required attribution and alerted the user to do it themselves in the future. I will leave the rev-del for another admin to do so that I can get today's batch of copyright issues dealt with. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on KoledariEdit

Hiya Diannaa 😊 I wanted to better understand the reason for your copyright concern on Koledari page. The song lyrics I added to the Ukrainian section are from a folk song and furthermore the section above had folks song lyrics there too which weren’t a concern. Thanks. Berehinia (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Song lyrics are copyright. A translation to English of an old Ukrainian folk song may be copyright even though the original lyrics are in the public domain. Someone restored your addition the next day — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem, United Nations Industrial Development Organization Goodwill AmbassadorEdit

Dear Diannaa, I am writing on behalf of the Advocacy and Media Relations Division of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) HQ in Vienna. The information added on the United Nations Industrial Development Organization Goodwill Ambassador Wiki page was taken from our official website: https://www.unido.org/who-we-are-unido-brief/goodwill-ambassadors It was written by our team, and we would like it to be present here as well. Could you kindly assist us with this? Many thanks in advance and kind regards, Dana. P.S. This was a number of my "change": 193.138.105.29

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 talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Native American slave ownershipEdit

I'm getting a very high copyvio level on this, but don't have time to deal with this right now. We have a cluster of related articles with serious copyvio problems. Many trace back to the same contributors. I've done heavy cleanup on some of them, and warned the still-active accounts, but could really use another set of hands and eyes on the copyvios. Would be very grateful. - CorbieV 19:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This page is a copy of Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. Which in turn has a large overlap with the article Native American slave ownership. I'm not going to investigate further, as the remainder of the potential source documents for this one also appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Byron CaseEdit

The website www.stasia.org belongs to me, and I am responsible for it. You have marked my changes to the page Byron Case for deletion due to copyright issues.

I need you to tell me exactly which content on my website has been copied (as opposed to referenced) and what of it was copyrighted. I note that it is on the sub-page "Appeals", but I am unsure exactly what it is, and why it is in violation. == Couillaud 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regarding what the overlap was, it was material regarding appeals. here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Regardless of the copyright issue, it's not appropriate to add content to Wikipedia from your own website, unless you've got independent sourcing to back up each statement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Just going to add that if the website belongs to you, then you need to be aware of WP:CITESELF, WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. The link you provided above doesn't look like a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, which means it shouldn't really being cited or content from it added to the article regardless of its copyright status. I can't see the content you added or how it was cited because of the revision deletion Diannaa did, but you might want to ask at WP:RSN or even WP:BLPN about whether the content or source should be used.
Unrelated to the above, there appears to be something amiss with your signature. Did you sign it using four tildes per WP:TILDE. Your signature should contain at least one link to one of your userpages per WP:SIGLINK, but yours doesn't. I checked the a couple of your recent talk page posts and found the same issue. Have you ever edited your user preferences? Sometimes when they are editing their preferences, and editor will mistakenly check the box "Treat the above as wiki markup" in the "Signature" section, which will remove the links from their signature. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
In reverse order, to the best of my knowledge, I have not edited my user preferences. I do not know how to do so. Here is my signature
Couillaud
You need to sign using four tildes ~~~~ to produce a valid signature with wikilinks and time/date stamp. Is that what you are doing when signing? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
And there does seem to be a problem with my sig. I AM using the four tildes will change it, if someone can tell me in simple English how to do so; I have a problem with most Wikipedia instruction pages, as they tend to use a form of English that I only see in computer instruction manuals and legal contracts. I tried to fill out the necessary form to donate my web page material (even though it is not copyrighted), but the "explanation" page tends to confuse the issue more than help. So, in simple English, what are my basic steps? I found the donation form referring to files instead of pages. Please have pity on such a Luddite.
Also, wold it be possible to reply to me on my talk page? I don't know if the etiquette changed while I wasn't looking (a possibility, since I haven't done that much editing over the last few years)? I have been accustomed to writing on another person's page in personal discussions, and seeing their reply on my own. It would help prevent the problem I just experienced, trying to write to your page while YOU were writing to your page. . .
Lastly, I should make the full disclosure that I am family of the murder victim of the person highlighted on this page, and that the editor who created the page and provided most of the content is a supporter of his, and a member of the "Free Byron Case" organization. Most of the "Biographical" section is sourced from the subject himself, who wrote his own story, and the photo being used was already deleted about a week ago by another admin over copyright issues, but replaced by the original editor a few days ago.
I'm typing out my full user name this time ---
--- Couillaud talk
Coupla things. First, if you're a family member of the murder victim, you should not be editing the article at all, because you have a conflict of interest. Second, how to access changing your signature: click on "Preferences". Go to the section labelled "Signature". Tick the box "Treat the above as wiki markup" if it is not already ticked. Add the content [[User:Couillaud|Couillaud]] [[User talk:Couillaud|talk]] to the box where it asks what your signature should be (assuming the box is empty; if the box is not empty, simply review the contents of the box to ensure it's similar to what I've placed here). Press the button labelled "Save". Finally, no, I am not going to reply on your talk to questions you ask here; it's better to keep discussions in one place so they can be reviewed in full at any time and all the replies are properly threaded. Edit conflicts will occasionally happen; I'm sure we can all learn to cope with that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Then perhaps I need to again mention that the individual who created this entire page ("Emily.ch87") is a member of the organization working for the subject, and has a bigger conflict of interest. The edits I made were in the interest of making sure the whole truth in the story is accurately told, as the original writing is propagandizing by leaving much important information out. It talks about "controversy" in his murder conviction where there is none. The article is about the murderer himself, NOT about his victim. I am not related to the subject, and his victim is not the subject.
I found preferences, and the box was ticked. I don't remember doing so, but let's see if the change takes.
--- Couillaud (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I have just sent an email to permissions@en-wikipedia.org (I figured it out, I hope). Please let me know if I'm using the wrong method, but I sent the email, identifying myself as the creator and sole owner of the website, with the standard permissions and waivers. -- Couillaud (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Couillaud. A couple of things in no particular order.
  1. Your signature problem seems to have been sorted. Usually it's something simple, such as a syntax error or (as in this case) a checkbox which has been accidentally checked. Some editors, like Diannaa, have customized their signatures; so, if you'd like to do something like that please take a look at WP:CUSTOMSIG.
  2. Help:Edit conflicts can happen on any page at any time, and there's no real way to prevent them. They usually happen on articles which are being heavily edited by multiple editors (e.g. an article about a well-known person who has just died), but they can happen on talk pages too.
  3. For Wikipedia purposes, all content found online (even on user-created websites such as the one you linked to above) is going to be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise, even when there's no copyright notice anywhere on the page. So, if you want to make all or part of the original content on your website copyright free, you can do so by adding a statement to the page which says such a thing. You can also add a license like one from Creative Commons to the page as well. Be advised though (striclty from a copyright standpoint), you're going to need to license the content according to Wikipedia:Copyrights using a license that Wikipedia can accept. For example, any license which says "for non-commercial use only", or "for Wikipedia use only", etc. is not going to be free enough for Wikipedia's purposes.
  4. Based upon what you've posted above, you would most certainly be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to anything written about this subject on Wikipedia. As you state, others may also have such a conflict as well; however, that's doesn't mean you get to set the record straight. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some information on the kinds of edits the Wikipedia community thinks are acceptable for a conflict-of-interest editor to make. I will add some more information about this thing to your userpage for reference. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest, but it does highly discourage it and expects editors to comply with relevant policies and guidelines. As for these other editors, you can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but please be very careful when you post anything about them per WP:OUTING. Only refer to them by their usernames and avoid providing any specific information about who they might be in the real world which might be a violation of WP:BLPPCOI. The best way to contest edits which you feel are made by a conflict-of-interest edit is to show how they don't comply with relevant Wikipdia policies and guidelines.
  5. Generally, it's best to try and keep a discussion in one place since it makes it easier for others to follow. So, if someone posts on your user talk page, you can reply there to keep everything on that page as much as possible. Similarly, if you post on another editor's user talk page like you did here (perhaps in response to something they posted on another page), then they can choose to reply here or the page where the original post can be found. This practice is a especially good one to follow when it comes to discussing article content because it keeps everything on the article's talk page, which makes it much easier for others to participate and also easier to keep a record of what was discussed for future reference as needed.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

ChartCo Wikipedia article for reviewEdit

Dear Diannaa About 2 months ago you removed the whole or part of an article I submitted for publishing on Wikipedia: 'ChartCo'. You quoted the reason for removing this 'that the article appears to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material has been released by owner'. In order for me to have this article published, could you please explain what parts of the article that needs approval by the company owner or legal agent - is it a matter of asking the company owner/legal agent to approve the full article and the logo used within it, or must they approve EACH of the citations in this article? It is not entirely clear to me what I must do. Many thanks LHamstig — Preceding unsigned comment added by LHamstig (talkcontribs) 14:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There was a minor copyright violation, but that's not themain problem. The draft has been repeatedly declined as being more like an advert than a Wikipedia article and lacking independent sources. Those are the issues you most need to tackle. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

English Patriot Man?Edit

Have a look at "JackRussell1962" as a possible new incarnation of EPN. Usual German-related subjects and English politicians, but the edit to Elvis Presley is a giveaway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer for JackRussell1962 and EPN's top 8 socks by number of edits: [3]. Seems pretty probable to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I have investigated and agree. Blocking now. Thank you for doing this investigation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Clean-up is still underway. Thanks to everybody who is working on that aspect. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletionEdit

Hi Diannaa, I've noticed that you've recently deleted some history revisions, so I thought I could call on you. There's a not so collaborative user who wrote this in an edit summary yesterday. I'm sure this should be deleted and he should be warned not to write again such things, also I think some of his recents edit summaries (visible here) might be considered inappropriate or even incivil, but I'm leaving such an evaluation to you. I hope this report of mine was useful, bye. 5.170.47.128 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry but those edit summaries don't rise to the level where they would qualify for revision deletion. Minor incivility, a bit of swearing, and sarcasm are all allowed and don't qualify for revision deletion — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

CopyrightEdit

Hello Diannaa and thanks for the message. I want to reworded the sentences so they are not copy and past more. I hope you will answered to me soon. Best regards Nathan Annick (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: the page was not down but you have copy the false link. Here is the correct link:[4] and you can check it. There is no other copyright violation in the article. I'm sorry for the mishap. Is it possible when I write it with my own words and used the source? Best Nathan Annick (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for supplying the source. I'm not sure a good source; you might check at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to confirm. The article is now okay from a copyright point of view.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome. Thank you for the answer and I'm sorry for the mishap again. I will not do that in the future. I'll take your advice and ask for it there. Nathan Annick (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Dionis Zhmaili#ProblemsEdit

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Dionis Zhmaili#Problems. Alerting you with this since you may have ping alert disabled. 1989 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Red Kitten 01.jpg

I was just on CopyPatrol and we ran into each other on Draft:Kim Beauvais! You beat me by a minute. :) Good work, as always!

Snowycats (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Snowycats! Did you notice there was a copy of the draft at User:WindyCityWiki/sandbox? sneaky — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I did not notice that Diana! How'd you come across it? I'd love to learn from one of the best! 17:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of times when people with low edit counts (say 25 or less) start their draft in a user sandbox, and then copy-paste it to draftspace. I usually check contribs for these editors to see what else they've been up to. Here's another one from today: User:MMS-Neurobiology/sandbox was a copy of Draft:John H. Byrne. I found that one because it contained the same photograph from the Commons. (Note that userspace sandboxes are not at present included in the CopyPatrol auto-checking system.) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
One of my kittehs - her name is Ninja
Cute kitten! I have 2 cats right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio on John WillysEdit

Hi there, I wonder if you can advise about this page. I tagged it for copyvio a couple of months ago. I'd like to amend it and then request revdel, but am not completely sure that the source is not a Wikipedia mirror. The page is not dated so I can't see whether it predates the creation of the Wikipedia article in 2005. Would you be able to have a look? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The oldest version archived by the Wayback Machine is dated for 2014, and we've had this content since 2005. So we can't prove anything either way. The source webpage also has a copy of the article Willys which we've had since 2003. The two Wikipedia pages were created by two different people two years apart. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!Edit

Copyright Barnstar Hires.png The Copyright Barnstar
Every time I see you you're trying your best to clean up and make sure Wikipedia is at it's best.★Trekker (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ★Trekker! cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Ethics of...Edit

Dear Diannaa, I am at a loss of what happened with my contribution in Ethics of circumcision. You sent me a message about copyright violation saying that parts or the whole of the text I added was removed, but then, when I compare versions I cannot immediately see what it was you removed because of copyright violations. Also, I did not do a copy & paste when adding the text concerning the 2012 AAP statement. I changed sentences, used other words but tried to stay close to the original wording in order not to create conflict as the topic is a rather sensitive one as you may now. So, could you please explain me what exactly happened and what should be done now? Kind regards, Yuri. Yuri7474 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2019 (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) 16:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, while you were answering me, I finally discovered myself which text was problematic. I understand the problem. I will rephrase and put it back later. Thank you! Yuri7474 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok great! Thanks Yuri! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Diannaa".