User talk:Diannaa/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)

Diannaa, you suppressed (revdel) my contribution, supposedly for a content violation (referencing https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-that-busted-unions.html). However, you obviously didn't check my contribution against this article, since various portions had citations from totally different sources. Even if somehow there had been copyrighted material, it still doesn't justify an entire suppression. Again, it looks as though you didn't actually check. This is all the more suspicious since no proof was given by you and I can't verify for myself. I would appreciate at least having access to the history to retrieve my work. Torvalu4 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 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. The highlighted material is a match for what I removed, except I also removed the sentence "Many other employers followed suit", which does not appear in the bot report but does appear in the NY Times article. That's all I removed; no content was removed that was sourced to other sources. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I retrieved my work. However, now that the offending material has been removed, I don't understand the need for a revdel. Torvalu4 (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy. This is done to remove the copyright content from all old versions of the page as well as the current version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Taxation in Albania - likely copyvio

Hello Diannaa, edits in Economy of Albania and Education in Albania by the same new editor have been clear copyright violations. So the recent edit in Taxation in Albania is very likely a copyright violation of its source too. However, I am not able to access the paywalled recent source to verify this. Could you double-check the article please and revdel the 2 recent edits if necessary? Thank you as always for your help with such issues. GermanJoe (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe. Sorry but I can't view that source either, and the iThenticate bot didn't pick it up. So I can't say definitively whether it was copied or not. That said, you were right to remove it presumptively under the circumstances. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Good grief

Thank you very much here. I am just gobsmacked. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Seldom have we seen so much copyright violating spam added so quickly — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What gets me is, what do they think they are doing? They're from a supposedly professional publicity company. Is it in their ops manual or staff induction notes? "Ah yes, Wikipedia, important site, lots of readers, you must put up a page about each client, it's just like a free web host ... yeah, just use their stock text off the web ..." I mean honestly. Does someone feel that they did a good, legit afternoon's work on that? I ... just ... gah!!!! Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Citing Book Premises

Hello Diannaa,

I was wondering what, in your opinion, is the best way to include and cite novel (or even film) synopses? This has been the main issue I've faced so far when created novel pages, and as I plan on ultimately trying my hand a film pages as well I know I will face a similar problem.

And thank you for the warm welcome to the community, even if it was followed by a necessary scolding, haha.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDROMITUS (talk • contribs)

Normally we write them ourselves! Read the book, watch the film, then write. Normally plot descriptions don't have citations — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you! ANDROMITUS (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Q

Hello Diannaa. Could you please check the section on my sandbox? It is from the IMDb. No one can c/e that. Is that a problem? Also, should I cite the same source for every single actor/actress? There should be an easy way to do that. Puduḫepa 19:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Puduḫepa. I assume what you mean is, "Is copying the cast list a problem from a copyright point of view?" The answer is no, lists of facts are not copyrightable. That said, many film articles don't cite a source for the cast list. For help getting started with citations, please see the help page Help:Footnotes. The section WP:REFNAME covers the specific topic of how to re-use a citation using named references. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. So I don't even need to cite the section? Puduḫepa 19:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have a citation, add it please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Is that mandatory? The list is too long. If it is ok, I will go ahead and create the article. Puduḫepa 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a copyright issue

I see that you have a lot to do with copyright issues, but I have a different problem for you...if you are willing to look into it. I think it's an Original Research issue, so if you know of another editor with expertise in that field, I'd be happy if you were to forward it on. You recently reverted a copyright issue with Ellesmithfagan, so that's how your name came up.

She added a paragraph entitled "Insight" to the article about Joyce Kilmer. I would have just deleted it myself, but multiple edits have taken place since then, so others have seen it and left it in, but I was concerned about it. It was added in on 2019 March 3‎ at 11:01.

Thanks! WesT (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to help you with this issue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So I see. You are a bit busy. No problem. I'll find someone else to help with this. WesT (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I can't overdo it or I start to experience health issues! Gotta stay well - in it for the long haul. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Henry Pope Anderson photo

The photo belonged to Henry Anderson, who's deceased. I (his son) uploaded a scan of it. What sort of permission is needed? Rare4 (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Whoever took the photo - that's the copyright holder. That's the person who has to provide permission. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Boljoon Church

Hi Diannaa - I hope you're keeping well. I'd appreciate some advice on the above. I picked it up as a Good Article Review but running it through Earwig's Detector has shown up a possible issue, [1]. You'll see there are large overlaps with Facebook, SlideShare and TripAdvisor. I seems to me more likely that those sites have picked up the content from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Is there any way to confirm this? And would it leave any copyvio issues it they had? Thanks in advance. KJP1 (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The Facebook post is dated January 14, 2016 (at which point we already had the content), and attributes Wikipedia. The SlideShare post is dated Aug 27, 2016, at which point we already had the content. Trip Advisor post is dated April 24, 2018, so it too is a Wilipedia mirror. No copyright issue at our end. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In regards to perceived copyright violation in Draft:Unified Architecture Framework

Diannaa, thank you for analyzing this at a constructive level...

The material that I removed was only lightly paraphrased .. `— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How do I send you my e-mail address non-publicly so I can continue to work the descriptions of the View Types and Domains offline to a point where they are concise, correct and not perceived as copyvio? Pnkflyd831 (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sending it via the Wikipedia email system, which does not reveal your email address to me or to anyone else. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dianna, Sorry to bring this back up. I haven't updated that e-mail address since 2008 and no longer have access to that one. I just updated my e-mail to a current one, can you resend? ThanksPnkflyd831 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. YGM — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks Diannaa for the feedback and links. Very much appreciated :) Now I know what to do. First time on Wikipedia. AMENF (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi - sorry to bother you again, I came across Ed Edmondson United States Courthouse and noticed that the text looked suspicious, so checked with Earwig which says it's mostly a direct copy/paste from here. Is that public realm content though because it's a Government website? And does the article need to be tagged it in some way to indicate that? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, yes, text on the GSA website is public domain unless otherwise noted because it is a publication of the US federal government. I don't see any copyright notice on that page, so it is public domain. While copyright law does not require us to mention where the text came from, WP:FREECOPYING does. I have added the relevant template to the references section. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Thanks - I'll try to remember that if I come across something similar in future. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) episodes

Hi, here in good faith so don't take this wrong way if I sound rude. When changing - to – or something similar (like in this edit) please be careful because one of the templates (specifically Template:Television ratings graph) on the page broke as it only accepts - but it got changed to – when you did the rest, thanks TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay good to know. Sorry about the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I've made my fair share of mistakes just thought it was worth mentioning. Have a good day! TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick question 2

Hi Diana, I take the point that my addition to Creative Destruction Lab had to be removed because there was too much copyrighted text. The problem is that your deletion included content that I think didn't violate copyright rules, and I don't seem to have the ability to undue your edit so that I can correct the text that is problematic. Can you advise on how I can efficiently correct the text you removed (as opposed to starting over again)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmathewm (talk • contribs)

Pretty much everything you've added to the article was copied from copyright websites, so I won't be able to restore it. I can send you a copy of the 20:08, August 5, 2019‎ version of the article via email if you like, but virtually all of what I removed is unusable, as it's copyright material. Please let me know if you want to do this (and activate your Wikipedia email if you do) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on a song

Could I ask a question concerning the copyright position on the song "Shave 'Em Dry". It was published in the United States in September 1924. As far as I can tell, and I have more work to do on this aspect, the song was composed by Ma Rainey and Papa Charlie Jackson. Rainey died in December 1939 and Jackson in May 1938. In the Wiki article about the song, which I recently wrote, I have quoted some of the song lyrics from various recordings over a 11 year period, primarily to illustrate the changes to the lyrics over that time. Does that violate any copyright as such ? I do not want to get into trouble !

I hope you are well. Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Derek, I am well, hope you are also. I always start with the Commons:Hirtle chart to determine copyright status. You can see by the chart that US works published between 1924 and 1977 enjoy copyright protection, but the copyright would have had to have been renewed for that protection to still be in place. You can try to determine this by using this database — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - as thorough, as ever, in your replies ! Yes, I am ageing pretty well for a fool of three score years (and some), thank you very much for asking. It seems to me that this song is no longer in copyright, and I have hopefully not 'breached protocol' in quoting some of the lyrics in the context I outlined above. I should have mentioned before that Lucille Bogan's 'unabridged version' is not for those who may be easily offended. Given that it was recorded in 1935, it perhaps shows the youngsters that there really is nothing new under the sun. With kindest regards from dear old Blighty. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Valentine

OK Dianna. Listen here. I was not copying from iMDB.com. I used them as a reference when I went to edit the article again. What's your deal? The King Gemini (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The content you added was identical to material found at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242998/trivia. Copying from other websites is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

EPN?

User:92.29.151.145‎. Geolocation looks right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly him, tool says likely static — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Hi Diannaa. Would you please take a look at Game of Thrones: Season 8 (soundtrack). I feel the section titled "Background" might contain material directly copied from the source, but since I wasn't sure I thought it would be better to ask someone more experienced to check it. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 07:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Keivan.f. The material was quoted, but not properly punctuated. We don't need all that non-free content. I removed some of it. I did find some copyvio in the lead. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Diannaa, Thank you kindly for your detailed explanation regarding my luther burbank edit. Forgive my posting here, ss I am new here snd wasnt quite sure how to respond to your post, this appeared to be a potentially appropriate place. While I can understand removing part or all of his quotations (if you are willing, maybe inform me as to how much, if any of that quote I am allowed to post), I am a bit confused as to why the rest of my post was removed? If you could please enlighten me, I would be most gratefully appreciative. Thank you most kindly. This is the very best user name of them all (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry This is the very best user name of them all for the delay in replying. Short quotations are okay but only when there's no alternative. A tiny stub of 281 words where 237 words (84%) is quotations has definitely got too much non-free content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio at Economic and monetary union

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a likely copyright violation for content added to Economic and monetary union on May 4, 2019. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of the content was copyvio and some was obviously original though low quality. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ruppin Academic Center

You removed 12 editions of this article as copyvio. The first good version (which you edited) contains the phrase

The laboratory materials and neuro-physiological nature and behavior of Prime Rglaim

Could you examine the deleted revisions to see if there is any indication of what "Prime Rglaim" may be? 2A00:23C3:C980:5100:D467:5266:A34C:4089 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to determine the meaning. It was added that way by the editor who added it (user:Yamit29). The source is this list, which is also kinda garbled. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation by User:11S117 from BBC News

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2019_July_2&type=revision&diff=904511976&oldid=904509927
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2019_July_2&type=revision&diff=904522890&oldid=904521558
  • I see you've removed/paraphrased. Thanks. I have done some revision deletion and given the editor a templated warning. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Since I can recall that I have mistakenly made an article Malla Raji Reddy long ago which was deleted after serious discussion on copyright issues. After that I have made no wilful violation of copyright policy of Wikipedia. Considering my contributions in articles of English Wikipedia it is my earnest request to you to reconsider about the Autopatroller right, if possible. Thanking you. Pinakpani (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

There were copyright issues in April; that's not "long ago". The answer is no. Please re-apply in 6 months or a year. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help

Just added the "copied" templates to the talk pages of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hardware_random_number_generator and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Comparison_of_hardware_random_number_generators , since a small part has been copied from it. Thank you very much for your suggestion, wish you a nice day and a great time on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecpus (talk • contribs) 05:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Wish you a nice day ;)

Lovecpus (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Diannaa - at what point does it become WP:OVERKILL? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's too much already; it's refspam. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

removed — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Request that you review the technicals associated with a justified block

Diannaa, I was traveling off the grid and used my phone as a hot spot to attempt a trivial housekeeping edit at WP, unlogged. I was stopped by an overly broad block. If you look at this editing log for individuals impacted by that block, you will see edits of the Radha Stirling page on 3 July, and of the Paul Dolan (academic) page on 4 July—editing work inconsistent with (and so arguably are not associated with) the 4 July vandalism that led you to block this set of mobile users. (I did the Stirling editing, and some other bona fide WP editor did the Dolan editing.) Is there any way for you to refine that block—and future mobile blocks more generally—so you do not punish innocent editors along with vulgar, offensive, vandalising, guilty ones? With regard, I am... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:21B2:AA59:DE9D:B526 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah I did see that there were a few good edits from that range. But there's also this vandalism, this untrue fakery, this BLP violation, this vandalism, and more, as well as numerous (twelve) copyright violations. That's just this week. There's plenty more problematic edits if you check further back. You might also be interested in viewing the block log for that range, which also factored into my decision to place the block.

(off-topic) That Paul Dolan article has a lot of editing, with many people creating accounts specifically to edit that page, performing a smallish number of edits, and never editing again. This has been going on for years. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that there is someone, in the mobile range in question, that is editing as a vandal and scofflaw, maliciously. But you will also see that the numbers do not match mine. Can you not narrow the range in the block, so it catches the mobile no(s). in question, but not mine? As the title and content of this entry state, the block is acknowledged as necessary, against the offending address. But can we not stop catching the good, in the net for the bad? Cheers. 2601:246:C700:2DB2:7DF7:ACB5:BCC5:24E (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Narrowing the range from 2600:1008:b100::/41 to 2600:1008:b140::/42 misses some of the IPs to which he has access. For example Diff of Wikipedia:Sandbox, Diff of User talk:172.78.186.137, Diff of User talk:Diannaa. In fact it does not cover any of his edits from the period June 27 to July 4. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

these 5 IPs are all him. None of them are in the 42 but they're all in the 41:

Sorted 5 IPv6 addresses:

2600:1008:b100:c62b:b5ae:8924:63e1:83db

2600:1008:b123:2f14:7d6d:a497:fa2d:762f

2600:1008:b127:f5b0:cc50:4935:5e00:635b

2600:1008:b156:a9d1:a08a:2ad2:ed85:e08d

2600:1008:b164:4339:a8c9:5c51:45a4:8598

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
8M /64	8M /64	5	2600:1008:b100::/41	contribs
512K /64	1 /64	1	2600:1008:b100:c62b::/64	contribs
	512K /64	2	2600:1008:b120::/45	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1008:b156:a9d1::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1008:b164:4339::/64	contribs
5 /64	1 /64	1	2600:1008:b100:c62b::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1008:b123:2f14::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1008:b127:f5b0::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1008:b156:a9d1::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1008:b164:4339::/64	contribs

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

So do I read correctly that no narrowing is in fact possible—that punishing the not guilty with the guilty is an inevitable outcome of a system that must disqualify the series of addresses that you list, instead disqualifying just those listed in the series? That is, do I understand correctly that when A, B, D, F, G are guilty, the only way to catch them is by disqualifying A-G, and not by disqualifying A, B, D, F, G (and unjustly penalizing C and E)? Last RSVP, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:D1C5:609F:C4A7:4D73 (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your question is no, there is no narrowing of the rangeblock possible. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

And is it likewise impossible to block each number in the series he has used (rather than the range), or is that simply without impact? Or is it a matter of workload—that to continue to do individual blocks as his addresses changes would be onerous, and justifies excluding known bona fide editors during range blocks? Just asking to be clear, here. Thanks, that is the last question from me on this.

Since it's a dynamic mobile IP the user is assigned a new IP each time they access the site. If they're moving about in their car, a new IP will be assigned each time the signal moves to a new cell tower. Blocking IPs they've already been assigned has no impact, because they're extremely unlikely, given the extremely large number of IPs in a IPv6 group, to be assigned the same IP twice. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, I now understand! With regard, I am... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:79F9:63EE:33ED:E050 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Compatible license

See Simonavicius, Erikas; McNeill, Ann; Shahab, Lion; Brose, Leonie S (2018). "Heat-not-burn tobacco products: a systematic literature review". Tobacco Control: tobaccocontrol–2018–054419. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054419. ISSN 0964-4563. PMID 30181382. This article incorporates text by Erikas Simonavicius, Ann McNeill1, Lion Shahab, and Leonie S Brose available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

See here and here. CC BY 4.0 is a compatible license. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @QuackGuru: I already restored the CC-BY-4.0 text as that is OK to include on Wikipedia. CC-BY-SA-4.0 however is not OK here. A G7 deletion of the page is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A "CC-BY-SA-4.0 however is not OK here." What was CC-BY-SA-4.0? QuackGuru (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing "was CC-BY-SA-4.0", so there was no need to have the page deleted. Anyway it appears that Diannaa has not reviewed your contribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The page was deleted because QuackGuru tagged it {{db-g7}} — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Need help request from Lostinthemix18 (talk)Lostinthemix18

Recently my work on Therapy Dogs was deleted from my sandbox, and the wiki article. I thought Shalor had deleted it but now it says you. I realize I made some mistakes and believe I have now corrected them. Could you please review the material I have in my sandbox and let me know if it is appropriate for publication? Thank you. Lostinthemix18 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Lostinthemix18

Hello, I have cleaned it of violations of the copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Augustus Pugin

Hello Diannaa, I added this sentence: Also in 2012, the BBC broadcast God's Own Architect, an arts documentary program on his achievements hosted by Richard Taylor.[48] I made the text myself and referred to the program website on the BBC for referral. Is the last part a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.67.119 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a violation of the copyright policy, but it's poorly worded. Who's Richard Taylor? I would leave that part out, it's not important. Better: "Also in 2012, the BBC broadcast the documentary God's Own Architect about Pugin's life and work." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

194th Wing Copyvio/?

Although the material you removed for copyvio was taken from the site you cited, it was not copied, but edited (in particular to remove peacock terms, while keeping factual information) and cited to source. I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look just keeping in mind whether sufficient paraphrase exists to avoid copyvio. Interesting that the State of Washington chooses to copyright some (at least) of its web pages. I would estimate that the state's assertion of copyright to about 75% of the material on this page is invalid, but that's not an issue for Wikipedia. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lineagegeek. Please have a look at the Copyvio Detector report and you will see there's a hella lot of overlap. We can't keep that; it's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but suits me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Hi Diannaa. Someone posted at WP:THQ#Requesting improvements for a few articles about a possible copvio. Do you think you could take a look at things and see if anything needs to be done? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia (1905) is in the public domain so it's okay to copy form it if proper attribution is given. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio on João Gilberto

Hi there. This edition removed a lot of copyvio from João Gilberto's article. Could you please check it out. Thanks in advance.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello SirEdimon, we've had most of this material since the very first version of the page, dated 2004, and the Grammy page was never archived by the Wayback Machine. So I can't prove it was copied from there rather than the other way around. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

So, Perhaps it's not copyvio?--SirEdimon (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no way of proving it either way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

edits on Madapati Hanumantha Rao

Hi Dianna, I am super new to editing wikipedia pages and I was unable to review the content to follow your point. How do I recover the text that you deleted.

Kindly tell me what to do next.

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

regards

Hello @Gotamiputta:. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. The content I removed appears to have been copied from http://andhraspider.com/resources/3260-Andhra-Pitamaha-Madapati-Hanumantha-Rao.aspx ; it's the two paragraphs under the section heading "Madapati Hanumantha Rao's contribution in the revival of Telugu language". All content you add should be written in your own words. Cite your sources. For help getting started, please consider visiting the Teahouse, where there's people experienced in helping new users. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

can I go in and put a link back to that page. A reference i.e. Perhaps I can be careful to avoid copying text verbatim. (I don't recall what I did last time). But can I put in a link to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotamiputta (talk • contribs) 11:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't copy any material you find elsewhere online. Write everything in your own words. You have to do that; not "perhaps". No more copying please. Cite your sources. To learn how to do these things properly, please consider working on the tutorials at Help:Getting started. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Diana, thank you for your correction of my copyright infringement on the materials I added to the Konstantinos V. Petrides. I would like to ask you if i can still use the source from which i retrieved the information if i paraphrase and cite the work as the original source. Thank you! OscarKoryagin (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly how you add content to Wikipedia: find a good source and re-write the material in your own words. I see you only waited 13 minutes for me to reply before you did so — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Odisha Sahitya Akademi

Thanks for pointing out the copyright violations in my new page. However I copied it from another Wikipedia page.Odisha Sahitya Academy Award May be that page needs a rewrite too. Spbal (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does. Thank you for letting me know. Also, copying within Wikipedia is okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wild Basin Creative Research Center

Hi Dianna,

My name is Dianne Folkerth, and I'm the environmental education coordinator at Wild Basin. I corrected a bunch of information as well as added some updated links to our Wikipedia page. You seem to have removed all the edits. Would you explain which parts violated Wikipedia copyright rules? I read through the section you pasted and I can't figure out what the error was.

None of what I wrote is protected by copyright. I updated the links to our current website and Facebook page. My text edits were to update the page to correct information that is important that we get right for visitors: the name of the place, our correct city, open hours, what is allowed or prohibited when visiting, and the co-management of the preserve and facilities with Travis County, Texas, and St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas.

I hope this message gets to you. I've literally no idea what to do here to get our correct information listed at Wikipedia. I apologize that I also don't know how to link directly to either our Wikipedia page or the edited versions.

Thanks,

Dianne Folkerth 216.16.202.242 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 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. as you can see, the material I removed is not simply phone numbers, hours or the like; it's descriptive prose. And it looks like you changed the topic of the article from its current "Wild Basin Wilderness Preserve" to "Wild Basin Creative Research Center", which is a completely different topic. That's why I didn't leave in the different info about this different entity. Just to let you know, I have removed your email address and phone number as it's not a good idea to post those here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox again

Hi,

This revision to this revision contain those song lyrics and probably need revdelling. Thanks (Edit: more on his talk page). Adam9007 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And more copyrighted song lyrics (The South Won’t Rise Again) Edit: and here. Adam9007 (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Sasquatch has dealt with it all. Adam9007 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a great place to post - plenty of talk page watchers. Or Sasquatch may have spotted it on their oddy knocky. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And they're at it again (Die, Die My Darling). Something's got to be done about this. Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a static IP, 172.78.186.137. Blocked for a month. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked range 2600:1008:B100:0:0:0:0:0/41 for one week. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 174.197.15.22 for a week. Re-blocked 2600:1008:B100:0:0:0:0:0/41 for two more weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

174.198.13.102 for a week for block evasion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Manstein

I don't mind you reverting my last edit. I added it because the ref says he carried out the commissar order directly. The notes below in the trial section discuss the matter in the context of denials and rebuffs etc. which make it look like he might not have. I don't really want to repeat info either. What do you suggest? Szzuk (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. Please place any further discussion on the article talk page so that other interested editors can comment if they see fit. Here is not a good place for content discussions, as interested parties may not be watching my talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm bringing you more unpaid labour to do!

Hi Diannaa! Hope you're doing well :) Would you mind looking at Ambala_district. A user asked me to revdel it, and the text looked a bit like reverse copyvio and linked as the source to FB, which I think likely means it comes from us at some point. I have to go offline in a few, so I'm passing it off to you if you don't mind. Thanks for all the great work you still do TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony! You came to the right place. The material on Facebook appears to have been copied from multiple places online, including here, here, here, and some is in the Wikipedia article Ambala. The prose in the suspect addition is also present in Ambala. Some of it is also present here - I am going to remove some that is in the haryanatourism.gov.in article that is not present in Ambala and then do some revision deletion on that. The oldest archived version of haryanatourism.gov.in is dated January 2018 so that's all I can prove. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hayden Nelson copyvios

Greetings Diannaa,

Yesterday I tagged one of Hayden Nelson's articles, Stewart M. Brandborg, for CSD G12. I visited his talk page to see if he had left any comments, and I saw there that you had previously revdel'd a different copyvio by this user, and other copyvio notices were there as well. I decided to check through the rest of their contributions and it appears that this is a regular thing. I noticed that this rev of Yellowstone National Park was reverted but needs a revdel, and this rev of Speculator Mine disaster, which I just reverted, needs a revdel as well. A few other contributions have already been revdel'd.

Aside from the copyvios, it seems that this user's only other editing activity is to add University of Montana archive pages to external links sections of relevant articles (for which they have declared they are being paid). I haven't touched any of these links as I have not yet investigated whether any of them violate WP:ELNO, but it is probably a worthwhile exercise. Just giving you a heads-up there. Thank you! CThomas³ (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello all,

I'm an employee at the University of Montana's Archives and Special Collections. We are trying to make wiki pages of people, organizations, or groups whose collections we hold in order to, hopefully, increase the amount of visitors to our archives. I have been using our finding aids on Archives West as a template for my additions, a few of which have been flagged for copyright or deleted. But, Archives West is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, and it was my understanding that I could use these already prepared finding aids as my template for the wiki page while doing minimal rewrites and adding citations. Is this correct or, if not, could you help me understand this so that more of my posts won't be deleted? Thank you. (User talk: Hayden Nelson) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I did visit Hayden Nelson's talk page, because material added to Anaconda Copper was copied from http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv60538, which does not have a notice that it's released under license.

Yellowstone National Park: the source webpage is in the public domain and it's okay to copy as long as proper attribution is given. For public domain sources, you can include the template {{PD-notice}} along with your citation. However, the person who removed it states that even if it's in the public domain, it's not suitable for inclusion in that particular article, which has been vetted as a Featured Article (representing some of Wikipedia's best work). The person who removed it commented "even if it was quoted, in a Featured Level article like this, we avoid even close paraphrasing".

Stewart M. Brandborg: The source webpage is marked at the bottom as having a compatible license. I have restored it and added the legally required attribution (that's the "attribution" part of the license; you have to provide attribution either manually like I did here, or using the template we have for that purpose (Template:CC-notice). Please do this yourself in the future to avoid having your material deleted! Make sure the specific webpage you are copying has the license in place at the bottom of the page! Not all of them do.

Speculator Mine disaster: The source webpage is compatibly licensed, so I have re-added the material and added the legally required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

2600:1008:B15E:B83A:518D:5CAC:78F6:7C08 ‎

user:2600:1008:B15E:B83A:518D:5CAC:78F6:7C08 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've amended the rangeblock to remove talk page access. Thanks for letting me know; I shoulda thought to do that right from the start. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Complains

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:TAURO1919 User:TAURO1919 12:36 July 2019 (UTC) I have seen that you have deleted some of the editions about birds because of a supposed spam, I ask you to review the articles before deleting them and to verify that the information is relevant and true. Do not return to eliminate anything without your correct verification. Greetings.

Your edits give the distinct impression that you're adding them solely to get the reference into the encyclopedia in as many places as possible as a way to promote the paper and its authors. Please see WP:REFSPAM for more details. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

• Thank you for the message on my talk page. I really appreciate it. Who says an old dog can't learn something new? I know I just did. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jazzy De Lisser

Hi, this draft I had started working on was deleted. No complaints from me, I hadn't realised that drafts couldn't contain copyrighted work, and I won't do that again. However, is it possible to get the deleted text sent to me so I can work on it offline? (Not sure notability criteria are met yet either to be honest, I hadn't got that far with it.) Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sending that mess back to me! Have a great day! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about copyright

Hi Diannaa, I've got a question about an image that I would like to use in an article I'm writing. The image is the example of a tartan design found at this website - it's a government register of tartan designs. The copyright statement - found here - says "The image is subject to Crown copyright. You may re-use the Crown copyright protected image free of charge in any format for fair dealing purposes. The image must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the source as the Scottish Register of Tartans. If you wish to re-use images for purposes other than fair dealing you should contact Online Resources at National Records of Scotland, email: onlineresources@nrscotland.gov.uk"

Long and short - can I use this? Thanks for any guidance you can offer, and please feel free to point me at an explanatory page rather than reply personally if this is already covered somewhere. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not a liberal enough license for Wikipedia use, because our content is available for re-use by other websites, and we have no control over how they use the file. It doesn't qualify for non-free fair use, because it could easily be replaced by a freely licensed photo of a sample of the tartan. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. It obviously wasn't what I wanted to hear, but I greatly appreciate the assistance. I don't have access to an example of the tartan, so I'll content myself with an external link to the government register. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Girth Summit: although I have a backlog of unfulfilled/procrastinated-over graphic requests, I might be able to help. At one time I wrote a PostScript program (entirely for my own amusement) that generated vector-art tartan images from thread counts, which I don’t believe are themselves copyrightable. It was lost many years ago in a hard-drive failure, but considering there might actually be an applicaton for it, it could be worth recreating. Drop me a line if you’re interested (and not in a hurry!)—Odysseus1479 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Odysseus1479 I'm interested! I'll drop you a note on your talk page now. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Your moving material from the Talk page of an article to my sandbox

Thanks for doing that. Because I have basically only edited 3 articles (one of which was split—with the split-off containing most of my additions) over the last 4 years, I forgot about the capabilities of my Sandbox. I'm assuming nobody else except an administrator can edit it; please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I was only using a section of the Talk page of that article to create and test out diffs. I originally thought I needed to use {{URL to diff}} to do that, but now realize I can simply copy a {{diff}} and paste the new parameters into the copy. I can do that in a TextEdit document on my Mac, which I back up once a day.

I want to save separate {{diffs}} of what I put into the ANI because I'm a bit paranoid about the particular other editor, especially since he confirmed my guess about his sub-culture with this rather strange "acceptance of apology" and its follow-up. I firmly believe what he is doing is C-DV, whether or not it qualifies as WOV. Members of his sub-culture have a reputation for behaving in a less-than-G-dly manner toward people who are not members of that (religious) sub-culture, especially in landlord-tenant relationships with African-Americans. IMHO that's why there are increasing instances of violence in Brooklyn towards members of the sub-culture, although The New York Times refuses to name the sub-culture in stories about the violence because of an over-a-century-long ambivalence about the membership of its owning family in the larger religious culture of which the sub-culture is a part. (I mention this ambivalence only because you are apparently Canadian; it's accepted knowledge among us regular New York Times readers who are members of that larger religious culture.) Now that I have admitted in that same sub-section that I am not a member of the sub-culture, I want to protect my many {{diffs}} against what the particular other editor might do to them in the ANI. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Anybody can edit your sandbox; it doesn't have to be an administrator. Pages that have restrictions on editing are clearly marked as such as soon as you open the edit window. See for example the edit window of Template:Infobox person, which only admins and template editors can edit. The best thing to do re: your sandbox is to add it to your watchlist and then you will be alerted to any edits that have been done to the page. You might be interested in the diff converter script; see User:Scottywong/diffconverter. If you need help getting started with scripts, please let me know.

I am not interested in your comments about your opinions of various sub-cultures and their reputations. I thought I made it clear that such talk is not welcome anywhere on this wiki? Perhaps not. To reiterate: please don't make personal remarks about other editors, their cultural groups, their motivations for editing, their emotions. Please don't make generalizations (especially negative ones) about ethnic groups, cultures, or sub-cultures, even if you think it's "accepted knowledge". We've got pretty much zero tolerance for that.

If anybody alters someone else's post at ANI it will likely get quickly noticed and reverted; the page is heavily watched and monitored (over 1,300 active editors have the page on their watch-list). You may not want to add it to your watch-list, as it's heavily edited every day, but it should be a fairly straightforward matter to monitor your own additions and make sure they are not altered. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

OK, let's briefly recapitulate the specific other editor's behavior since January 2017. As the instances I have put into the ANI here and here (which I will add to) show, his repeated practice has been to edit one article by merging other related articles into it and then deleting most of the content of the merged-in articles. He didn't have to do those deletions; he could simply have left the other articles as is and linked-to/selectively-copied-from them, as I have done so here—after I re-established an article the particular other editor had merged-in. The effect of these mergers-followed-by-deletions is to "dumb-down" the total content of Wikipedia; IMHO that constitutes "removal ... of the text or other material that is ... nonsensical"—and I'm sure you know what article I got that abbreviated quote from. I'm not going to speculate any further on the motivation of the particular other editor for doing this "dumbing-down"; my previous well-referenced speculation is actually a form of "assume good faith"—even when that "good faith" is not the sort that most Wikipedia readers or editors share. So IMHO the real question posed by the ANI is: Is "dumbing down" the content of Wikipedia acceptable because the editor who does so is "acting in good faith" according to his beliefs? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't post here about your dispute that's currently already at ANI. I don't have the time or interest to get involved in your content dispute. I will not be reading this post or any further posts on that topic. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it's okay to post here with technical questions, questions about copyright, or guidance as to how Wikipedia works. Happy to help. But please don't ask me to adjudicate or comment on content disputes; I don't have the time, and it's not what admins do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Hi Diannaa, Hope all's well,
Just wondering does this sound like it was pasted from somewhere?,
Thought I'd ask you as you're the only person I know who's extremely knowledgeable with this sort of stuff :),
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any of it using Google searches of snippets. It's okay prose, but doesn't rise to the level of ad copy, so I think it's okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops sorry forgot to check back, Ah okay, Many thanks for your help :), Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 13:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

Thanks for pointing out the possible copyright problem on Richard Hoffmann (composer, 1925)!

The text is not from the website you cite, rather both my edit and that website take the information from a printed source, the CRI LP sleeve note which I cited. If the text is exactly the same, I was too literal in copying. I will take another look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmarbach (talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The Internet has copies of many things. Regardless of the source, it's not okay to add copyright material to Wikipedia, so yeah, it will have to be re-written. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

But where is the information you deleted? I can't get to it through the version list. And how come you also deleted stuff sourced from other sources than the one your bot pointed out? My refs 2 and 3 contained other information which has also been deleted, so there are now references which are redundant. I have lost a lot of work and it's now chaos... Please point me to the lost information so I can rewrite it.Mrmarbach (talk) 18:31, 17 July 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. Another way of viewing the removed content is to look at the source webpage, which was copied in its entirety from "He began studying the violin at the age of 5" to the end of the article. That's all I removed. Looking at the Wikipedia article, I don't see any chaos, so I'm not sure what you mean. Refs 2 and 3 were removed along with the removed content, as they were included with that content. They weren't in use anywhere else in the article.

The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Untermensch

Hi Diannaa, hope all is well. I was thinking of filing an RFPP and noticed you had protected this page years ago. What do you think? Did semi- help back then? – Levivich 15:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not comfortable protecting this time, because I've been involved in restoring the removed image, which is a content decision. That makes me involved. I protected in the past because of socking. As you probably know, BMK filed a sockpuppet report (regarding a different master). That might help. Please go ahead and request protection at RFPP if you have a minute. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even think of the involved angle. I was about to file the RFPP but I noticed that CambridgeBayWeather already protected the article. Thanks, to both of you! – Levivich 22:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

He may have noticed our convo! it's a happening talk page for sure. Did you notice a certain engineer opened a talk page discussion about the image? I am mulling it over; he makes a good point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So... if I post about my other problems here, will they also be magically solved by your talk page watchers? Because I have this rent payment coming up on the first...

Yes I did see that post (I always thought it was short for "English", as in English professor; hadn't even considered "engineer"), and I agree it makes sense. I've been mulling it over, too, and doing some Googling, and will probably post there later. – Levivich 00:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

gravitational lensing caused by hapless Wikipedian viewing @EEng:'s user pages

You've just jealous of my gravitas.

-EEng

I would go check his user page or talk page for evidence of my assumption but I am afraid of creating a singularity. Best not upset the gravitational field — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

You removed some copyrighted text I had added to an article because my misunderstanding of the ins and outs of quoting sources. I’ve taught myself quite a bit about the rules and regulations regarding quotations since then, and I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up after me. I additionally learned about the Wikipedia Library Card program through a userbox on your personal page, and I have since been approved to access JSTOR as well. I had to let you know that your efforts are much appreciated! I hope this message reaches you in good heath and spirits.

(If you happen to be interested in the page in question, check out the comment you left on my talk page!) Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

God Street Wine

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind checking this article for copyvios when you have a little time to spare? It was recently expanded quite a bit by an SPA (who might have a COI) and lots of the content and it's corresponding syntax has the feel of being copied-and-pasted from somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It reads like a press release or ad copy. Earwig's tool is finding nothing untoward from a copyright point of view. The article is in pretty bad shape. I don't have time to do the whole article but I did remove the gushy fannish social medial posts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for taking a look. I agree that the article has some problems, but those perhaps can be sorted out (probably by multiple editors). I was mainly concerned as to whether much of the content recently added was copied and pasted from some other site. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it looks like they wrote it just for us :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I pinged you in a post at User talk:Gabesasso#Conflict of interest editing. Feel free to add anything I might've missed or correct anything I might've gotten wrong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexandria Villaseñor

Hi. Can you take a look at this article. Earwig gives this result, and the carbon dating link you gave me says that the source page was created on 5/10/2019, so I think it's a mirror of WP. Thoughts? Also, I just reviewed 8 of this editor's new articles, and this was the only one with a whiff of copyvio issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's copied from us, as we already had the content on the publication date. I've added a {{Backwards copy}} to the article talk page. Check it out :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. That's what I thought as well, just wanted another set of much more experienced eyes to take a look. Thanks as always. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hello Diannaa,

A few of my pages have been deleted for copyright and I am wondering why. Since your last response in which you showed me how to appropriately use materials from Archives West, I have copied and pasted that method to every page I have created to appropriately cite it. I'm wondering why these pages were deleted when I did everything that you suggested? Thank you. Hayden Nelson (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There were two things deleted: William Robert "Bud" Moore (source: http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv52899, which does not display a compatible license); and Draft:Doris Milner; the source webpage does show the license, so it was deleted in error. I will restore that one. You say "a few", but I only see these two. Plse let me know if there's anything else that needs fixing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You can now re-submit the draft if you want. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing and ECD

Hello Diannaa. Is this wikitool good at detecting close paraphrasing or does it only work for data dump? Puduḫepa 10:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks for word matches, so close paraphrasing would typically not be detected unless a lot of words match. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. One more question: do open access journals need paraphrasing? Puduḫepa 11:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Open access" means you don't have to pay money to view the article. It's unrelated to licensing. Find the license. If there's no compatible license on the document, we have to assume it's copyright, even if it's marked "open access". For a list of compatible licenses, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

SAOCOM

Hi Dianna.

I do apologize, but the text was merely a reversion of the text that was deleted by the Indian wikipedian on 8Oct2018. Which I disagree was fully non enciclopedian, so I revereted the text, and did a little bit of improvement, deletion and edition myself.

I still would like to include some information more or less along the lines you deleted. Would appreciate your input on that regard.

Sincerely, --Uruk (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Uruk. Unfortunately the content I removed is identical to material at this website, which is not released under license. If you re-add any material from there, it will have to be put in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:BrugesFR

Saw a list of articles triggering copyright vios from https://www.girlsnotbrides.org. A few pages already speedy deleted but many to look over...see pages/en.wikipedia.org/BrugesFR.. Plus many additions to articles I will start reviewing.--Moxy 🍁 06:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moxy. The best course is for us to file a report at WP:CCI. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have cleaned these:

• Child marriage in Kenya
• Child marriage in Somalia
• Child marriage in Benin
• Child marriage in Ivory Coast
• Child marriage in Burkina Faso
• Child marriage in Senegal
• Child marriage in Sierra Leone
• Child marriage in Republic of the Congo
• Child marriage in Cameroon

I will ask MER-C to open a CCI case — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for all you do here for us...as Tony said "You're great! ".--Moxy 🍁 12:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/BrugesFR. MER-C 12:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio? 2

Hi Diannaa, I can't make head's nor tails of this and I'm hoping you or one of your stalkers might be able to! Merkava and this website show up as a significant copyvio but I can't make sense of whether it is a true copyvio or a backwards one. I think I'm probably just being a bit dim, but any thoughts? Cheers, Jack Frost (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We've had most of the overlapping content for 10+ years so it's most likely been copied from us rather than the other way around. The oldest archived version of the source webpage is August 2018, so it's impossible to prove definitively. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Feminization (activity)

Another one. I get this earwig report, but the carbon dating tool couldn't give me a date of creation. The article's been around for quite some time, so I'm thinking it's a mirror. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

this site contains copies of other Wikipedia articles, such as Foot fetishism, so that's a Wikipedia mirror for sure. This one states the overlapping content was added on February 22, 2013, at which time we already had the material. I didn't check any of the others. Pretty sure we're okay — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Diannaa. Could you take a look at Draft:WinterWonderGrass_Music_&_Brew_Festival? I tagged it for copyvio-revdel but a user keeps adding copyrighted content. I think they are meat or sockpuppet of the page creator. Masum Reza^📞 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about the sockpuppet aspect; they were told it was ok to create a new acct at the time their promotionally named acct was blocked. I will look after the rev-del and watch the page. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Eduardo Kobra

Hi Diannaa, when you have the time, could you look at this? I removed some apparent copyright violation content, and think there may be more. The usual rev/deletion, if necessary. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. All done, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

'Own work' image

Hi - I was reviewing Benawa, and it all looked good until I noticed that the image, which looks professionally drawn, is an 'own work' from a user who you have warned a couple of times recently for COPYVIO. Their problematic edits have been revdelled so I can't see if this follows the same pattern - thought you might want to take a quick look.GirthSummit _(blether) 12:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure where he copied it from. I filed a report at the Commons about his uploads commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User's uploads need to be reviewed but nobody has investigated yet. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you !

for attempting to clear up the mess made by the activities of User:Renzo_espiritu - it's much appreciated! --BushelCandle (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Eichmann 2018 movie

I understand your reverting the Operation Finale movie. It was about the capture of Eichmann by the Mossad. Should the movie be mentioned at all in the Eichmann article? See also or maybe external links? Eschoryii (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC) If you want me to discuss this on the talk page; check out the past discussion. It is an embarrassment. Eschoryii (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:MILPOP for the reason why I removed it. In short, we don't want the article to be about how American pop culture views the subject, and we don't include pop culture material unless it's had a big impact on the culture and you can source it. For example, Oskar Schindler includes some sourced content on Schindler's List. If you want to make a case for inclusion of pop culture trivia in the Eichmann article, the place to do so is the article talk page, not here. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you have 64% of the authorship of the Adolph Eichmann article, I will leave it to you whether the 2018 film and other Eichmann films (a British one too} should be referenced. I have no need to have them included and I will end any more input on my part. Eschoryii (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Deep Murder

Hi, Diannaa. Could you please take a look at the article Deep Murder? This part ("Deep Murder is a genre-bending horror comedy that takes place inside the world of a softcore porn shoot. It begins like any other porno, with a group of horny archetypes holed up in a poorly decorated house. But when they begin to be brutally murdered one by one, they're forced to evolve from clichés into real people in order to catch the killer in their midst and survive the night.") is present in several places around the internet. A COPYVIO maybe? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It was at this website two weeks before we had it, so I am removing it. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity. How do you get to know exactly when and where it was first published. Do you check it link by link or there's a tool to do this job.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know when and where it was first published; I can say for sure that these guys had it before we did, because their post is dated May 31 and he added it to Wikipedia on June 16. The content is also at IMDb, but their stuff is never dated, and is sometimes copied from us. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What I meant is: Do you have to check it link by link to find this out? Because it seems a lot of work. SirEdimon (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I grabbed a sample of the prose, googled it, and selected a match that had a date on it. No tribble at all.

Sometimes you can find stuff out using these tools:

• http://www.maxi-pedia.com/web+page+history+created+updated
• http://cd.cs.odu.edu/
• http://whois.domaintools.com/
• http://archive.org/web/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Pages deleted without giving the time to rework them (Ethiopian geology)

Hello you have recently flagged several pages on Ethiopian geology for copyright infringement. (sentences copy-pasted, however with source mentioned) While I was reworking those pages, a certain RHaworth took the initiative to bluntly delete it. How are Wikipedia procedures? I think reasonable time should be given to rework a page? What happened seemed overacting? or not? See below an example of one of the flagged pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edaga_Arbi_Glacials&action=edit&redlink=1

Hello Jnyssen. Sorry but if it's not possible for us to salvage the page by removing the copyright content, we have to delete the page. We're under no obligation to host material that violates our copyright policy or to allow you time to make repairs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

See "The health harm to long-term users of e-cigarettes is likely to be marginally greater than for those who use conventional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) [112]."[2][3]

See "The health harm to long-term users of e-cigarettes is therefore likely to be marginally greater than for those who use conventional NRT. "[4] on page 127. QuackGuru (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Newhall Pass

How dare you remove my work? And accuse me of plagiarism

I never copied a word from https://www.elsmerecanyon.com/tunnelarea/passes/newhallcut/newhallcut.htm

I used it to support the facts I wrote. But I did not copy any of the words or sentence structure! Show me the sentences I copied?

Rhetorical question because I know you can't as I didn't.

Your lies have put me into a seething rage because I never copied a darn fu king word from that page not one!

You're just another low educated admin who acts within impunity

The biggest irony, you have the temerity to lecture me about plagiarism because I am an IP yet you've been on here less than 10 years and have become a self entitled admin

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 but never, ever had an account (wherever I am in the world) because I am more interested in sharing what I know or some new facts that I discovered with a global audience (I'm like a chef who likes seeing people enjoying their food)

To be accused of plagiarism by someone like you is like being to told to smarten up by a beggar.

I never lifted a word from that website, so to be accused shows

1. you never checked
2. what you wrote is a lie
3. you are not actually good at your job
4. you have been doing this far too long without oversight

People like you are the people who drive the WP:GF from this site.

So I'll repeat myself, I never copied a word from that website. Not one. To say that I did, questions my integrity which is infinitesimally better than yours which is why I hate stinking liars so much.86.129.3.53 (talk) 09:33, 27 July 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. The bot report mentions https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/ap1635.htm as a source, but I mentioned https://www.elsmerecanyon.com/tunnelarea/passes/newhallcut/newhallcut.htm (which is what you used as a citation) in my edit summary. There's actually a bigger overlap with https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/ap1635.htm. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Seilskute i måneskinn

Hello Diannaa. Is this image copyrighted? Probably it is not (considering the date). I just wanted to be sure. Puduḫepa 07:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Hi Puduḫepa. Copyright has expired on that artwork. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, Diannaa. Puduḫepa 12:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright warnings

Thanks for your edits and note on my talk page. I suspect that the source you gave for the Agnes Davies text is itself a copyright infringement of the Guardian article I cited. I'll re-read the policy. I appreciate you editing the offending articles rather than just deleting! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh and is there a tool I can use to check my own articles myself? Obviously I'm not as good at paraphrasing and summarizing as I thought. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they copied from the Guardian; it's not appropriate to copy from either place. The tool I use is https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios ; but it's not okay to post copyright material here, not even temporarily for editing. The material has to be copyright compliant before you save the page, even if it's in draft space or a sandbox.

General tips: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this very helpful advice. I didn't mean to suggest that copying from a copyright infringer was OK - I could have been clearer with the wording. I'll run that copyvios tool on articles I've written so far for a start. Cheers! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I did some spot checks and found nothing other than the ones I already mentioned on your talk page. You might find the survey report in my sandbox helpful for further spot checks: User:Diannaa/sandbox — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright for Mary Raftery

Thanks for your advice Diannaa, I'd like to improve this entry for Mary Raftery. As the source https://dib.cambridge.org/viewReadPage.do?articleId=a10084 is comprehensive would requesting copyright permission be the best way to go to improve the entry? I've also referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dictionary_of_National_Biography#Guidelines for further information. Killim (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely you would get permission from the Royal Irish Academy to copy their material here. Typically Wikipedians use material as a source of information, not a source of prose, and write the Wikipedia article in their own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In regards to perceived copyright violation in Draft:Unified Architecture Framework

Diannaa, can you please undo the deletions you made to my additions from 24 July? I cited the authoritative document that I significantly paraphrased for the topics section at the beginning of that section. "Unified Architecture Framework - Appendix A" (PDF). Object Management Group. November 2017. Retrieved 2019-07-24. This document is in the public domain with the same copyrights as other OMG specifications such as UML and Data Distribution Service which are extremely well known specifications with large user groups and have alot more detail taken from the specifications and put in their wiki pages than I paraphrased from the UAF specification. I also additional information such as relationships to physical and logical architecture, structural and behavioral architecture, so as to make sure it was written in my own words, but still retained the proper alignment to the specification. I spent a few hours making sure I got those sentances well formed and critical analysis would show I did a better job than even the spec writers, as there was duplication of sentences and other awkward and redundant sentence formation in the original work. Since the UAF specification is a technical language, I must use most of the same words as they have a specific technical meaning, changing those key words does not do justice to the topic being covered. I have not utilized text from the https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00412.x document. OMG has also not done a copyright infringement either since the article cited for the deletion of my page additions as the article being infringed in fact references the same specification I did. So both the wiki article text and the copyrighted article are both referencing the same open specification. Also one of the authors of the INCOSE document, Matthew Hause, is an author of the specification, so he has waived all copyright entitlements per OMG copyright rules to anything he wrote in the spec. Lastly, the level of detail I wrote is equivalent to level of detail of alternate frameworks such as Zachman Framework, allowing users to make fair and informed decisions as to the differences between these similar specifications. Thanks!

Pnkflyd831 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Pnkflyd831. I have downloaded the document https://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/17-12-02.pdf and read the licensing material and it does not appear to be in the public domain; in fact it states "Copyright © 2017, IBM; Copyright © 2017, KDM Analytics; Copyright © 2017, Mega; Copyright © 2017, Object Management Group, Inc.; Copyright © 2017, No Magic; Copyright © 2017, PTC; Copyright © 2017, Sparx Systems;" and goes on to say (in part) that "the use of the specifications is for informational purposes and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media and will not be otherwise resold or transferred for commercial purposes; and (3) no modifications are made to this specification." That's not a compatible license, because Wikipedia does allow both commercial use and modifications. There's a second problem: the content I removed is not present in that document. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Dianna, definitions are given for the view types and domains on pages 2 through 4. Also, the UML specification https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/PDF and the SysML specification have the same license, and UML has a whole category of pages dedicated to it. The detail of the BPMN wiki page is also very close to the specification, https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/PDF, that also has the same license. See their legal statement on their website. https://www.omg.org/legal/index.htm#copyright. You may want to request OMG permission to use their copyright on every OMG specification wiki page, which I'm sure they'll grant if they haven't already. I haven't seen the issue you raised on any other OMG specification wiki page that I looked into. Object_Management_Group#Ratified_ISO_Standards Pnkflyd831 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. https://www.omg.org/legal/index.htm#copyright says that "users may make a single copy of the contents, in whole or in part, of this web site strictly for personal, non-commercial use." That's not a compatible license, because our license allows any use whatsoever, including commercial use. If there's other pages that contain violations of our copyright policy, you need to report them, not use them as a justification to add more. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Diana, the point I was trying to make is not that the other pages are in copyright violation, but that the content they wrote and I wrote was not copyright violating plagarism Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing but is either the WP:LIMITED exception or in fact Written in my own words. Thus, the first point you made is not relevant about the copyright being enforceable and second point about not having a correct reference nearby also not relevant because the concepts are in the specification referenced as technical terms and non-plagarized descriptions using other technical terms, not the copyrighted work cited for the deletion. Can we at the very least remove the copyvio and treat this as addressing close paraphrasing to continue this conversation and address where we may better present this high level overview of the technology in an acceptably non-copyright infringing way? Also this lets others contribute to the close paraphrasing analysis? I want to do what is right, and I know you do too, so let's work together to get the right amount of information into wikipedia on this moderately important business government and engineering standard. If you search "Unified Architecture Framework" it's already referenced in the NATO AF page, so once this gets out of draft I already have another published wikipage to link to it. Pnkflyd831 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've re-downloaded https://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/17-12-02.pdf and visually inspected page 2 to 4, and the content is indeed there, and the paraphrasing is far too close for me to restore it to Wikipedia. For example, the first three definitions in the "Domains" group. Highlighted Source says:

Metadata: Captures meta-data relevant to the entire architecture. Provides information pertinent to the entire architecture. Present supporting information rather than architectural models.

Strategic: Capability management process. Describes the capability taxonomy, composition, dependencies, and evolution.

Operational: Illustrates the Logical Architecture of the enterprise. Describes the requirements, operational behavior, structure, and exchanges required to support (exhibit) capabilities. Defines all operational elements in an implementation/solution independent manner.

Your version:

Metadata: Captures meta-data relevant to the entire architecture. Present supporting information about the architectural model rather than the architecture of the enterprise.

Strategic: Enterprise management process. Describes the capabilities of an enterprise such as taxonomy, composition, dependencies and evolution.

Operational: Illustrates the logical architecture of the enterprise. Describes the operational behavior, logical structure, and information exchanges required to exhibit capabilities. Defines all operational elements in an implementation/solution independent manner.

These are samples only and not an exhaustive list. Sorry, we can't host this, as it's a violation of our copyright policy to do so. I can send you the deleted material via email if you like. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, thank you for analyzing this at a constructive level. And I agree that I used a lot of the existing terms from the description, but as you read further into the specification, you will agree most of the bolded terms are technical terms and covered under WP:LIMITED. These technical terms are part of the domain metamodel which is the bulk of that document and they are as follows (from the first 3 entries you cited): metadata, information, capability, taxonomy, composition, dependencies, evolution, logical architecture, enterprise, exchange, exhibit. Requirement, architecture model, architecture, behavior are technical terms referenced from other specifications, namely UML, SysML and ISO42010. Once you unbold these terms and the other technical terms present in the remaining descriptions the paraphrasing is well within addressing close paraphrasing guidelines. The Unified Architecture Framework is a formal language built on other formal languages, so not using these technical terms in their appropriate context is not a fair representation of the standard.

The material that I removed was only lightly paraphrased and some segments copied verbatim from a copyright web page elsewhere on the Internet. That's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. If you're unable to add it without violating Wikipedia's copyright policy, then you can't add it. Sorry, `— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Found this interesting article while researching this https://www.blog.raredevs.com/programming-languages-copyrights/ where it's been a debated topic if you can copyright formal languages, but the jury is leaning towards the language itself can not be copyrighted. How do I send you my e-mail address non-publicly so I can continue to work the descriptions of the View Types and Domains offline to a point where they are concise, correct and not perceived as copyvio? Pnkflyd831 (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sending it via the Wikipedia email system, which does not reveal your email address to me or to anyone else. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sugar Mountain (film)

Hey, Diannaa. The "premise" on Sugar Mountain seems to be copied from IMDb. Can you give it a look? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Karen Saywitz

Diannaa, this article was nominated for DYK, and the DYK reviewer tagged it for overly close paraphrasing based on this Earwig report. I'm wondering, though, whether it's more serious than that, and was hoping you could take a look, since the author says they're busy and will get back to it later, which doesn't seem to be very soon. If it is serious, then sooner is probably better than later. Thanks for taking a look when you can. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Revdel please on Ninthwave Records?

Greetings. I notice that on Ninthwave Records, an account connected with the subject introduced copyvio content here, which is copied from the subject's own web site here. I assume a revdel is in order here, and would appreciate your assistance in doing so. I'll be putting the article up for AfD shortly. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on College of Emmanuel and St. Chad

Diannaa,

I realize that Wikipedia has copyright concerns, and I don't intend to break the policy. However, I didn't copy the text from an external source. I copied it from the Wikipedia entry for the U of Saskatchewan GSA.

Thanks for letting me know. I will have to remove the content from that page as well :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Curious

Hello D. I hope you are well. I bumped into this article tonight Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to CLOS. It is pretty bare bones. I am curious if there are any copy vio problems since it is basically a repeat of the chapters of the book. If everything is okay then no problem I just hadn't seen anything quite like it before. MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD. Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article says not to include a list of contents. So I am removing it. I don't think it's a problem from a copyright point of view though, since it's obviously a quotation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and have a pleasant week D. MarnetteD|Talk 04:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Copy within issue with a twist

@Kingsif:I ran into a situation I'm surprised I haven't run into before.

This draft: Draft:Aura Rivas

showed up in copy patrol, indicating a 66% match to

this page.

(As an aside, this is an example of one of my pet peeves, namely that the copypatrol tool, as good as it is, fails to identify if material matches an existing Wikipedia article. Instead it picks up what is probably mirrired content or content taken from Wikipedia, sometimes with but, often without attribution.)

I determined that the match was sufficiently closed and proposed it for G1, and it has been deleted.

The editor involved explained that it is a Spanish Wikipedia page which was copied into draft space "like a translated into English when I had more time".

As is so often the case, the editor may have presumed that because the Wikipedia content has a free license, that it can be used. That's technically correct, but the license requires attribution, and we set forth best practices at: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia

When an editor follows the best practices, it avoids the technical violation of failing to provide proper attribution, as well as making it clear to editors who review copypatrol entries to accpet it.

However, while I've dealt with hundreds of these issues, and typically point out the best practices and either ask them to make the appropriate dummy edit, or do it for them (as you often do). However, every situation I've dealt with in the past includes copying from an English Wikipedia article into another main space Wikipedia article. I've never dealt with a situation where someone is bringing material from another language into drafts based for the intention of translation at a later time. I see that the linked guideline indicates that cross wiki project copies are acceptable, but I think that's in the context of copying into a main space article.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether my usual advice is sufficient. Can I restore the deleted draft and simply add the attribution as required, or does the fact that this is going to reside in draft space for an indeterminate amount of time suggest different handling is appropriate? I have dealt with issues where someone has done a translation but in most of the situations I've been involved in, the translation was done off-line.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the attribution issue may focus on the fact that translation and inter-wiki copying attribution templates go on a talk page, which draftspace articles don't have. Kingsif (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif, adding an attribution template to the talk page is optional; providing attribution via an edit summary is not optional. And draft pages can and sometimes do have talk pages. Sphilbrick, I don't see why you couldn't restore the draft and provide the needed attribution. Drafts that have not been edited for 6 months are eligible for G13 speedy deletion, so they won't be there indefinitely. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Madness in the Method

Hi, Diannaa. Sorry to bother you again, but it seems that the "plot" section in the article Madness in the Method contains COPYVIO [5]. Could you, please, check it out? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1948 United States Senate election in Texas

Could you take a look at this article, please? I get this earwig report, but two of the three sources I can't get a carbon date on, while the third, truthseeker], does give me a date in 2017, clearly predating this article. But I am not sure if the Quora answer isn't a mirror of different WP articles. Thanks in advance.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It was copied from Lyndon B. Johnson, where some of it has been present for 10 years or more. I will add the required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. As always I appreciate your expertise. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Uptown drug scandal

Hello, I'm sorry that you feel there was no value in the addition of information from one of very few (English-language) published sources available regarding the Uptown drug scandal and the group's false accusations being the only real basis for a case against Tiger JK, one of the most famous Korean rap artists, leading to his conviction, and, further, that you felt this addition to have been tantamount to reducing the article to the status of "tabloid"; nevertheless, given the prominence of this event in the career of this group- and in as much as it served as an impetus for the development of the career of former Uptown member Yoon Mi-rae, again one of the most famous Korean rap artists- its preservation on the talk page for the reference of any party in search of these facts is not unjustified. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.203 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Posting on the article talk page was the correct thing to do. Now we wait and see if anyone supports the addition of the material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on content removed from Digitiser page

Hi, the text was not a straight copy and paste - it was edited by me. Please check again. If you think the content needs editing further, then of course I will do so. (It would need to be reinstated for me to do that). —Flicky1984 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright links

Noted, thank you for guidance. (Ereckkarja (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

UnS content

Hey. Although this article [6] is detailed and well backed by a lot of references, I think it still has some unsourced content. (103.228.159.108 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.DH85868993 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Enquiry about semi-protection status.

Thank You Diannaa for the clean up on Sangeetha Sringeri wiki page. However, the edit access level is changed to only established users. The user DeltaQuad has reported it as sock puppetry. However, the effort was only to remove copyright material and clean up the article as directed but the edits were reverted back for no concrete reasons. Would request the edit access level be moved to registered users. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexterBud (talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am not understanding your question? The article is already semi-protected. This means people without accounts and people with brand new accounts cannot edit it. Is that what you want, or are you asking for protection to be removed? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.DH85868993 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright infringement at West Coast Main Line?

I've noticed that you have been patrolling for copyright infringements. There has been bit of a revert war with an anon IP at West Coast Main Line (see attempts to engage at talk:West Coast Main Line#Bottlenecks). I wonder if I should be concerned that the material that the anon added is still in the history although others have reverted, does it need to be expunged? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on polygenic score

Hi Diannaa, my apologies for the problem on Polygenic score. None of what I added was copied identically from that paper, but rather my intention was to reword it without losing any of the important phrasing and brevity from the original. I do understand that the problem was in keeping some phrases from the original too intact (largely because there are specific ways these topics are referred to). My understanding was that this is usually acceptable, but I’ve rewritten the paragraph under consideration to be more substantially different from the original. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's difficult to paraphrase technical material. Your new version looks okay. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Si Se Puede! (album)

Thanks for your message. I've tried to paraphrase the removed section differently. I hope it is better now.OttoJohn (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Better now. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Attribution - Draft:Mary Anne Carter

Hi Diannaa -- You are correct, this content was repurposed from a federal agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, and is in the public domain. It appears the attribution was fixed here Draft:Mary Anne Carter. I was not intending to plagiarize and appreciate the flag (and fix.) Please let me know if there are any other issues. Thank you! Stacymannpearson (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Usage of a promotional image

Hi, can you please help me understand which image licence I should be using for a band's promo pic? I have permission to use the image. Thanks! Sampson20 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sampson20. The copyright holder might have given you permission to use the image, but that's not going to be sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. What is needed is for the copyright holder to give their WP:CONSENT for the file to uploaded to Wikipedia under a license which basically gives anyone anywhere in the world permission to use the image at anytime for any purpose (including commercial uses and derivative uses). There are a couple of ways for this to be done, but the most common is for the copyright holder to email Wikimedia OTRS their consent to release the file under a free license that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts. You can find out more about the types of free licensing the Wikimedia Foundation accepts at c:Commons:Licensing.

For reference, the copyright holder of a photo is considered to be the photographer who took the photo, not the subjects of the photo. The copyright holder of a photo of a band (e.g. a PR photo) would be the photographer who took the photo, not the band, unless the photo was taken as part of a work-for-hire type of arrangement in which the copyright ownership as well as the physical photo itself were officially transferred from the photographer to another party; in other words, a transfer of copyright is not always automatic even in cases of PR photos and only the copyright holder can release the photo for Wikimedia Foundation licensing purposes. In addition, if the copyright holder agrees to do this, then they need to understand the following: although that they aren't transferring their copyright ownership to the Wikimedia Foundation, they are making a version of the photo available under a free license and this license is non-revocable; so, as long as someone downloading the file from the Wikimedia Foundation's servers abides by the terms of the free license accepted by the copyright holder, there's not much the copyright holder can do to stop them or anyone else from using the photo pretty much as they please even if at some future date the copyright holder changes their mind and requests the file be deleted from the servers.

Finally, one last thing. All of you editing since you're account has been created has been pretty much to The Honeycutters. Although there's nothing explicitly wrong with this per se, single-purpose accounts often are somehow connected to subjects they are editing about or at least give other editors the impression they are; so, if you have any connection at all to the band, please take a close look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference. Wikipedia does expressly prohibit editors with a conflict of interest from editing article, but it does expect that they follow certain guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for all the info! Sampson20 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Broken table

Hi Diannaa, I'm sorry to bother you but, while looking at Powerage Tour, I saw your ES fix broken table here and hoped that it might mean that you have some expertise in the field, which I sadly do not. Since you fixed it back then it has gone wrong again, I'm sad to say. If you felt so inclined, could you please have a quick look at Talk:Powerage Tour for my harrowing, tragic, heartbreaking account of what seems to be wrong and, even worse, how I'm too useless to fix it! If you can't or don't want to have a look then please please don't worry – maybe someone else reading this will, or I guess I can try to track down Wikiproject Table Fixing Or Whatevs – either way no-one will die and it will get fixed sooner or later. Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I hope Diannaa doesn't mind me jumping in. The table was missing the final |} characters to close it at the end. I have fixed the HTML syntax. GermanJoe (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, GermanJoe, that's absolutely great. I'm going to have to read up on this – I had previously got closeish, but sabotaged myself with an extra hyphen! Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Von der Leyen Commission

I would like you to return the parts that you deleted but were not coppied, and parts that cannot but to be coppied (for example names of legislative acts, names of integrations). Sredina (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't remove any material like that. The only thing I removed was the section titled "Political priorities of the commission"— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that section had such material, announced legislative proposal and similar things, so I expect it to be returned ASAP. Sredina (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have double checked and triple checked and the material I removed does not contain that. Everything I removed was copied from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf. Headers and bolded material in particular were copied. I can send you a copy of the removed material via email if you like, but you'll have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, things were coppied, and I dont argue about deleting that, but you cannot do anything else with names of legislative proposals than to copy them. So I ask you to return those, those were included, maybe you should check it for the fourth time. I was removing and rewriting other things but you deleted it before it could be done completely.Sredina (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to prepare a list of legislation she intends to propose, there's no reason why you can't do that yourself. I am not going to do it. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The source webpage has been deleted since I last looked at it. There's an archived copy here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Brettmcfarland (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Brettmcfarland (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Brett McFarland

María Isabella of Spain

Good morning and greetings. can you please provide a link where the supposed copyright violation was taken place and can be verified the similarities. I am confused since the head of the article is just a summary of her life. I wrote my self so I don't see how it was supposedly copied from somewhere else. Thanks --Miguelemejia (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Miguelemejia. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can see what I removed. Identical material appears in this pdf on page 15. You can view the overlap by visiting this copyvio report; overlapping sections are highlighted in pink. "She was good natured and pliable" ? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted approved content

Dianna (so?) - you deleted content for which I already have a letter of copyright release approval from Wikipedia. What? Why now? Peter Pcapell (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pcapell. I removed it because adding a 9,123-word eulogy to a 186-word stub is inappropriate, regardless of the copyright status of the source document. It gives far too much weight to one point of view. You wouldn't find such content in a paper encyclopedia, and we don't want it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Japan

Sock has returned as Ip on this page, is self explanatory based on the edits. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be a static IP; blocked for a month. Please let me know if you spot any further ones. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks! I'm new and still learning. Fullrabb (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb

Phoolan

I think you should read and compare the two versions and judge for yourself. The other version seems to have an agenda to simply damn India, its society, its family culture, and above all, its religion. It is a page of apologetics for a bandit who murdered many people and looted many others. Poverty is pervasive in India and we all live in the same "dirty" country; how many of us become bandits? It surely cannot be right to blame all and sundry for crimes committed by one very damaged personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.20.116 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the article talk page, and suggest improvements to the existing article rather than discarding several years' worth of other peoples' work. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi! Thank you for your guidance on the copyright rules for Wikipedia. As a new editor to Wikipedia, this is helpful info. Cheers! FJ329 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

re: Copyright i-1639, government source

Hello. Thank you for the information about the copyright rules for Wikipedia. The information I had added was from the official government release about the bill giving an overview of the provisions. I believe that does not infringe on copyright. Please correct me if I am wrong, I would like to know. Otherwise, would you revert the change you made removing the information? Is there a way to put it in as a quote citing the government site? If not, please let me know and I'll paraphrase it in my own words. IrreverentSquid (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)IrreverentSquid 13:21, 19 August 2019 (PST)

Material published by the US Federal Government is in the public domain, but that's not true of the individual states (except California and Florida). Regardless of the copyright issue, it's better to summarize the legislation rather than copypaste all of it to the site. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges

Hi Diannnaa!

Writing your name like this feels like I am screaming at you :) In any case, thank you for the information about the copyright rules. It is a very complex article and I needed a lot of time and help to understand and strive to communicate in a short content. I have read the notes you send me a few times and took notice. I will improve as I go I guess. Again! Appreciated! Any future feedback is welcome!

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbubblegum (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

About Basra Specialized Spherical School

Hello Diannaa

I did not steal the subject, but I benefited from the way to raise the subject, and the rest of the details are different.

I was hoping that you would modify his words instead of deleting a lot of them.

I think the Wikipedia project is a collaborative project, not a project to destroy efforts.

Thanks anyway

ميناء (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but there's too many such cases each day for me to re-write them all. I have to do removals instead, to keep us in copyright compliance. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, deleting a subject is easy and requires no effort. What a strange thought !! ميناء (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Today's work to clearing copyright issues: 80 edits and 6 hours of work. If you think this requires no effort, you are mistaken. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting is easy, it is difficult to edit articles, and your metrics are wrong, see for yourself before offending others. ميناء (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

How many hours would it have taken me to re-write all 68 copyvio reports I cleared today? At least double or triple: 12 hours? 18 hours? 24 hours? It's not physically possible; I have to go to work and go to the gym and sleep and perhaps read a book for an hour in the evening. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The right person should be chosen in the right place, If you don't have time to fix articles, but you can just delete them, you should leave the room for someone else. Wikipedia developed for development and not to destroy efforts. The subject should be taken seriously ميناء (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but the policy allows for immediate removal of copyright material. I am under no obligationion to re-write it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be no point in arguing, because levels of understanding are different. With this policy, people are frustrated and abandon any work they are trying to succeed. What easier demolition. thank you. ميناء (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

ميناء, This may have run its course, but let me try a short thought experiment. Suppose the community developed a policy which prohibited editors from simply removing copyvios, and declared that if anyone wants to remove material that is a violation of copyright policy, they must replace it with bespoke wording making the same point, but not violating copyright policy. While Diannaa’s point is that this would impose a significant burden on the handful of editors trying to address the few hundred reports each week, I want to make a different point. If that policy were enacted then thousands of editors might rationally choose not to do the hard work of writing original, non-infringing prose, and simply copy and paste the text from the reference. Then the community would be required to fix it, and those editors could improve many more articles in much less time.

Except—the number of copyright violations would jump from a few hundred a week to a few thousand. Where are the editors who will be doing all these rewrites? There aren’t enough to handle a few dozen, so where do you magically find enough to handle a few thousand?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is that our content is freely shareable, and we lose that important characteristic if we allow copyright material to be published here without the consent of the copyright holder and in violation of copyright law. That doesn't improve the encyclopedia - it degrades it, and violates one of our founding principles. The onus is on the contributing author to find out what our policies are and follow them, not do whatever the heck they want and expect others to clean up after them. Your momma doesn't work here. Clean up after yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is futile. First: I didn’t steal the subject, the details are different, I benefited from the method of subtraction, I think I repeated this talk more than once but you don't read. Second: What is the difference between officials and the ordinary editors, the official should help, not destroy, the powers given to those who deserve it. Third: What is the relationship of ( my momma) to the subject?. Has the debate taken another turn ?! If emotions and cynicism dominate our discussions, we must reconsider who has the authority to control here. ميناء (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you "didn't steal the subject"; the problem is that you copied from http://kfailorin.com/about-us without any evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. I removed the copyright material. Our copyright policy specifies that copyright material must be removed. I am under no obligation to re-write it for you. When you state that I must do so, you are incorrect. There's too many such violations each day for me to re-write even a few of them, and too few people helping in this area for me to expect for someone else to do so someday, so I remove such violations. My remark about "Your momma doesn't work here" was intended as a joke; I suspect you didn't understand the joke because you don't live in this country. It's a quotation from a sign that is sometimes posted at workplace lunchrooms and other such places. The first place I ever saw it was at an indoor skateboard park in Calgary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A joke !.. What this justification!. We consider this phrase insulting in my country. I don't think we're friends to joke together. In general, my proposal to correct the problem rather than delete it was merely an educational proposal. In the end you win of course, because you have control here. ميناء (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Netherland-America Foundation

Hi Diannaa,

You removed some sections from a new text I wrote for the article Netherland-America Foundation, aka NAF, due to copy right issues.

Some parts of the text may indeed have been copied from the NAF website, which happens to be our own website.

I have asked the Executive Director of the NAF to formally release/license our web content to Wikipedia following your standard procedure/request format.

Because I no longer have access to my updates, including the ones you seem to have accepted, it is very difficult for me to determine exactly which copyrighted texts we need to release.

It would help if you could reinstate the edits that do not involve copyright issues.

President Boston Chapter of the NAF

Dutch-Bostonian (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dutch-Bostonian. I didn't remove any material that didn't involve copyright issues, so there's nothing I can reinstate. The material I removed was from http://thenaf.org/naf-mission/ as well as some of the material at http://docplayer.net/48399851-Fly-world-business-class.html. If you would like to activate your Wikipedia email I will send you a copy of the removed material via email.

A second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

See my response on my talk page Dutch-Bostonian (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted way too many edits on schizoid personality disorder

I think you made a fairly critical mistake. You deleted about 20 of my edits on schizoid personality disorder, collaterally taking out numerous ones that had nothing to do with copyright or followed the copyright rules. Please either restore them or send me them privately if you did actually somehow delete all of them on purpose. SUM1 (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple edits were hidden under the WP:revision deletion policy (from the point you first added it to the point of removal) but I only removed the copyright violation (629 bytes of content; 96 words). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I eventually gathered that, thanks for clarifying. SUM1 (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you've reverted me twice, I will present my next attempt to you here. Please tell me if it's acceptable, then I will post it. I do believe the eating symptoms need to be in the article to ensure awareness of the nuanced struggles with this disorder.

"These included a habit of for eating alone, refusing to eat out, pickiness, odd food preferences and fears suggestive of hypochondriasis, with one patient describing himself as having always been a "poor eater" (see Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder). It was suggested that they may simply be anhedonic for eating and don't enjoy it, however another theory suggested was that schizoids also withdraw from themselves and may be relatively insensitive to feelings of hunger."

If it is not good enough, what would I need to remove? SUM1 (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The new proposed text still needs a lot of alteration, because it presents the same ideas in the same order using identical wording in some spots. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. Here:

"Schizoids may be anhedonic, which leads to not feeling particularly hungry, with a reduced or absent enjoyment of eating. They therefore might eat little or only eat specific foods. Some will not eat anywhere but at home, or will only eat while alone." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: How about

"Some patients would only eat when alone and refused to eat out. Restrictive diets and fears of disease were also found. It was suggested that the anhedonia of SPD may also cover eating, leading schizoid individuals to not enjoy it. Alternatively, it was suggested that schizoid individuals may not feel hunger as strongly as others or not respond to it, a certain "withdrawal from themselves". One patient described himself as having always been a "poor eater"." ?

If removing the quotes would make it admissible, just let me know.

I have to keep it relative to the study and not as a generalisation, since there is still little data, but I've replaced almost all of the original text. SUM1 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You're linking to an eating disorder when the source article does not mention the medical diagnosis Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. That's a conclusion your're drawing that's not actually in the source. You're putting "withdrawal from themselves" in quotation marks when the source does not actually use that phrase. Why is that one poor eater's experience so important? I would leave it out. You repeatedly use the passive phrase "it was suggested" which will inevitalby lead to someone asking {{who}}. For these reasons, I prefer my version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave out the link, but that's a separate issue from copyright. I wanted to know if my edit is admissible on copyright rules.
The study does mention withdrawing from themselves but not in direct quotation; that was a mistake on my part, I'll remove the quote marks.
Fine, I'll remove the poor eater quote.
Who? The authors of the book of course, which in this case is Theodore Millon and his colleagues. That's why there's a citation there for crying out loud.
Your version would've been impossible to admit due to various issues, most notably the speculative usage of "may" when anhedonia is established as a core part of the disorder in the rest of the article, the suggestion that anhedonia causes lack of feeling hunger, the suggestion that reduced enjoyment of eating overall causes the specific food preferences and the suggestion that those who only eat at home are different people to those who restrict their intake or diets.
I'll make those amendments and assume the edit admissible under copyright rules. Thank you. SUM1 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Please could you briefly outline your professional history in mental illness and what qualifications you have in that field? Apeholder (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Apeholder; that's an inappropriate personal question, and I am not going to answer for privacy reasons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-free content opinion

Hi Diannaa - would you be willing to give an opinion on a couple of images that I'd like to use in an article on a non-free basis? If this isn't your area, please feel free to ignore the following.

The article is Margaret Macpherson Grant, which currently has a lot of text but no images. I'd like to be able to show a picture of her, and one of Aberlour House, her main residence, which is discussed at some length in the article. I have been able to find no free images of either, after quite a lot of searching both on Commons and on sites like geograph.co.uk. The images I'd like to include:

• Photograph here, which is the only image I've been able to find of her anywhere. I've e-mailed the publisher of the blog to ask where they got the portrait of her - since she died in 1877, and it seems likely that this has been scanned from a newspaper, so I think it might be out of copyright anyway but I can't confirm that - they haven't responded yet however.
• A historic postcard depicting her house here. I'm less wedded to the this particular image, since are lots of other non-free images of the house, but this is the best one that I've found. I have not attempted to contact the host.

From my own reading of the criteria at WP:NFCP, I think I have a fair rationale to use these images - there are no alternatives, I don't think I'm affecting the owners' commercial opportunities, I'm only using one image of her and one of the house, they've both been published online, they will be used encyclopedically and our image policy, and they will be used in a mainspace article where there is contextual significance. However, I didn't want to go ahead and upload/insert them without getting an expert opinion on whether this is permissable or not. Any advice you can offer would, as always, be gratefully received. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 08:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The photo of Grant is in the public domain due to age. It should be uploaded to the Commons. Use {PD-US-expired} and {PD-old-70}. The house still exists, so we can't use a non-free image of it, because a freely licensed image could still be created. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

PhiloSOPHIA

Re this change to PhiloSOPHIA: I'm not going to edit-war with you over inclusion of the quote, but I think there actually is a "reason why original prose could not be prepared": because it is difficult or impossible to use plain English to convey the meaning of the literary jargon employed in the quote without both butchering the subtleties of the intended meaning and eliminating the subtext that submissions should be written in the same jargony style. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't normally include vision statements, mission statements, or corporate goals. It would be more apropos to include commentary sourced to secondary sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue involving Texas Historical Commission markers

Early in my Wikipedia career, I took a photo of an historical marker, which I uploaded. It was deleted. I learned that while I had the right to take a photo of the sign, and I owned the copyright to that photo, the words on the marker were subject to copyright, and my copyright covered the image, but not the words. To use the photo, I needed the copyright holder of the words to license them (unless they were already in public domain, which they were not.)

I recently deleted a photo of an historical marker in Texas on the same basis, as I had seem nothing to tell me that the text of historical markers in Texas was considered to be in the public domain.

The editor @Wiki name: contacted someone at the Texas Historical Commission (THC) who indicated that it was OK. However:

• The person who provided the response was not someone whose name I could find in the THC staff list

• The communication was done via a personal, not an official email address

• The statement was very informal, and did not remotely resemble our desired license statements

I did not accept the permission for these reasons. The editor declined to try to address these issues.

I decided to try myself. I tracked down the person at THC who seemed most likely to be the person who could clarify the issue. She responded:

Hi Stephen – I am the communications director for the Texas Historical Commission. We have no problems with folks sharing photos of our marker. I am not aware of any copyright or other limitation, unless someone was using the material to create the appearance of our endorsement of a person, product or service. In terms of our photos being on wikipedia, the practice is quite common – I am sure there are many photos of our markers on the website and we have no issue with this.

Please let me know if you have any questions – thanks!

This response addressed two of my issues – it was someone clearly identified on the staff list, and the communication used is the official email. However, the wording itself is rather informal. On the other hand, the intent is clear, so I wanted to get your opinion on whether this is acceptable.S Philbrick(Talk) 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick. I can spot a problem right away: the phrase "unless someone was using the material to create the appearance of our endorsement of a person, product or service". That's not compatible with our license, which allows any use whatsoever. A second problem: The person who responded may not actually be in a position to release material under license on behalf of the Government of Texas. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 12:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nathaniel Mary Quinn

Hello Dianaa, I notices and reverted some copyvio on the above page, and also noticed that you had done the same thing a little while ago. I thought I would pass this repeat copvio to you as you have the correct skills for the job.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ThatMontrealIP. I've done revision deletion again and will watch the page for a while. Their edit summary implies that they don't get it yet so I've added a simplified notice to their talk page. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

they came back with a paraphrase (sourced to the Gagosian gallery material), but then I noticed that it is actually undisclosed paid editing/promotion. Can't say how I figured that out as it would be outing, but it is not hard to figure out. Reverted.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Reporting copyvio content

Greetings Diannaa,

Thank you for taking care of the copyvio at Gregory S. Brown. I used the {{copypaste}} tag in Twinkle; is that the most appropriate/expedient way to identify them? I see there is a noticeboard at WP:CP but the Twinkle tool didn't post there automatically, and I didn't want to raise multiple notifications if the copypaste tag is enough. Thank you for your help! CThomas³ (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cthomas3 and thank you for your interest in copyright clean-up. I located this particular item while working through the reports at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. The best thing for you to do when you locate straightforward violations of the copyright policy is to remove them yourself and request revision deletion. You can request revision deletion using the template {{Copyvio-revdel}}; or alternatively if you find the template awkward or confusing, just ask me to do it. More complicated cases should be listed at WP:CP.

Using the Copypaste template places the article in Category:All copied and pasted articles and sections which currently has nearly 500 items in it, which sounds dreadful but I've seen it as high as 800 so I guess we are doing ok. But following the above instructions is a better bet because it will for sure get a prompt result. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I will definitely do that in the future. Your advice is much appreciated! CThomas³ (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

got it

stop bothering me. Rvls (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision Deletion request

Hello Diannaa, I see that you are listed as an administrator willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Please check this single contribution by Devil_chan2456_angel, dated August 10, 2019. It appears to be a 'grossly improper entry' that should be redacted. Regards Woodlot (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

MV Doulos Phos

Hello Diannaa, I was the editor involved with the copyvio in MV Doulos Phos when the owner of the material didn't complete the release needed for the ORTS ticket. You mentioned at Talk:MV Doulos Phos that the re-write was unusable as there was still a huge overlap with the source material. Can you tell me what was your primary concern with that re-write? That there was still close paraphrasing or that the citations didn't credit nnapprentice.com as the source of that material?

After this experience, I'll certainly not use anything that requires explicit permission from an owner again. Either the request doesn't reach the person with the legal authority to release the material, or if they do they do have the authority they don't fulfill the ORTS requirements. A lot of work goes into expanding an article only to later find that it cannot legally be used. Blue Riband► 02:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

We couldn't use the material on the temp page because it was almost identical to the material that was flagged for copyvio, being copied from http://www.nnapprentice.com/alumni/letter/Apprentice_SS_MEDINA.pdf and http://www.nnapprentice.com/alumni/letter/Update_SS_Medina.pdf. It doesn't matter if you credit the source; what matters is that we can't host copyright material without it being released under a compatible license. That didn't happen in this case, according to the OTRS agent who reviewed the permission email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Hello Dianna,

I request you to undo your removal of all my previous work, except for the pulse sequence. The pulse sequences section was liberal with how it was repeated verbaitm, but the rest is my work. I believe you were especially brash to remove the table and the non-proton MRS section. I will work on rewriting the pulse sequence section once these changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty (talk • contribs)

Sorry but I'm not going to restore unsourced material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, if you restore it - I can make sure everything is properly cited by midnight this Sunday. Can you please do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Or can I at least have my previous edits sent to me so I can update them with sources accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

... for explaining about Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Paolo.dL (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hello again, Diannaa. I was checking out your user page and noticed your JSTOR usebox, per the The Wikipedia Library. I'm a registered member of JSTOR, with a free-bee account, allowing me to read (only) six journal/articles a month, with no download privileges. Am curious about how one goes about accessing JSTOR via the WP Library. I tried, but can't seem to find the door to JSTOR, and have only come across a few references to it. I suspect it may be right under my nose, but in any event, I can't find it. I'll try not to unload a bunch of questions on you, but I do have a couple: Can one search for a given subject via WP access? and Can one download PDF journals via WP, or are they only viewable on line? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey there Gwillhickers. I got my Jstor access through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Looks like there's some access availability: go to Wikipedia:JSTOR and click on the link to apply. You will need to write a wee proposal as to what sort of uses you foresee yourself using it for. It has to be renewed annually. Articles can be downloaded and saved, or even emailed to members of your posse, should you have some fellow Wikipedians with whom you share resources or experiences. There's a search feature, advanced search capability, I don't know how good the search engine is though, because I use it mostly for my copyright work, or for emailing specific documents to wiki-friends. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. After reading the requirements I'm not sure I can apply here, because I already have an account with JSTOR, and I rarely make edits to WikiMedia. I was hoping WP access would allow me downloads. Guess I'll have to make do. Thanks again for your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to make edits to Wikimedia; that's just where they host the sign-up stuff. It's for everybody. Go ahead and apply :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — I'll let you know if I'm accepted. Thanks again !! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

having a noob moment

Could you have a quick look at the plot section of All About Eve? To me it just feels like some sort of copy/paste (and I couldn't find the close paraphrasing tool is there a better tool than https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ ?). If I had to guess, I'd probably go with some sort of "word for word" out of some book. I don't mind doing a rewrite on it, but want to make sure I'm not just hacking around some other wiki-editors work first. Maybe my 'Spidy senses' are failing - just wanted a quick 2nd look. — Ched (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC) talk:Ched|talk]]) 14:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ched, good to see you back on the site! I checked it over and it looks like the plot section has grown organically over time. A lot of it has been there for quite some time (8 years), which makes a definitive answer difficult. Were you looking for Earwig's tool? it's at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/. It doesn't find any matches on this particular plot description. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

blushing Why thank you :). Yes - I have Earwig's tool bookmarked - thank you. (actually I also have some of your stuff bookmarked and linked) I guess it was just that some of the writing sounded like wording from the 50s - and it spooked me a bit. The only thing I could find was one of our "Focus On" books by wikipedia editors. I'll chalk it up to just being antsy. Thank you very much for taking the time - I really do appreciate it, because you seem to be filling in a lot for Moonriddengirl. Or rather for the type of work she used to do before she became busy so much WMF work. TY again. — Ched (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Buellton, CA Edits

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your notes! I am a marketing representative for Buellton Visitors Bureau and the content I added is directly from their public website/trip planning landing page. (https://www.discoverbuellton.com/trip-planner.html) This same copy is also part of the bureau's press package, making it available to the general public for reuse.

Is there a better way to go through this process so that I can utilize the copy already developed by the bureau without having to reword/recreate it all? Thank in advance for your guidance. Mogdeci (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

The second problem is 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) 14:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I fear my timing was indeed bad, but we're already working on preparations for Tokyo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding John Fanning page

Hi, I noticed that you deleted revisions of that page. That action led to the page becoming a disambiguation instead.

My problem is that I AfD'ed the older copyright-violating version, and so your actions made my AfD irrelevant. Could you process and delete that afd nomination : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fanning. I am not aware what to do in this situation. Thanks Daiyusha (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

PamD is the person who changed it back to a disambiguation page; this was done at 09:28, August 25, 2019‎, and I did the revision deletion at 14:11. The AFD is no longer needed. You can close it yourself, using the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

On Nigeria Football Federation page edit

responding to talk message of 12:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa, trust this meets you well? The addition of the copyrighted material was done in good faith as the said material is in public space. Most importantly, it puts into perspective the issues relating to the proposed bill passage and its aftermath. With your kind permission, i will restructure the sentences using my own words. I will await your reply before I go on ahead to edit the page. Thanks a lot, Dianaa. 2dmaxo (talk)

It's okay to include the material as long as you re-write it in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

On Nigeria Football Federation page edit

responding to talk message of 12:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC) II

Hi Diannaa, it's me again. Thanks for the response. Will get on it asap. Regards!

Tanzania

Hi Diannaa! sorry I was only working on the source I didn't even catch that ~ Thanks ~ by the way nice to see you again. ~mitch~ (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry again~ I just remembered, all I did was work in the info box ~ with the name of the president ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mitchellhobbs yeah, I left your info box improvements alone. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:John_C._Mallinson

Thanks very much for the feedback. (I wasn't aware that these drafts were visible unless directly referenced). The feedback is very helpful. I understand the concern. You'll have to excuse my fumbling around on Wikipedia, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly what you changed in the article. How do I see that? Roger Wood (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason you can't view the removed material in the page history is because it's been hidden due to the copyright issue. Please visit the copyvio report and click in the iThenticate link to see the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Charles Denis Mee

Your deletion of the entire revision history of Draft:Charles Denis Mee makes it impossible for the article's editors to see what has been deleted so that it could be revised into an non-infringing version. Also, you are certainly entitled to you opinion as to what is a copyright infringement but it is possible that there maybe other different opinions and they may be more appropriate than yours. So can you restore the last version so we can see what you did? After a reasonable period for us to respond then it would be reasonable to delete the history but your preemptory action seems overly drastic. Tom94022 (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tom94022. Copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical. For the same reason, I normally do the revision deletion immediately, so that each case is completely finished when I leave the page. The copyright material was added to this draft by Roger Wood on May 1 and was removed by me when I was going through his contribs yesterday. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. Thanks for making the history available and for trying your hand at editing out the offensive material. I made a number of changes that should remove any copyright issues. FWIW I have a fair bit of experience in copyright litigation and I think the original work either came under the "fair use" exception or since in some cases parts were factual statements not copyrightable. Regardless, I went ahead and made changes so I hope there is now no problem. BTW, it might be a bit of a burden but may I suggest that on draft articles u send a notice to the editors that you intend to delete the history but give them a chance to make the edits first. Links to the Copyvio site would be helpful in showing what is suspect. You can now delete whatever history u think appropriate. Thanks again. Tom94022 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Tom94022, Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. The current version of this draft is now okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:John_C._Mallinson and Draft:Charles Denis Mee

I think I understand the problem. I have been pasting sections of others' text into the articles and sometimes 'publishing' before properly paraphrasing them. I understand why you have hidden some of the history. I didn't realize these draft articles were subject to scrutiny before they were submitted for approval. I'll be more careful in future. I should probably learn how to use my 'Sandbox'.
I assume the two articles as they currently stand are ok and it's just their history that's the problem?
Appreciate your help Roger Wood (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr Wood. I have gone through all your contributions and removed the copyright violations. There's some content visible in the history of Draft:Charles Denis Mee because another user wanted to have a look at it. Everything else was tidied up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Might be a bit 'Old School'..

		The Dual-Boot Barnstar
		In recognition of the fact that you actually deserve more than one Barnstar for your recent work, Ched in his typically lazy manner drops off your "Dual-Boot" Barnstar for: Your copy efforts: finding, fixing, and replacing copyright issues throughout the project, and doing some awesome copy-editor type of work. Your efforts to spend time helping and explaining things to we folk who simply don't have your knowledge of the project.

I don't see barnstars around that much anymore - but I didn't know a better way acknowledge all your hard work on the project. From me to you, Thank you Diannaa — Ched (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ched~! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Princess Diana's Jewellery

Can you please send me the things you removed from the Diana jewels page so I can edit it up? Thank you for all your work on the page Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Some parts were removed outright and some parts I paraphrased. I will send you an email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

YGM — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wording on a monument

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.artefacts.co.za/main/Buildings/bldgframes.php?bldgid=11620. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa. The source text in artefacts.co.za that you refer to was authored by me. The words are the exact text (in Afrikaans) of the inscription on a monument which needs to be recorded word for word otherwise it is not accurate.

Is the issue that I referenced the artefacts.co.za wording? Or is it against copyright rules to copy words from a monument? If so that is rather silly as the words provide further important information to the subject of this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm (talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tadpolefarm. It's okay to include the wording from the monument as long as it's properly framed as a quotation. It's not okay to copy material that you've already published online without releasing the prose inder 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) 11:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I can't remember precisely, it was years ago, but I recall I added the memorial wording to Wikipedia and later contributed the information to Artefacts and then referenced Artefacts on the Wiki page. Are you saying then technically the prose on Wiki should have been donated to Artfeacts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm (talk • contribs) 12:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not what happened. The material has been present on the Artefacts page since at least July 2017 according to the Wayback Marchine, and you added it to Wikipedia later, on June 21, 2018. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

sad fish

August

red admiral
... with thanks from QAI

see my talk page - his smile is still there, and his words quoted help me whenever I need perspective, and there are the rules in the background (a click away), - going to be the one thing in 2019 I won't change while DYK changes daily, music almost daily and picture monthly, - here's August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

File:NBL Logo 2009-2010.png

Hi Diannaa. You assesed the non-free use of this file back in July 2013, and at that time the logo was probably be used in the main infobox for primary identification purposes. However, the league seems to have changed its branding sometime around 2015 and this file was replaced by File:NBL (Australia) logo.svg. Whomever replaced the older file probably just moved it to body of the article without even considering its "new" non-free use. Generally, non-free former logos require a stronger justification for their non-free use per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 so that the context required for non-free use by WP:NFCC#8 and on not seeing sourced critical commentary about the change in branding to justify keeping the former logo. I was going to PROD this for deletion, but decide to ask you about it since you did review the file before the branding change. If PROD is not appropriate, then I could FFD it instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

We do have a PROD process for files, but it also fits well with F7 deletion since the fair use claim is no longer valid. I've gone ahead with that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. FWIW, I knew about the PROD option, but I wasn't sure if it still could be used since the file had been previously reviewed by an admin. Finally, sometimes former logos like this are allowed in the infobox of tan article about the first season when they were introduced, but not in subsequent seasons; so, I guess it might be argued that this could be kept, but only for use in 2009–10 NBL season; the problem though is there's no content in that particular article about any change in branding and also 2010–11 NBL season and 2011–12 NBL season are using slightly different logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

David Kohn Architects

Hi, David Kohn Architects seems to be an undisclosed cut and paste from David Kohn (architect), including identical references, which is both pointless and a copyright violation. Please could you have a look at the articles? TSventon (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation per se but a violation of the terms of our license. I have added the required attribution. Pointless to have two articles on this topic - perhaps the new one should be redirected to the old? Perhaps the issue should be decided at AFD — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will know what to do next time. I will take the article to AFD shortly. TSventon (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hyde Park, Cincinnati edits

Hello Dianna,

I apologize for my mistakes. I did tried using my own words editing this article the second time, but I understand some copyrighted material may have been included. I will try to better avoid copyright violations and as always, make sure to reference all the content. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEJCC (talk • contribs) August 31 02:18 UTC

Cattle articles

Hi. I got a zero result when I ran my earwig report on those articles. Even though on my Curation tool, it indicated there might be a copyvio issue. How did you catch it? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

These get reported on CopyPatrol. The iThenticate tool that forms its base can view material behind the paywall, and for the most part Earwig's tool cannot. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I had never heard of that tool before. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to Journal of Modern Dynamics

Dear user,

Your edit to Journal of Modern Dynamics that removed the link is a little unsuitable as you remove all the links to Professors homepage and we just recover it. The conflict part has already removed.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathowenw (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed those links because that type of link is not considered appropriate. External links should not normally be included in the body of an article. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Mathowenw

hey it still appears to have copyvio from here http://aimsciences.org/journal/1930-5311/ Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a quotation, not a copyright violation per se. Remove it? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

mobile which is why I only tagged it. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Praxdicae, I do not see your point and I do not think a quotation is not allowed in Wikipedia. Also when you do the editing, could you pay more attention to others work? I think Diannaa is a great person as Diannaa explains things perfectly but you just ignore questions.Mathowenw

You are correct, Mathowenw: short quotations are okay, though for the most part we try to write the articles using our own words. Regardless, we would not do revision deletion on a quotation; it's not a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Mathowenw —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)