User talk:Diannaa/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Copyright for Materials Research Society page

Hi Dianna, I work for the Materials Research Society and was given this text from the communications department to post. Is the page currently fine with your deletions, or does more action need to be taken? If so, what would you recommend given this content is direct from the organization the page is about? Thanks for your help. Penguins8771 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)13:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)13:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)~~

Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several 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 notability. I am not sure the organisation is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. We require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newpapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organisations that are not notable are typically speedily deleted.

The third 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.

So if you wish to add the copyrighted content to a Wikipedia article, the proper licenses and permissions will have to be in place. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how that would be done. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. Or, you could write new content that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. And you would have to avoid the conflict of interest guideline while doing so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

More copyvios on Operational Performance Management

Hi Diannaa,

I've reverted edits on Operational performance management where User:Yellow79Red re-added the copyright violations that you had previously expunged. You might want to hide the offending revisions. --Slashme (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna & Slashme,

Sorry for any inconvenience. I thought if we had quoted the users, it would be okay. I can redo them if that's not the case.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow79Red (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Copy-pasting copyright material from other websites is a violation of the copyright policy of this website and of copyright law. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa - Could you please restore the edits that weren't copyrighted? Not everything in there was and only the quoted parts could have been removed. I could rewrite those instead of deleting the full page? Thanks.

We already have a similar article at Business performance management, and Operational performance management redirects to there. Pretty much everything that I removed on February 26 was copyvio, so there's nothing to restore. I can send you that material or the later March 2 version by email if you like, but first you will have to activate your Wikipedia email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comments about CIMMYT entries

Dear Dianna, Perhaps you should have talked to me about this before deleting the content, since I wrote the original content anyway and was just trying to update the Wikipedia page with current information. It is actually so outdated that it is inaccurate. All of it was sourced. I sourced it to the original pages and also sourced it to other places. I'm not sure how you made the decision to delete it, but I really wish you could replace it and I can at least rewrite it again. It took an extremely long time as I had already rewritten it. Just out of curiosity, what gives you the authority to simply delete something without checking with the originator first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellingtales (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) tellingtales 07:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And just to add that you deleted all the updated "partners and donors" information which was taken from a page of icons from the CIMMYT webpage, so how could it be a copyright violation? I think you should restore it or at least explain why you think listing funders and donors is a copyright violation. For example, I added Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation -- how does that violate copyright? It is also listed on their own Wikipedia page. tellingtales 07:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tellingtales: We are required to remove copyright immediately. No authority is required to remove it or in fact any material. In any case, you seem to have added someone's biography to the article, which is inappropriate. I see you've also listed people winning awards. Awards should only be mentioned if they have their own article, and only if the award was to the subject of the articles or to staff because of their work with the organisation, ie a direct connection between the award and the organisation. As it stood, your edits were mainly sourced to the organisation itself. Surely independent sources have discussed it and can be used? I'm not defending the original article either. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Great.Now I know how it works, I'll remove stuff too. I will rewrite the biography. I added the Nobel Peace Prize and the person who won it has his own page and so does the Nobel Peace Prize. I sourced it both to the Nobel Peace Prize and to CIMMYT, so not sure what the problem is there. Ditto for the World Food Prize Awards -- the scientists have their own pages as does the World Food Prize. I sourced to both places. And it wasn't a violation of copyright to mention the awards. You didn't address the other query about listing the donors. How can that be a violation of copyright. I don't think it makes sense to just randomly delete entire swatches of text without reading them first tellingtales 14:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the "Partners and donors" and "Awards" sections as there doesn't seem to be any copyvio in those sections. Sorry for the mistake; it looks like I got too aggressive with the removal of content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: :@Diannaa: Thank you. I appreciate it. I just checked the International Rice Institute page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/International_Rice_Research_Institute#cite_note-originIRRI-10 I see that they sourced 90 percent of the information to their own website and materials. They used a couple of newspaper reports as well, but basically they are the source for their own material. tellingtales 15:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. Under-20s and Academy copyright problem

No issues at at all - looks fine to me. ShugSty (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Louis A. Perrotta

Noticed this page just created. The way it is set up, looks like either a copyvio or a copy of a draft, pasted into mainspace? I can't put my finger on it, I wondering if you could perhaps glance your expert eye over before I begin copy-editing. Karst (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Scrap that, just found the draft here. What do we do in such cases? Karst (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We can delete as copyvio, as the draft was written by someone else. If this had not been the case things would get a little more complicated, involving hist-merge and such — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It just struck me as very odd. The editor is from Nepal and has a poor grasp of English. This article appeared to be at a very advanced level for him. Karst (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death (edits)

Question: ok so I had added a new section that included the description that came along w/ each diorama along with a photograph of most. The reason I added that was after researching the topic, and then visiting them, I think it's especially helpful to include that information in this entry. It provides much more helpful content about each diorama--info, on my research--that really isn't available anywhere else. I also wanted to include the photos to help illustrate the intricacies of each diorama. So the content isn't excessive--and my question is what makes it non-free? One of the diorama descriptions is cited in a Slate article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/06/nutshell_dioramas_of_death_frances_glessner_lee_forensic_science_and_training.html. Do they just need a citation, quotes included? Please advise--I'd really like to be able to include the section you removed as it's valuable additional information about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashaull (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Lashaull (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Lorie

It's not a question of your citations; the problem is that we don't build our articles with quotations. Our non-free content policy does not permit such large quotations from non-free sources. The quotations consisted of 3500 words; that's far too much non-free content. Pretty much everything you add here needs to be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I've been contributing photos but I'm on the newer side to contributing text. If I were to write up some of the descriptions in my own words to further detail some of the dioramas, then that would be acceptable, right? Lashaull (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Lorie

Yes, that would be perfect. :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you so very much! Lashaull (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Bibi Ka Maqbara copyright problem

I have checked the link http://www.apnnews.com/2014/02/13/afghanistan-born-arshi-khan-to-play-aurangzebs-wife-in-indias-first-4d-bollywood-film/ that you were referring to on my talk page and well the website http://www.apnnews.com on which the news article has been published, has, in fact, copied content from the article Dilras Banu Begum. The content in Bibi Ka Maqbara article has also been copied from the article Dilras Banu Begum. So I have not copied any content from any websites, instead the website http://www.apnnews.com which published this article, has copied content from the article Dilras Banu Begum. Please check the article on Dilras Banu Begum, the information was posted there long before this news article was published.

http://www.apnnews.com doesn't seem like a reliable source as it has copied information word for word from a wiki article. So you have made a mistake and the content should not be removed from Bibi Ka Maqbara. — Helena_Bx (talk) 21:31 PM, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, the bot does not check the wiki and I did not spot that it was internal copying rather than from elsewhere on the web. What you need to do when copying from one article to another is to mention in your edit summary where you got the prose from. In fact such attribution is required under the terms of our license. Please see WP:copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic. I've re-added the material and provided the required attribution in the edit summary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue for Draft: William Beauclerc Otway

Hi Diannaa,

I am the copyright holder for the material on the Ballarat Industrial Heritage wiki, and I am giving myself permission to use it on Wikipedia. There is no copyright violation. Please restore my Wikipedia page.

CactusPolecat (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi CactusPolecat. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant. Many thanks, Diannaa. Now that I look into it in more detail, I see that by contributing to the Ballarat Industrial Heritage wiki, the work is now covered by something called an Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) (the page explaining this is at https://bih.federation.edu.au/index.php/Ballarat_and_District_Industrial_Heritage_Project:About). Of the three conditions, I understand 'Non Commercial' and 'Share Alike' will be covered simply by how Wikidpedia works. As for 'Attribution', I believe if I follow the rules at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly_licensed_sources, this will also be covered. Can you now please restore my page. CactusPolecat (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't plan to leave the text as it is. Can it be restored long enough for me to copy the text into my sandbox so I can edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CactusPolecat (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright material in sandboxes or drafts. I will send it to you via email and you can work on it off-line. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Asking to revert deletion of part of the article on Right to Recall

Dear Diannaa

Thanks for interest in Right to recall page.

I had edited right to recall page , giving the example of right to recall drafts. You have deleted and left the draft of another law TCP!

I am working to implement this right to recall law for last five years and have realised the law in depth.

TCP is the law , which will bring RTR law. RTR law has subtle variation for each of the ~300 position. It is essential to explain one rtr law draft summary , and give the complete draft of other, to make the article complete.

So ,I suggest you to undo your edition and restore to my version. Previous revision of Right to Recall

Than you

with best regards ≈≈≈≈ shiva

Hi Shiva, Government works, including legislation, are copyright in India, and thus your addition is an unacceptable amount of non-free content, violating our non-free content policy. I suggest you offer the readers a link to the material in the external links section of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

ANSWER BY SHIVA What i have edited , is not in legislation currently. Whole movement is to put these laws in legislation!! Also, the content I put is non-copyrighted material. so please revert changes. Thanks.

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi Diannaa,

I'm a little confused. When you copy and paste material, and then edit it, does that still count as infringing on copyright laws? And what if that's just coincidence, that two sentences are exactly alike? Because all of the material you just deleted was only based on facts from that PDF. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The material I removed was identical to that in the PDF. Two of them were picked up by a bot that looks for copyright violations and the remainder I found manually by checking your contributions. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. I realise that's difficult with technical information, but the effort must be made. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you removed all the material. Not just identical stuff. E.g. I said "Zimmeriana azumai is only known from the female." That was a valid sentence. Although not a long one, why did you have the right to remove things that were not copied and pasted? Megaraptor12345 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Was that in the Zimmeriana azumai article? Because I am not seeing that sentence in the removed material on that article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, the Zimmeriana lasiodactylum article had the sentence. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, that sentence is not present in the source PDF, but there's no point in re-adding it, as the source document states adult females and subadult males were examined. Adult male was not examined however. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So? It says very clearly in the document that the adult male is unknown! "Not examined because it's unknown", not "unknown because it's not examined". Megaraptor12345 (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to go out in 10 minutes, so I don't have time to re-add it. Please go ahead and add if you don't care to wait until I get home. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)q

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot . Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of John T. Standley, Rite Aid chairman

That is quite fine. I could care less.Cindy Minard (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Chappell Hill Female College

Thanks for deleting that, but I thought it was terribly sad. I didn't have time to create a non-copyvio version yesterday, but I've done so today, at User:Yngvadottir/Chappell Hill Female College. Could I ask you to look at it to verify that it's sufficiently distant from the Handbook of Texas source (I also found and used others), and if so to move it to mainspace without leaving a redirect? I'd also like to ask a further favour: that you undelete and rev-delete the earlier versions, so that TeaganBeard gets their article creation credit. That and Waco Female College (which I also intend to re-create) were their only article creations, they were still quite new, and nobody pointed out the source was copyrighted; in fact someone thanked them enthusiastically on their talk page. So I feel a bit guilty for having finally noticed and run the alarm bell. I hope I've now remedied what was done to the college by our having to delete it, but I'd also like to be nice to the editor, who may still be a reader, or an editor under another name. Someone tells me I'm being too soft-hearted, though, so I will quite understand if you don't do this; the main thing is, I hope my version passes muster. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I must research the Waco institution. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please check User:Yngvadottir/Waco Female College for copyvio concerns and if it passes muster, likewise mainspace that one without leaving a redirect. I found a picture this time; I think it's copyright-free by virtue of age, since it is captioned with the name of the college, shows the building they moved out of in about 1892, and the source newspaper calls it a newspaper picture. I put it on Commons because I couldn't figure out how to get the PD-OLD licence here; if you think my reasoning is flawed, please nominate it for deletion there or let me know and I'll do so myself. And again, I'd like to ask as a favour that you undelete the earlier versions of the article and instead revision-delete them so that the creator and any other editors get credit. Thanks, Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Yngvadottir: I‘m sure the image is fine on Commons, assuming the date is approximately correct, because a newspaper illustration would have been published shortly after creation. But for future reference I believe {{PD-US}} would be the generally appropriate tag here.—Odysseus1479 20:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. There’s an almost-legible byline under the image: “W. R.(?) WATKINS(?), WACO, TEXAS”, from which it may be possible to identify an attributable author. 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The image is okay and correctly licensed. All eligible uploads should be done at the Commons and only non-free images and things that are not OK for Commons should be uploaded locally. The draft has been moved to article space and revision-deletion of restored article history completed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, great! We wound up with 2 decent articles, I think. I'm always nervous about kiping images from the internet, but I thought that was probably old enough; until I tried to get through the Commons Upload Wizard. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Leonidas Polk photograph

Hello Diannaa, I found a website that uses copyright, for the photo of Leonidas Polk I was planning to use. To verify, I would like you to check and see if it's okay to use this one: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/general-leonidas-polk.htm

Thanks you for your time, - Seth --154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam: assuming the photo is from 1861–1864 in the USA, it is almost certainly public-domain and OK to use, regardless of any copyright on a work in which it‘s included—I doubt anyone would challenge a {{PD-US}} designation on something so old. However, it would help if information could be found concerning its authorship, precise date, provenance, & publication history, in order to be absolutely sure and to assist potential reusers.—Odysseus1479 23:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation copyright

Hi

Does there is any problem to link to translation of letter printed in Haaretz newspaper[1] from copyright point of view?--Shrike (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page discussion, they're not talking about copyright being the problem, but whether it not it is a reliable source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes but I asked about copyright.Its not clear for that the translation was authorized by copyright holder.As you dealing with copyright issues here I though I ask for you about that.--Shrike (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not a copyright expert or a legal expert, so I am prepared to render an opinion on that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Trinity-Pawling School

Hi Dianaa,

I did not copy anything word for word. I properly annoted my sources as well. Please reinsert the content. --- NewYorkx2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkx2007 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Newyorkx2007, I have double checked, and the content is identical to the source web page, so I will not be able to restore it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

RSA Conference

Hi Diannaa. Although I suspect your prior interest in this article may have been purely for copyright purposes, I thought I would give you a friendly ping in case you were interested in reviewing a proposed rework of the article.[2] CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry but I don't have time to assist with that project. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

About a template

Hello Diannaa ! If possible, could you perhaps take a brief look at the last chapter ("death") in this article James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. The template there states the part to be "repetitive repetition of redundancy", but I don't agree. I did however improve that part with some new "inlines" (and also translation inside Scandinavian sources). I also have in mind to change (and move) the last headline and add a new one like "Prisoner in Scandinavia" or something like that. Could you see if the last part still needs improvements due to repetition ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am really pressed for time right now so I won't be able to check the repetition issue. But you should not put such extensive quotations inside your citations; it's not necessary, and it violates our non-free content policy, so sorry. I have removed them. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Understand, no worries. However I feel I must add, I only used a FREE Swedish citation, from 1880. (Just about his time at Malmöhus Castle. I'm also aware of the fact that encyclopedic sources generally are not good for details, especially not so old as this one. But this citation only meant to prove that also Swedish sources do support, him to have been some kind of prisoner there) Please also note - everything at Project Runeberg lack copyright, in English please see "is it legal ?" at [3]. Finally, about the Danish citation, this did I only translate, the text in Danish was there already. So I don't think I have done any crime here, at least. But I do indeed remember that you have have taught me about copyrights and length of citations and I thank you for that. But in this case did I knew it didn't apply to that particular source. So I can assure you, that your lesson on this topic a few years ago wasn't made in vain. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize the material was so old; I will put it back. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. But the reference in Danish (which I only translated, it was there already) may possibly be under copyright laws however, I simply don't know. I'm not certain if translation of non-English sources should be done or not, but it seems polite to make it understandable for all. Cheers! Boeing720 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

National Bar Association

Given your comment on the relevant user's talk, I'm assuming you're the one who revdeld content from this article. Well, it's back in case you would like to mosey on over and zap it, although I have no expectation that it will stay gone. TimothyJosephWood 20:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Question Hello, I'm the one working on the page for the National Bar Association. Instead of deleting all the work that I am putting into this page can you pinpoint what sections are an issue? I have paraphrased, deleted all the pictures,cited references.Please let me know exactly which areas are an issue so I can be productive with this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kw1980 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The content was copied directly from the organization's website and thus is a copyright violation. For example the content on Webster is a copyright violation as it is copied from this page. For more information on copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing, please read through the material already in place on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

okay so if i go back in and rephrase the bios it should be okay? in terms of the nationalbar.org where I gathered names of presidents and affiliates I can get you a letter of authorization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kw1980 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not okay, for a couple of reasons. First, we don't normally include biographies of present and past presidents in our articles about organizations. And second, if you have a connection with this organization, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article at all. I am placing some information about conflict of interest on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Although putting in presidents is not something that's normally done, can i still do it? I understand it's not the norm but does really make it not allowed? How would you recommend I proceed? Also, I do not have a conflict of interest. thanks. Kw1980 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)kw1980

It's an indiscriminate listing of non-notable people, not the sort of content we are looking for. Please don't re-add it. Information suitable for the corporate website is not always the kind of material you would find in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. As to how to proceed, I suggest you learn more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before you contribute any further. Help:Contents is a good place to start. There's editors experienced in helping new contributors at the Teahouse.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a problem

Hello D. When you have a moment please take a look at what is going on at Hazara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It looks like there is copy/pasting going on from another article. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

what should I do?

Hello D. I feel like I'm being singled out and harassed by someone on Guy Gentile. Trying to discuss things civilly didn't get far. What's the best way to handle this? Trailmixers (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your first stop should have been to use the article talk page to discuss your proposed revisions. It's impossible to discuss via edit summaries, and to attempt to do so only leads to edit wars. I see there's a discussion with the other editor underway on your user talk page, so that's good. By the way the other editor is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, administrator, and member of the Arbitration Committee, so I recommend you give his suggestions and advice a fair reading — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Diannaa. I know you know how to value the comments below. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll move it to the article talk. This morning he attacked my entire post history after I commented on a page that was incorrectly tagged for deletion. Since then, he's labeled all of my contributions as garbage and ignored my requests for advise or discussion. I'm kind of lost at this point. Never had anything like this happen before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trailmixers (talk • contribs) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving text

For the most part, the B-17 entries that I moved to the new article were entries that I researched and entered in the original location.

Mark Sublette

Copyvio/Plagiarism concerns

Hi, I've detailed here (Talk:Ganj Dareh) why certain edits by an anonymous editor at this article (Ganj Dareh) are problematic, esp with regards to Copyvio/Plagarism. The editor claims that the issue is resolved with his recent changes to satisfy these Copyvio/Plagiarism concerns - do his perfunctory changes actually resolve issues of Copyvio/Plagiarism? Thanks, Fraenir (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Source: "The phenotypic attributes of GD13a are similar to the neighbouring Anatolian early farmers and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers."
• My edit: "She phenotypically similar to the Anatolian early farmers and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers."
• Source: "She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but likely had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait."
• My edit: "The derived SLC45A2 variant associated with light skin was not observed in GD13a, but the derived SLC24A5 variant which is also associated with the same trait was observed."

The same user blindly reverted me 2 times 1, 2 for adding "unsourced" info. Then, conversely, have complained about "copyright vio/plagiarized straight from the article". So, by this, the user has admitted that, he did not read the source while he was reverting me. Anyway, I accept that previous version was copyvio and fixed it. Only thing that I have done is fixing the previous source misrepresentation and expanding the info. And, I don't know why but I think that the user Fraenir, for some reason, just don't like my revision. 85.107.24.161 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The source article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4977546/ is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which is a compatible license, so it's okay to copy from it as long as we provide the required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have just re-added a sentence 1. I think it was deleted by a mistake? 85.107.24.161 (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was some extra white space there that I was trying to remove and it looks like I clipped out some prose by mistake. Thank you for fixing it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

COPYVIO

Nearly every revision of Comcast Spotlight. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a mess. I don't know how we will prove copyvio on diffs from 2006. I don't have time to deal with this right now. Let's wait for the AFD outcome and I will clean it then. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. TimothyJosephWood 21:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion compete. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Rosin copyright

I was not aware of this, I will find another source. What I don't understand is why my changes are unavailable for comparison in the history, and how it happened. Carystus (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Further, is the problem that I used this source at all, or that, in your opinion, I did not rephrase content? O perhaps that I did not use it as an externan source? Carystus (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to find another source, the source is ok. The problem is that you did not rephrase the content. Copying directly from a source is a copyright violation. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. Your edits have been revision deleted to remove the copyright material from the page history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked it with a copy of my edit which I happened to have saved. Yes, the part about the extract was a verbatim copy from the source, it must have slipped my mind, I strive do not to copy and past copyright material. My comment on the procedure is that it is counterproductive for me not to be able to see what was deleted. I understand it can not appear in wikipedia. Could there be a grace period where the contributor could get a chance to correct such errors? Carystus (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I sometimes do it that way, but there really isn't time to do it for all of them, as there's usually a hundred reports to check on the typical day. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Soul Kitchen (song)

Hi. I reverted an article on this song back to the redirect, as it was a copyvio violation of the two sources listed in the article. I would have nominated it for copyvio, but the redirect is harmless. However, I notice that in the past you have removed the copyvio material from the edit history. Sorry if this isn't the right place, but I thought you might be interested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. You can post here or you can use the template {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - will put the template in my sandbox. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Perth South, Ontario

Good morning, Diannaa. Re: your note on my talk page. Copyright violation? It was fully cited so the reader knew it was from the town document. Would using quotation marks not have solved much of the issue? Some of the edit you deleted was Census data, with citation.

I am a member of several relevant Projects and have been working to improve articles about smaller communities in Ontario. See this discussion, for example: Results of 2016 Census - Many Pages Need Updates https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Results_of_2016_Census_-_Many_Pages_Need_Updates (Subsequently, some editors did update the census data for larger cities but not for small communities like South Perth).

Also see this discussion at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canadian_communities: Please review rating of Saugeen Shores, Port Elgin, Ontario and Southampton, Ontario

Articles on smaller Ontario communities are out of date, with 2011 data and no recent information. I start by updating them with 2016 Census data, more information about recent expansion, particularly in terms of employment and companies doing business in the area. I also update their History sections. (Newspapers often ignore the small, farming communities like Perth South so the only data available is from the Census and the towns' own published info. I get info from those and cite them.) Peter K Burian (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will re-do the edits carefully, with paraphrasing. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

🍁 Sorry for all the extra work, and thanks for your patience. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I figured out what happened. I had copied a paragraph from the source, planning to paraphrase it into a 10 word sentence. I did that but then, I had to go out and was in a hurry. I forgot to delete the extraneous paragraph before doing the Save. The other content of the article was fine, I believe, but yes that one paragraph was not. Still, a good reminder of the need to be careful. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Fern

Howdy! Please work your magic on the revisions today by user Alvin201, which are patent copyvio from [4]. I have warned the user. Thanks as ever! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Apropos Ahnenpass

Hello. I added the translation of a paragraph of the Ahnenpass to the Wikipedia-article. There has been a dispute for a long time -- would it not be the best method and serving truth in the best possible way to actually quote what the document itself is saying about the matter? The image is right there for everybody to check, the original German sentence is right there to check the translation. If the actual objective of the Wikipedia is to give a true and accurate description of the subject, I hope you also see no reason for removing the translated and sourced paragraph from the very document the dispute has been about. Sincerely, 93.224.109.63 (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the addition of sourced content to the article. The only reason I am monitoring it is to watch for edits by a serial POV pusher and sockpuppeteer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You are talking about "English Patriot Man" -- whose IP points to the UK, mine points to Germany. But I have been mistaken for him. Moreover I think one should not imply bad intentions or accuse of POV, if somebody has a different point of view. That's why the discussion page exists in the first place. There actually can be different points of view in a free society. What kind of library e.g. would ban certain books or guests instead of resorting to a discussion -- and e.g. invite more people to the discussion etc.? How could possibly existing misconceptions be possibly discovered and corrected otherwise? Sincerely, 93.224.109.63 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wojciech Jaruzelski

Dianna,

You have edited Wojciech Jaruzelski deleting truthful information about polish dictator and soviet agent "Wolski" Wojciech Jaruzelski.

Form over truth? Why have you done so?

I highly recommend documentary movie Towarzysz Generał about Wojciech Jaruzelski;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll5edkkDxLQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZij0TJObG8

All information are truthful and can be verified with polish media (which are not always reliable, CIA, and The translations from Russian to English by Mark Kramer of https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/mark-kramer who is the most credible expert on Polish crisis, Jaruzelski and martial law in Poland 1981.

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027 202-691-4000

Cold War International History Project The Cold War International History Project supports the full and prompt release of historical materials by governments on all sides of the Cold War, and seeks to accelerate the process of integrating new sources, materials and perspectives from the former "Communist bloc" with the historiography of the Cold War. / https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wojciech_Jaruzelski&diff=769349622&oldid=769349426

I might not be the best Wikipedia editor, I don't have the time you have, but there is not to many people who have the historical knowledge on those materials as I do. I provided the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej / Institute of National Remembrance with the materials which resulted in incitement of both Jaruzelski and Kiszczak in Polish court.

Communiqué of President of IPN regarding launching a work regarding launching a working group which will carry out a query on possible connections of General Wojciech Jaruzelski with Polish communist military special services

President of the Institute of National Remembrance – Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation has informed that he had set up a working group which is going to carry out a query in the archival documents with regard to the possible connections of General Wojciech Jaruzelski with Polish communist military special services.

After the query has been carried out and provided any further documents have been found, they shall be transferred to IPN commission, set up for this particular purpose. The results of the commission’s work shall be given to the public opinion.

http://ipn.gov.pl/download/2/43/sygnIPNBUMBP4314.pdf

http://ipn.gov.pl/en/news/343,New-educational-website-quotMartial-Lawquot.html?search=2211

http://ipn.gov.pl/en/news/252,Educational-portal-about-Martial-Law-in-Poland.html?search=2211

http://ipn.gov.pl/en/news/221,The-IPN-on-the-25th-anniversary-of-introducing-of-the-Martial-Law-in-Poland.html?search=2211

http://www.13grudnia81.pl

http://ipn.gov.pl/en/about-the-ipn/structure/council/97,Prof-Andrzej-Paczkowski-Chairman.html?search=2211

Either we starve for excellence or we are satisfied with crapware. Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza is not reliable source, it is a tabloid, an equivalent of British Enquier It is only daily providing communist disinformation.

Want to use reliable source of information cite Gazeta Polska, Niezalezna, but never Gazeta Wyborcza tabloid. CNN, as far as historical reference is not reliable either.

Beside there are multiple spelling errors in your version in English: the correct are:

defense not defence (British)

labor not labour (British)

born not née (French) 1. Born. Used to indicate the maiden name of a married woman. 2. Formerly known as. [French, feminine past participle of naître, to be born, from Old French naistre, from Latin nāscī; see genə- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]) née (nei) adjective Wikipedia is an American project, there for American English is a prevailing language.

Therefor I am demanding reverting and correction of article about that dictator. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.131.201 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair use

Your interpretation of Copyright is incorrect. No license is required when citing copyright materials based on US Supreme Court ruling.

Fair use is a doctrine unique to the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. The Supreme Court has traditionally characterized fair use as an affirmative defense, but in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015 (the "dancing baby" case), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that fair use was not merely a defense to an infringement claim, but was an expressly authorized right, and an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work by copyright law: "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright."

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. for purposes of substantive research, Fair use and Fair use and professional communities

Use of Copyrighted Material is Acceptable In some situations, you may make limited use of another's copyrighted work without asking permission or infringing on the original copyright.

Use of Copyrighted Material is Acceptable and permitted for non profit educational purposes,, discussion, criticism, parody.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/FAIR_USE_Act https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/FAIR_USE_Act ~~O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.131.201 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What you appear to be missing is that Wikipedia is intended for reuse. Sure, as concerns usage on this site alone we could legally host a lot of copyrighted content under fair-use or similar provisions—educational purposes are pretty well automatically exempted—and indeed we could host non-commercial, education-only, and no-alteration media as well. But we choose not to, to minimize impediment to our content’s being widely disseminated and adapted.—Odysseus1479 04:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hello again Diannaa. Truely sorry if I'm disturbing. Just don't bother if you're are pressed for time or whatever. I will understand. Swedish Public Service television SVT still uses teletext. Those news are only available for 12-36 hrs, I estimate - but are also available at the web. Is a Print-Screen image out of the question (at Commons or elsewhere)? Do we have any other tool ? A rather long time ago somebody wrote about a way to prevent links from becoming dead. But I can't even find out of, how to find it, if it even exists. Just if you have a good answer ready at once, please do not dig deep for my question, I can indeed see You constantly have a lot of people asking for help. (The matter right now is about Trump's speech about Sweden, which has become a rather big matter in Sweden - is he correct or wrong etc. But also for future use) All the best Boeing720 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way you can save an archived copy of the material using the Wayback Machine? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Someone else appear to save the pages - more than 3000 times. (so it must be possible) I have signed in and am currently waiting for a confirming e-mail. Then I hope to save that page (about building companies that don't want to build a new police station at a certain location !). I presume that I then can use a link to what I save, and use it as reference here. Exactly in which article it can be of use etc, I have too see later. (Regarding mr Trump in my opinion, was he this time both correct but also totally wrong.) However huge thanks once again ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Attribution from Council of Sirmium

Diannaa, I am the one who added the quotation from Maxwell Staniforth's Introduction to the Council of Sirmium article. I posted the same quotation to other relevant articles without attribution because I am not familiar with how to do this.Italus (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Italus. There's instructions how to do it on your talk page. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Apropos Ahnenpass (2)

Hello Diannaa
Could you please prevent the damaging of the article Ahnenpass? Disingenuously using the pseudo-reason "clean up from banned sock" MyMoloboaccount has removed the picture showing a page of the Ahnenpass-document itself (wiki/File:Ahnenpass_003_anonym.jpg Ahnenpass, page 41, third paragraph) as well as deleting the original sentence and the translation. This disingenuous behavior damages the Wikipedia, opposes the ethics of a free encyclopedia and is a disservice considering the aim to present the truth. Sincerely, 93.224.100.106 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not interested in refereeing your content dispute. Please post on the article talk page and discuss with the other user. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

In this post I was not referring to a content dispute / interpretation -- only to the removal of the primary source quotation, i.e. MyMoloboaccount's deletion of the Ahnenpass-info itself.

I'm just asking for not letting Ahnenpass-info be deleted in the Wikipedia-Ahnenpass-article -- that is vandalism. And the article should be protected including text from the document the very article is about.

There is no rationale when trying to present the truth that justifies deleting quotations from the document itself. Sincerely, 93.224.100.106 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion is already underway on the talk page regarding your edits. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent copy-vios, socking

Hi there. I'm for 99% sure that this user whom you have reverted on numerous occassions for making copyvio's, is using this IP to sock around. Notice the extremely small interval between the IP and the user on every single article, as well as the exact same article interest, and lastly the exact same edits in general. On every article, either the IP starts making the edits, with "PAKHIGHWAY" finishing it, while in all other examples its exactly the other way around (PAKHIGHWAY starting, the IP finishing it). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule that people have to log in. However, if the user is editing while logged out to appear to be multiple people or to advance and edit war, that's not allowed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure whether I managed to make the point clear. He's using the IP every single time to edit to the very same articles as his main account just a few minutes/hours afterwards, with the definite intention to come across as a different user. Here are just a few examples, out of the dozens available, that further illustrate the matter.[5][6][7][8][9] Assuming that I understood WP:SOCK correctly, this is a blatant violation on numerous occassions. And its still ongoing as well, unfortunately. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing it as a violation, possibly since I don't have any experience assessing this kind of problem. The IP has zero talk page or user talk page edits, which is where the intent to appear to be multiple users is most likely to occur. It's probably best to draw this to the attention of people experienced in this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your response, will address it at ANI then. Btw, did you notice this already?[10] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hi there! Thank you for your message. Basically, I left those in there because it is a draft. I just haven't had the time to go back in there and I would never have used copyrighted material. I just left it in there as a draft... I was told volunteers don't go into your draft so this is concerning to me. A draft is a draft... but thank you for the heads up. I appreciate it. Songuitar333 (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Sorry but we don't allow copyright material anywhere on this wiki, not even in sandboxes or drafts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for making my page on Tara Cooper better! I appreciate the work you are doing keeping copyrighted material off of Wikipeda. All the best,

Copystar (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Batthyány's sanctuary lamp

Hi, Dianna, I don't find the template adeguate for translation. I've this problem by New Building too. Help me, please. Thanks. Voxfax (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do. I have added the template and an attribution edit summary to New Building. If there's something else I will need more explanation — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Blues cousins

Thank you for your advice, I understand the changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtquique (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Zachary T. Fardon

Thank you for correctly attributing the content in the article. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue Access to public information in Turkey

Hi Diannaa, I have read your comment. Thanks for checking. Now I am trying to improve the text paraphrasing better, working on the source in accordance wuth the source's license. --Phive (OBC) (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: March 2017

It was actually McChizzle who added the public domain content (i.e. marines.mil cite). But nevertheless, thanks for the heads up! --TUFKAAP (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You added it with this diff — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Infor info

Hi Diannaa,

It looks like you posted some new info on the Infor page regarding an acquisition by Koch Industries. It says they acquired 66% of Infor. Can you please site your source? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.146.221.28 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed that you actually removed some of the info originally posted by Riazraihan. I believe the whole post is incorrect. Thank you.

(talk page stalker) @170.146.221.28: Yes. She removed copyrighted material from the page and reverted to a previous version. Please sign your posts. Karst (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Institute of Ocean Sciences -amendments to Wikipedia entry

Hi, Diannaa I am new to editing Wikipedia pages, so please forgive my ignorance as I take on this learning curve.

I've been contracted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (which operates the Institute of Ocean Sciences) to update the IOS Wikipedia entry. The updates I made were removed as they appear to be copyrighted material. The text was, however, created for this specific purpose. I've tried to follow the links you provided, but have gotten lost. Is there a simple way to demonstrate that the text is OK to use, please?

With thanks. Leri Davies (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The content was mostly copied from the copyright web page http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/facilities-installations/ios-ism/index-eng.html. Sorry but we can't host copyright material here without the express written release of the material under a compatible license. If the copyright holder and wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Also note that we have rules about paid editing. If you are being paid to edit the article, you must disclose it, per the policy Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. I've added some information on this topic at your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Abhay Agrawal

Definitely needs rev del up to the current version-- I removed the copyvios I could find. There might be some more that I didn't pick up on a manual check so reporting here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As always, you work magic on stuff like this. I'm probably sending to AfD, but I always like to see what the de-copyvioed text looks like before I do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, needs another rev del [11]. I'm going to give the user a level four warning this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Protosticta ponmudiensis

Hi Diannaa, I replied on my talk page. Please look! Jee 04:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Tata Communications - Copyright Issues

Hi Diannaa,

I made updates to the Tata Communications page and I'm trying to understand where the copyright violations are. The text is basically new facts that update an out of date page. These facts are in the public domain and have been published widely. Can you let me know what I'm doing wrong so I can get it right?

I'm new to Wikipedia but want to develop the page which is about 5 years out of date.

Any help is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt5338Wh (talk • contribs) 09:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The material you added was copied and/or closely paraphrased from the corporate website. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, unless it is compatibly licensed. All content you add here needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyrighted lyrics question

Happy Ides of March D. I don't know whether these would still be under copright or not so I thought I would ask you to take a look. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 13:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes those lyrics are still under copyright. You can use the Commons:Hirtle chart when in doubt. Material was first published in 1990 in the United States. Authors (Quincy Jones and Will Smith) are both still alive. The material will not fall into the public domain until both of them have been dead for 70 years. I have done revision deletion on these diffs — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and for the link to the Hirtle chart. MarnetteD|Talk 17:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright discussion in which you are mentioned

I meant to ping you, but bungled it, and I think it is difficult to fix after the fact, so letting you know that a discussion of copyright issue is here, and I mentioned you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, saw and commented. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Message

Jingjingliu (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply to your correction Thanks a lot about reminding me about the rules of editing, and I have rephrasing the edits from the sources. It helps a lot for my future editing, thank you so much!

Jared Lee Gosselin

Howdy, once more! Please take a look at this article, from which I blanked a lot of copyvio just now, and see what you can do revdel-wise; thanks again! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! The same user has now added the same text to Chino XL; [12]. I left another warning on the user's talkpage. Merci beaucoup encore... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Juda, Wisconsin

Hi Diannaa. I'm not sure about a revert I made here. I don't like to dump this on you but if you have a moment I'm looking for an opinion. SlightSmile 00:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. That would be really big news in a town that size. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave it like that. SlightSmile 00:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

2013-2014 Satkhira clashes

@Dianaa. I am sorry for the copyright problem. But the entiresyou refer to direct quotes which could not be rectified. Also, the threat of banning is disconcerting as you could have addressed the problem with Copyvio. I hope you understand. :)Messiaindarain (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Direct quotes need quotation marks and attribution. All I saw was copying of the source without either of these. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you help protect an article vs. possible vandalism? Point Clark

Hello Diannaa

This article had serious problems and an editor (Admin?)deleted 90% most of that previously. I have since added a bit of fully cited content but this evening, an Anonymous User keeps reinserting a paragraph that probably does not fit. I revert it with a long explanation, he re-inserts it. Twice so far. (See the article's Talk page, please.)

It had been deleted by the other editor (Admin?) previously.

It's about a small town and the person keeps adding this uncited info about someone I can barely find anything about anywhere with a google search. Also the content is iffy: Roberts is said to call Point Clark his home

  Canadian country/folk singer/songwriter Darrell Roberts is said to call Point Clark his home, although the exact location of his place of residence is unknown. Roberts, now out of the spotlight and often referred to as "reclusive," is rarely seen and has changed his appearance several times since his days as a recording artist. Those visiting and living in the area have claimed to have heard his voice and guitar playing near a wooded area in the southern end of the community. These claims have not been verified. Roberts' career on the country charts was cut short after a series of injuries and illnesses, including an operation on his vocal cords.

Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I gave the user an edit warring warning. It's not a 3rr violation yet, but I would advise you both not to edit war and take it to the talk page. Arguably your taking that text out is covered by WP:BLP so it really should be sourced. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note TonyBallioni. The article is about Point Clark, a small beach town. Anonymous is adding content that seems like vandalism to me. Iffy, no citation, and I cannot find anything about the Darrell Roberts (Canadian singer) he is writing about. I do not plan to Revert it again but someone with Admin qualifications should look at it. Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

He has again added it. I Reverted his content twice and it's back in the article. (He ignored my suggestion to discuss in the Talk page.) I will not revert it again. Do not want to run into the 3 Revert rule although I think it's vandalism. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

El C has blocked the user for 3RR violations. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The content was originally added to the article back in 2012, and this recent addition brought it back. We're well past the point on this wiki where we are accepting unsourced content, especially about living people. I have removed the addition and will watch-list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Peter: There's a few ways you can tell if someone is an admin. (1) Enable pop-ups, and you can get info about an editor by hovering over their username. Go to Preferences→Gadgets→Navigation popups and tick the box. (Pop-ups is a very useful feature; see Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups for more info on what you can do with it.) (2) Go to Special:ListUsers/sysop and search for a specific person by username. (3) Pretty much all admins have a notice of some kind on their user page or user talk announcing the fact. The person who cleaned the Point Clark article is not an admin but is a highly experienced long-time editor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

it might be the time of the night

[13] has a smell of a 'lift' from somewhere but it might be WP:OR, or I might have misread the edit - but I thought of your tracking down c-vio edits - apology if I got it wrong JarrahTree 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct; it was copied from SparkNotes. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to review if there is copyright issue

Hi Diannaa, with regards to your knowledge and experience on wikipedia. I would like some guidance on an article. Found a wiki on Vivian Balakrishnan, a politician, which read like a résumé copied from his official blog, personal blogs and personal résumé are about listing positive spin on achievements. Kindly help to do a review whether these excessive information belongs in wiki?

http://vivian.balakrishnan.sg/about-2/ https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_the_place_to_post_your_résumé — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddotparty (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have checked the article and found no copyright violations from the web page http://vivian.balakrishnan.sg/about-2/. Administrators do not make rulings on content, so you will have to proceed to the article talk page regarding the content issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem Kincardine Lighthouse

Hello, Diannaa, I have been editing many articles on lighthouses, mainly getting rid of content that had been copied verbatim from various sources. And replacing it with paraphrased content, fully cited. e.g. Cove Island Light: I had to delete nearly all of the previous content of that one today and start from scratch, finding sources, paraphrasing, citations, etc.

I just got a note that all of my edits re Kincardine Lighthouse have been removed due to copyright violation. If so, that was totally inadvertent. Could you send me a copy of my most recent text so I can check it and fix it? Right now the article is very weak. I promise you, it will be perfect after my next revision. I don't know how this happened and apologize for making you go through this. Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove all of your work, just the one paragraph that was a provable copyright violation. I have restored the edit history so that you will be able to review and re-write the content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Question: I believe it is OK to do the following, quoting from a source. Am I wrong about that? It's from a different article, Point Clark Lighthouse, as an example:

 A historic plaque erected at the site provides this summary of the structure: "The circular limestone tower has walls 150 cm thick at the base, tapering to 61 cm at the top." (Note however that the top section of the tower is made of granite for greater stability.[14]) "The polygonal cast iron lantern originally housed a dioptric light, of the 2nd order, warning mariners of a dangerous shoal 3.2 km offshore; the light is now one of lesser magnitude serving present needs. Scarcely visible from the ground a decorative rain gutter surrounds the roof of the lantern." [15]

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's far too much non-free content, and there's no reason why you could not re-write this material into original prose. Doing so aligns with the non-free content policy of this website, which calls for quotations to be used only when absolutely necessary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I see many articles with this type of quote, of a plaque or memorial. Even in articles that also provide a photograph of the plaque so the reader can read the content himself. Thanks. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kincardine Lighthouse article should be fine now. I could not tell which section was the problem so I did more paraphrasing anywhere that was possible. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We have a saying here: Other stuff exists. In a nutshell, just because examples are found that violate the rules is not an excuse to violate the rules. This is especially true for official Wikipedia policies with legal consequences. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am making the revisions to the Point Clark article as per the above. Will be done in 10 minutes. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Orlando City SC

I noticed you deleted and struck a copyvio from Orlando City SC. Thanks. The prose seemed fairly specific and I failed to check if they were copied from somewhere. It seems that my edits complicated the issue. Since I don't have access to the deleted content, do you know if the changes that were not part of the copyvio were retained or not? Feel free to ping me or use talkback on my page to communicate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I removed one paragraph which was almost identical to the two paragraphs of prose found at the top of the source web page here. No other material was removed in my edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Point Clark

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Point Clark#Copyright problem removed when you have a spare moment to see if it needs to be revdel'd. The content about Darrell Roberts was added to the article and removed by you as unsourced, but it also appears to have been copied-and-pasted from mapio.net/o/1819620/. I believe it was added to the article's talk page in good faith in an attempt to discuss it, but it probably needs to be removed if it is a copyvio. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, but I am pretty sure that's a copy of an old revision of the Wikipedia page. Though the source webpage was never archived by the Wayback Machine, the [citation needed] is a giveaway. The original addition to the article shows an edit summary indicating the source was "the HK Observer (2007)" which appears to be a local newspaper for the Township of Huron-Kinloss. I hunted for a copy online but no joy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes you have already solved the problem Diannaa. Last night. And the content was very vague, Darrell might live here. I could find virtually nothing about him to indicate he is a celebrity. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issues re Draft:William Beauclerc Otway

Hi, Diannaa. Thanks for send my text via email. My apologies for not responding sooner. I was hoping to pick up the conversation where we left off. Can the chat thread be restored? My thoughts at this point are: 1. I've reviewed the text and I expect it will be very difficult to change without impairing its succinctness or clarity. Can we get a release from the licensor (Federation University) allowing for-profit use? And 2. I will be relying almost completely on primary sources. Once I find a solution to the licensing problem, who will I need to contact to resolve any issues relating to sources? CactusPolecat (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi CactusPolecat. There's no need to restore the old conversation; I remember it well. Relying almost completely on primary sources is not the way Wikipedia operates, as we don't publish original research, and we prefer to use secondary sources over primary. So even if you get permission from the copyright holder your draft would probably not be accepted for publication. If you wish to proceed, the material you wish to copy will need to be released under a compatible license. Please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. I don't understand your question about "who will I need to contact to resolve any issues relating to sources" - perhaps you are under a misapprehension that there's an official body you can go to for questions about sourcing? We do have a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Or perhaps you might find it useful to post questions there about sourcing. Or you could try at the Teahouse, where there's editors available who are experienced in helping new users. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Committees

Hi, I understand why you deleted the changes I made to Committees on a few Australian Parliament pages. I thought I had sufficiently rewritten the information. I have had another go and the result is bellow. If its still not good enough please let me know how I can fix it.

Extended content

Committees See also: Australian Senate committees See also: Australian House of Representatives committees A Senate committee room in Parliament House, Canberra A short video on Australian Parliamentary Committees In addition to the work of the main chambers, both the Senate and the House of Representatives also have a large number of committees which deal with matters referred to them by their respective houses. They provide the opportunity for all Members and Senators to ask questions of ministers and public officials as well as conduct inquiries, examine policy and legislation. Once a particular inquiry is competed the members of the committee can then produce a report, to be tabled in Parliament, outlining what they have discovered as well as any recommendations that they have produced for the Government to consider. The ability of the Houses of Parliament to establish committees is referenced in Section 49 of the Constitution, which states that, "The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth." Parliamentary committees can be given a wide range of powers. One of the most significant powers is the ability to summon people to attend hearings in order to give evidence and submit documents. Anyone who attempts to hinder the work of a Parliamentary committee may be found to be in contempt of Parliament. There are a number of ways that witnesses can be found in contempt, these include; refusing to appear before a committee when summoned, refusing to answer a question during a hearing or produce a document, or later being found to have lied to or mislead a committee. Anyone who attempts to influence a witness may also be found in contempt. Other powers include, the ability to meet throughout Australia, to establish subcommittees and to take evidence in both public and private hearings. Proceedings of committees are considered to have the same legal standing as proceedings of Parliament, they are recorded by Hansard, except for private hearings, and also operate under Parliamentary privilege. Every participant, including committee members and witnesses giving evidence, are protected from being prosecuted under any civil or criminal action for anything they may say during a hearing. Written evidence and documents received by a committee are also protected. Types of committees include: Standing Committees, which are established on a permanent basis and are responsible for scrutinising bills and topics referred to them by the chamber; examining the government's budget and activities (in what is called the budget estimates process); and for examining departmental annual reports and activities. Select Committees, which are temporary committees, established in order to deal with particular issues. Domestic Committees, which are responsible for administering aspects of the Parliament's own affairs. These include the The Selection Committees of both houses that determine how the Parliament will deal with particular pieces of legislation and private members business and the Privileges Committees that deal with matters of Parliamentary Privilege. Legislative Scrutiny Committees, which examine legislation and regulations to determine their impact on individual rights and accountability. Joint Committees are also established to include both members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Superegz (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The articles involved are Parliament of Australia, Australian House of Representatives, and Australian Senate. The two paragraphs are still extremely similar to the source material, because they present the same material in the same order using the same sentence structure. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm only a VERY minor editor. I don't understand fully the rationale for how the copyright policy is implemented, or perhaps aspects of the policy at all. I have read the policy, which is confusing. You and others have objected to two images in an article I authored some years ago. It was about Checkpoint, a political opinion journal, now defunct since mid-1970s. I originally included a) an image of the table of contents of the first issue and b) an image of the front cover of this issue. These were inserted to indicate that the journal existed and also the type of article it published. The journal was published by a non-profit, unincorporated association which has vanished decades ago. Some of its founders are deceased. There is no-one to assert copyright in any of these images, if copyright in fact exists. Why the sensitivity about these images? --- Ericwilberforce (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ericwilberforce. There were two images in the article Checkpoint (journal), both of which were oversize PDFs. One was the table of contents for the magazine, and one was the cover. The image of the table of contents did not in my opinion meet our non-free content requirements, as it was not critically discussed in the article. We don't normally include multiple non-free images in our magazine articles, so I removed it. The magazine cover was a PDF file, which is not one of the preferred formats for images, and was oversize. I replaced it with a jpg version of the same image. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Copy vio

Hello again, Diannaa. Your copyright warning of December 2016 at User talk:AmarisMagic seems to have gone unheeded, twice - see user's contributions at Zagreus and Melinoe. I've reverted, and warned, but also thought RevDels would be in order. Likely source of copyvio is dated 2014 at this blog/source. The user seems to have used the same material at both articles, substituting proper names to make the material "fit" the topic. Haploidavey (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, another admin has done the RevDel. So nothing further required - unless you think the user has earned further action or a stronger warning. Haploidavey (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for giving the editor clear information regarding our expectations. Hopefully he will stop now, otherwise a block will be forthcoming. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA vs GPL/LGPL

Maybe you could point me to the right Wikipedia stuff regarding GPL/LGPL code. It is not the same as the CC-BY-SA of the Wikipedia, so how is it treated? It is also not code, but rather documentation. Should it also be in the wiki.gnome.org, well that is also CC-BY-SA. See GTK+ Scene Graph Kit User:ScotXW^t@lk 21:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The stuff you deleted is from: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/gsk/gskcairorenderer.c?id=7afdd3fdb5c5fda9da87555b40a61e6a321c2414 The code is LGPL, but this is in the comment of the code. Technically speaking it is also LGPL, but is commentary. For documentation purposes. Oh, no, it is not even in the comment of the code. It is the commit message. User:ScotXW^t@lk 12:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That page is marked at the bottom as Copyright © 2004–2017, The GNOME Project, so that doesn't help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

Please go back and check my rewording efforts on the John Wallace (Haida) page and let me know if more work is needed. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/John_Wallace_(Haida). Many thanks. ArtDoc2012 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Check complete, everything is okay now. I have removed the maintenance tag. Thank you for taking the time to do this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Redacting a diff

Hi there. This edit is a pretty clear-cut copyvio. Can you redact/hide it when you get a chance? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Source is here. This is an Open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. I will restore the material and provide the proper attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Tectarius pagodus

Hi, I don't think I've ever been redacted for copyright violation before. But the article looks the same, and I don't recall the material in question. Can you please quote it or describe it for me? Thanks. Needless to say, I always try to avoid any copyright violation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It was some stray prose copied from Amazon or somewhere, it started "Who among us hasn’t marveled at the diversity and beauty of shells?" and was removed almost immediately by yourself. I didn't bother to notify you as it was an obvious copypaste error, not a big deal — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for pointing out and correcting the copyright issues on the Independence Seaport Museum page. I apologize for the inconvenience and will make sure not to make the same mistake in the future. I've made further edits to the page that I hope have addressed the copyright problems as well as the problems mentioned the template at the top of the page: "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view." My question for you is: 1) Have the problems/issue in the template been addressed? 2) If not, can you give me some advice on how to address it or point me towards some wikipedia guidelines that would help me address the problem? 3) If the problems have been addressed, can the template at the top of the page be taken down? Thanks for you help, Enscanniello (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Enscanniello

@Enscanniello: The copyright problem is all cleared up. The advert-like tone has been corrected as well. If you could confirm that the Diligence mentioned in the article is HMS Diligence (1795) you could add a wikilink. There's other places where wikilinks could be added as well if you have time. Thanks for taking care of the re-write. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look into the "Diligence" to see if it's the same one and add some more wikilinks. Enscanniello (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Enscanniello

"User:Guruness Brownie/Atlantic Horns work in progress"

I have created an entry ages ago, but due to illness and other private isues I wasn't able to follow it up for quite a while. Of course it has meanwhile been deleted: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Atlantic_Horns&action=submit I would like to start it again (overworked and shortened). Is there any chance to do so from the last level of progress or should I better start it all anew? Help and advise very welcome - thanks in advance. Guruness Brownie (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Guruness Brownie

I have located and restored the draft. You can find it at Draft:Atlantic Horns. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 :Thank you so very much! Guruness Brownie (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Guruness Brownie

AUT

Hi

You removed some edited copy from AUckland University of Technology that I edited. I am the Social Media Manager and while I copied content from an external source the information was written and provided by my organisation to this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidocunn (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Another problem is conflict of interest. Editing the 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. Instead you are supposed to suggest edits on the talk page of the article using the {{request edit}} template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Campo Indian Reservation

Howdy! Revdel needed here for today's contributions by new user Brrou001, which were cut-and-pasted, typos and all, from, e.g., [16] (as one non-comprehensive example). Under the website's terms of use, the information is expressly not released into the public domain. I have informed the user of the issue. Thanks again! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Kerala Legislature page content moved to the Kerala Legislative Assembly page

The reason I moved the content of this page to the Kerala Legislative Assembly page because the name Kerala Legislature is not the official name of the Legislature of Kerala. The Unicameral Legislature of Kerala is called Kerala Legislative Assembly just like rest of the State Legislatures in India.

Now the reason why I didn't list this page on requested move page before moving the content of this page in a cut-and-paste style of editing, is that the page doesn't even any history of discussion by other users on its talk page except a category template. So it won't affect its talk history by movin the content of the page.

The previous page Kerala Legislature and it's talk page now serve as a redirect page for the main page Kerala Legislative Assembly and it's talk page.

Hemant Dabral^Talk 02:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The contents of the talk page are irrelevant. Kerala Legislature has an edit history dating back to 2005. Under the terms of our CC-by-SA license, the edit history has to stay with the article in order to provide proper attribution to the authors of the article. That's why the article has to be properly moved using the move function. I can understand why you feel the name change is uncontroversial, but that does not alter the fact that our license requires that the editing history needs to be attached to the related content. If you are unable to move a page yourself due to restrictions in the way the software works, you have to get an administrator to move the page for you. I have now repaired your cut-and-paste page move and moved the page properly. Please see the instructions already in place on your talk page as to how to request assistance with this type of move in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

template uw-copyrightblock

You said somewhere that an editor blocked for copyright violations "cannot resume editing until they provide us with a clear statement that demonstrates that they have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future". I think it would be helpful if them template used to informed them {{uw-copyrightblock}} (I think) told them that that's what they should do. Siuenti (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's already stated indirectly, as the template requests that the blocked user study our copyright policy and non-free content policy and then request an unblock. If you have a suggestion for an amendment to the template, the best place to discuss it is on the template talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC) In the meantime I will figure out a way to communicate these facts more directly to the people at the time the block is applied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

R. Chandrasekaran page

I created a page of R. Chandrasekaran. You deleted because you felt that the articles are copied. I want to say that please read that article once again. Already it is self and simple written describing about his occupation in the company and his university education. I even cited all the articles to show that the information is genuine. I didn't mention too much about his life in depth because of the fear of deletion action by you.

Consider a sentence given in any article in the Internet like "Peter is the CEO of XXXX company". Now If I want to make an article in Wikipedia about Peter and want to highlight his occupation, then I have to write in the wikipedia article that "Peter is the CEO of XXXX company" and cite it from where I have taken it. What else can I change in this sentence ?

So, I have created the page again of R. Chandrasekaran with own words and sentences. Citations are placed too. Please have a look and please don't delete it without informing me.

--Tigerson1995 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

10th Regional Support Group

Thank you; I resurrected some text from deep in the page history and had no idea that it had originally come from a copyright source. I'll readd the data in line with WP conventions, citing and rephrasing. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I did look for it in the edit history and didn't find it. The oldest available version of this on the Wayback machine is dated 2012, so it will be impossible to prove at this point who had it first. Thanks for taking the time to reword. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Adventure learning page

Hi Diana, Thank you for your note regarding the adventure learning page. My real name is Jeni Henrickson and I am the creative director at the LT Media Lab and the original copywriter for the websites and the text that I added to the adventure learning page. So I am pulling pieces of my own copy from other sites and adding them to the adventure learning wikipedia page. Is that ok or do I need to quote myself or the LT Media Lab for that? I've not had to follow up on a wikipedia post before so apologies but I'm not sure what process is needed to be taken in order to make edits when I am drawing from my own copy and adding it there. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer for that. My wikipedia name is LT Scholar. LT scholar (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Chiara Civello article

Could you check if this edit (a copy and paste from AllMusic) needs to be redacted? I've cut it from the article (which doesn't need to be deleted, as it's still viable), and added a notice to the talk page and the (dormant) editor's talk page. Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Lil Cory

Hello Dianaa, when you have a moment could you look at this article -Lil Cory. An editor warned that it was a copy vio to the guys imdb page. The other editor just removed the warning. I added a close paraphrasing tag and that editor removed that also. I tried to add a copy vio template, but what it says is not correct. Could you check out the situation? Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Antonioatrylia, I've revdel'd the content and cleaned up the lead so it's not a cv. I'll keep an eye on the page and take appropriate action against the editor in question if it should happen again. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Very indirectly (talk page stalker)

Thanks for your quick attention Primefac. Diannaa must be out enjoying such a lovely Sunday! Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is almost entirely sourced to IMDb, and would likely not survive at AFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Another copyright violation and another. Adam9007 (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the remaining copyvio (from Twitter; also the same content is at IMDb) and done the revision deletion. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

James Rhyne Killian

Hi Diannaa, I have received the information I added to James Rhyne Killian's page both from a newspaper article about his death, his book that he has written, and the fact that I am his great-grandson. Can you please inform me how to prove my heritage and have the information restored?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zillerdude (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't be able to restore your edit, since your addition was copied from the obituary in the L.A. Times. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi,

You might want to take a look at this page. Is the history RD1-able? Adam9007 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, done. Thanks as always, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Church of St Mary the Virgin, Ashwell

Hi. I dispute that the text is a copyright violation and as it is almost entirely blocked at present it is rather difficult to check it or rewrite it. The quotes are quotes from the 16th century and I think are out of copyright now. I do not think it is closely or loosely paraphrased but I can't read it so can't prove it. I have looked at the link you cite as evidence but there is really very little from that in the article. Jack1956 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The text is blocked from view but is still visible to Earwig's tool. Please have a look at this report and you will see why I flagged it as needing work. The quotation from 1538 can stay; that's not the issue, so sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. It is rather too close in parts and I can only apologise and say it was unintentional and needs to be rewritten. Jack1956 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I would have done it myself but I am hard pressed just to keep up with the daily bot reports. Thanks for your understanding. :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am really sorry about it and and can only put it down to that text sticking in my head and tiredness. It's a bit late here now but can I have a go at putting it right tomorrow? Jack1956 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

For sure. There's no deadline. Plse let me know when you are ready for me to assess — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I have done some work on the article and would be grateful if you could have a look to see if I am on the right track. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the section header above points to the wrong article! so I have taken the liberty of changing it. Something you should do (besides changing the wording) is to re-work the order that the content is presented. Right now the article presents the same material in the same order as the source, both within each paragraph and within your article as a whole. Each paragraph and the article as a whole is structured the same as the source, with the same material being presented in the same order with only minor changes in wording. Presenting the same material in the same order using essentially the same sentence structure is called close paraphrasing, which is a copyright violation. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I have done all I can without removing the important quote from Betjeman. Sadly I have had to delete the account from 1538 as it was throwing the copyvio stats out. Not much I can do about the order as it is largely following date order, as the source article is also doing. Jack1956 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, we can re-add the quotation; it's not the percentage that's important but the actual amount of copyvio. People add PD stuff all the time and that's okay. I will check your work later today. Thanks for taking the time to do these re-writes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for causing this problem. I should have known better. Jack1956 (talk)

Thanks for your prompt work getting the clean-up done. I have checked and everything is okay now. I did a little more in the section about the bells and everything is good. The Earwig's tool still shows an overlap due to the quotations. If you wish to re-add the Henry VIII quotation please go ahead and do that. I have removed the copyvio-core template and am marking the case as resolved. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

edit

Hello Diana, I made some editing to the copyright problems you pointed out in that page.....thanks for check it out~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labelpuppet (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Media of Greece

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your check. I will re-write delated content in accordance with copyright law. Thank you. --Rossella Vignola (OBC) (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lil Cory

Hate to bite newbies, but there seems to be a CIT problem here and this is a bit of a timesink. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

All the claims to fame come from IMDb, which is not a reliable source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Secondary education- secondary schools

Hi. Thanks for stopping by! I have been trying to untangle these two area for a couple of weeks. I try to explain my intentions on the talk page- and it pretty lonely out there! Secondary education is about systems of educational organisation, while secondary schools is about the organisation within the school to my mind. I have set up a common structure within each country- so the paragraph will be a synopsis of a main article. This works for both Sec. Schools and Sec. Ed. We have had an international definition of sec. ed since 1997, so that is stable.

Defining a school is harder, looking at a US source they distinguish between the organisation (UK: governance) and the building or plant where it happens. A school where I worked had a creche (1 organisation), lower school and upper school (one organisation but mutually autonomous), a further education college with three departments (actually 3 organisations) and an adult education college (one organisation- but on 3 sites). I worked for one and was seconded to do hours in another two, and seconded back to teach specialist hours in the first! I didn't move class room though.

I am looking to reduce the content of Sec. Ed first by cutting text and parking it on more relevant talk pages. If some one has gone to the trouble of typing in the material it does have value-but just not here. First I had to gather together all the material from all the countries- copying first seemed kinder. There are some long sub articles there that are over prominent. I work by consensus- so if you know a better method we can do it your way too.

There are also other articles out there that do cover a lot of the same material- and these will have to be read for accuracy and possibly copy edited for consistency. ClemRutter (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Our license requires that when you re-use Wikipedia content (whether elsewhere on this wiki or on other websites) that attribution be provided. This requires at a minimum that you specify what the source article was in your edit summary at the destination article when you add the content. A sample edit summary: "Attribution: this content was copied from Mortal Kombat (film) on March 26, 2017. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." In some instances when you moved content you provided the attribution, but mostly you did not. That's my only reason for visiting your talk page. I have no objection to you moving or copying this material, but remind you that the attribution must be provided in each instance, unless you are the sole author of the material. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a really useful policy link- thanks for that. From the forensics I have done already almost all the text on both the previous pages had been clipped from elsewhere at least once before! Still there are many passes still to do and missing attribution can be reintroduced then, and your reasoning prompts me to more decisive and ruthless in my pruning. ClemRutter (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

These edits of yours are showing up on the copyvio bot report, so I would appreciate it very much if you would include the legally required attribution in the destination article each time you move content. It's required by our license, and would speed up the processing of the bot reports, since I would not have to locate the source article and add the attribution for you after the fact. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

York Pioneers

Hi Diana, I have received permission to use the York Pioneer image, and in addition to that the image you removed is in the public domain. Would you be able to undo your deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxim (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I see some deleted images in your contribs but I am not the person who deleted any of these files. You have to contact the deleting admin. Deleted images are as follows:

• File:ScaddingCabinYP.jpg
• File:YorkPionners.jpg
• File:YP logo.jpg
• File:Drugs-not-for-mee.jpg
• File:Prupert-grint1.jpg
• File:Mtv-rupert-grint1.jpg. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris Bradford biography

Hi Diannaa, I have read your comments and seen your changes to this page. I appreciate the amendments to adhere to Wiki policy and will keep this in mind in future. The changes I made were for accuracy and updating. But with respect, please ensure future articles are edited without introducing spelling and grammar errors e.g. "Bradford is stages events that involve samurai sword displays". I have corrected these now. I must also add that I am a novice at this and this was the first time I'd attempted editing Wiki, so apologies if I made some errors and additions that didn't adhere to wiki standards. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninecircles (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyvio: Starr Andreeff

Greetings. Yesterday I did some minor copyediting and cleanup at Starr Andreeff, but I only just noticed now that the whole damn thing has been c&p'ed from her IMDb profile—completely unreferenced otherwise. Not only that, but when I made the aforementioned edits, an SPA showed up and reverted me twice (fortunately not thrice). I use the word "possible" as it relates to copyvio, since I'm not sure if text from the user-editable IMDb is actually copyrighted. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The copyvio dates back to 2012. I have removed; current version is clean. This article is a good candidate for AFD as there's no in-depth coverage to be found online. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright mistake

My latest addition to History of the United States Army Special Forces was NOT copyright, I typed it out and reworded it in places for a simpler read. Why don't you correct/highlight the parts you reckon are copyright yourself instead of deleting the whole text? In the time between my addition and your deletion you cannot of correctly judged it as copyright. User:LtSpecter (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit appeared on a bot report as a copyright violation and I assessed it. There's far too much overlap, too-close paraphrasing, and copyvio for the edit to be retained. It needs to be completely re-written. You can view the bot report here: go to this report, click on iThenticate report, and view the similarities. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Delaware County, Pennsylvania

This appears to me to be typical of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VHSVideos2006. Meters (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Note the similar username of the most recent editor there. I have blocked as a duck sock. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

5th Cavalry Regiment

Hi Dianaa, thank you for addressing the copyright issue on the 5th Cavalry article. So works from the association of the 5th Cavalry is not available to be copied unlike works from the actual US Army if I understand you correctly. If I research this info and rewrite it but still name them as a source, then that is ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaWulf2013 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be okay. The material needs to be re-written completely in your own words, and the source article cited as a source in the usual way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi Diannaa, you have "remove(d) copyright content" from the article, University of Canberra Library, going to its history page i see you have restricted looking at every edit going back to when it was created in 2008 (including my little edit:))), is this right?, thanks.

Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's right. Some of the copyright material had been present from the article's creation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

wow, thats a long time, okay, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright in Mukundakam Sharma page

Hey, I got a message from you regarding a possible copyright violation. I fail to see where. The information that I had provided is strictly personal information and biodata. There is no text or quotation copied from anywhere. Can you please point out the instance?

Forodwaith92 (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Material was copied directly from the copyright web page http://www.sci.nic.in/judges/bio/131_mksharma.htm. There's no reason why this material could not be re-written in your own words. I will send you the removed material by email as I don't want to reproduce it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk) 13:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the mail. Once again, I reiterate that that the information in the Supreme Court website on Mukundakam Sharma is public information and not subject to copyright. I am acting as per his instructions, as already mentioned in the COI and therefore, would like to be clear on this issue. However, if you disagree on this point, kindly refer to the existing stub on Mukundakam Sharma which has also been copied from the Supreme Court website. If you are still unwilling to permit me to proceed with the said text, please confirm the same and I will examine the possible recourse that I can take.

Forodwaith92 (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The source web page http://www.sci.nic.in/judges/bio/131_mksharma.htm is marked at the bottom as "2014© Copyright SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. All Rights Reserved". Therefore we cannot reproduce that content here without the express written consent of the copyright holder and release under a compatible license. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing permission on Souleye (hip hop artist) page

Hi Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing. I received a message that the image I added to SOuleye's artist page was deleted. I emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 2/15 to show my permission to add the image however the below message says I was missing permissions as of 2/17. Souleye is my client, so I thought an email forwarded from him could count as a permission in addition to all of my sources to the page. Is there something else I should have sent as a permission? Please let me know the next steps I would need to take to update Souleye's photo on his wiki page. Thank you for your time!

00:02, 24 February 2017 Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Souleye Press Photo 2.jpg (Missing permission as of 16 February 2017 - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)

- Frannypack32 🍁 (talk)

This image was on the Commons and was located at File:Souleye Press Photo 2.jpg. Only the copyright holder is in a position to release the image under license. The copyright holder is typically the photographer, or in the case of a work for hire, whoever paid to have the photo taken (typically the subject of the photo). For further info please contact the deleting admin here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Contributions as copyeditor

Hi,
Even though i dont know how the wikipedia works on the levels of bureaucracy, and similar stuff, i am very well aware of the wikipedia policies. When I had a job in R&D, i also had charge of content writer. I want to improve the "needy" edits, or the unconstructive rather than "fighting vandalism (aarrgh!!)"
i am aware that you are a co-ordinator for guild of copy editors.

I want to improve the articles, but i dont know how to begin. Would you please guide me with that?

Also, if you dont remember, we came across each other here

PS: kindly ping me if you reply me. :) —usernamekiran (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: If you have good to excellent skills in the English language, copy editing is a great place to start your editing career. That's where I started in fact. If you're not sure, you might check out the list of other useful activities at Help:Getting started. There's people experienced in helping new users that you can talk to at the Teahouse. Good luck, and happy editing! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No. I am very much sure that I want to do copy editing. I just dont know how n where to begin. Hence I contacted you. And I think I might come in handy for you guys as I know almost a dozen languages (You should take a look at my userboxes on my userpage, i didnt add many languages there). I can be a big help editing the articles which had contributors from india wih poor english. You should also see Parbhani, it was a mess before i stepped in.
Please help me :) —usernamekiran (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Images in Public Domain possibly.

Hi Diannaa, would this image be in the public domain: Esso Hamburg ? The Esso Hamburg tanker ship was built in 1939, taken over by the Kreigsmarine in July 1940, and shelled to death by the bruiser HMS London in 1941. It is an important we tanker, because it clearly proved that Enigma cipher machine had been broken in 1940, but not taken up as being broken by the Kreigsmarine. The image was taken in 1939. Does the 1957 PD domain date apply, possibly because Britain is still in Europe, and perhaps a common copyright system is in place. scope_creep (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's impossible to say without knowing who took the photo and in what country. Please refer to the Commons:Hirtle chart for more information on this topic. You could bring it in as fair use if you are planning on writing an article about this particular ship. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Indian rebellion

Hi there, What happened to the history of the Indian rebellion page? I'm a little confused. Why couldn't you have removed Wikipediatist's copy-vio bit without removing the subsequent history of page edits most of which are mine? I do see that you have not removed the content I added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fowler&fowler. When doing revision deletion, all intervening edits must be removed - from the point of insertion to the point of removal - in order to expunge the copy vio (or other undesirable content such as BLP violations) from the article history. What this means that useful revisions are sometimes hidden even when the content is retained. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. Yes, I understand now. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Over at the Saudi Arabia article we have some copy and pasting like this. Is there a tools to find out what came from where?? Tried to revert but looks like some sort of class project...students editwaring with each other of this page....spaming images ...copy and pasting of text and so on.-- Moxy (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Two of the edits appear on the CopyPatrol bot report. I normally determine the source article by picking up a block of likely-looking prose from the diff and doing a Google search. In your sample diff, the content was copied from Nabataeans (without attribution). Saudi Arabia is already at 14419 words, well over the recommended 10000-word article size limit, so it's not a good idea for people to be adding more stuff there. I will tell the user so in a minute here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispite my warning. ...still going on see this latest edit--Moxy (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Crikey, give a girl a minute to write a talk page message — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Handling copyvios from offline sources

Hi, hopefully you'll know the answer to this. I just started looking at improving some of the sourcing in Soho, and noticed that a large portion of the "History" section is a close paraphrase of The London Encyclopedia (specifically page 845). It's not an exact match through minor copyediting, but I can pick up random sentences in the article and on the printed page and they match.

The trouble is our copyvio tools only deal with online sources, not books, so I'm not exactly sure how to proceed. Any ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There's two options: if you are able to view the relevant pages of the book in their entirely, you can re-write the material yourself. The other option is to remove it. Removal is a valid option, as the policy says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted", not "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted, and the patrolling admin is obligated to re-write". Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing states that "Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy", so too-close paraphrasing can be removed as copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've gone for the first option and started rewriting it. Turns out it wasn't as bad as I feared, only about four paragraphs - the formatting of the book, where column width is far smaller than a standard browser, made it slightly disorientating. It's not the first time I have found longstanding copyvios in Wikipedia; during the GA review of Mayfair yesterday, a portion of text I didn't write was still flagged up as a potential copyvio because I hadn't felt the need to copyedit it much. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do the re-write and for your help in copyvio clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Greenmannville

Diannaa, sorry, I thought that if I was giving the reference, like I did, that was fine, giving Mystic Seaport is a museum of national importance, therefore I assumed the behavior was similar to the images released by the US government (i.e. public domain). But yes, you are right, there is the copyright, so no way. I just want to understand if an alternative would be to put the three images of Greenmanville (which are my own work) on the existing Gallery (where there are only two images, therefore there is space), with a simple caption about the name of the house. Otherwise fine with me to leave the images out. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This wiki is not an image repository, and there's already tons of photos in the article. You're better off uploading your photos to the Commons and including them in the Commons category Category:Mystic Seaport. There's already a link to the Commons category on the Mystic Seaport article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

they are already in commons with the tag Mystic Seaport so that is fine with me. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Chapters on IPC

I saw that you have deleted some pages of Chapters about Indian penal code. I have recreated it with more details. Created new page :Chapter I of the Indian Penal Code. If this is ok. May I continue creating pages for other chapters with the similiar format. I am asking because you have deleted the pages already. Let me know if its ok If I create new pages for chapters. - Sulthan90 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sulthan90: Please don't copy the actual legislation into your article unless you can prove the material is in the public domain. Works of the Government of India, including legislation, are protected by copyright for 50 years from date of creation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa The page is about law and the words cannot be changed becasue it should be represented as it is. So How am I suppose to change the wording? Sulthan90 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't include copyright material. You need to summarize it in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Does the new page look ok? Chapter I of the Indian Penal Code Sulthan90 (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

List of characters in The Lego Movie

Can you take a look at the above page? Does any CSD criteria apply? Thanks, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What about WP:A3: No content: article consists only of a rephrasing of the title? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks a lot! Have a nice afternoon. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of page יהודית דורי

Dear Diannaa,

My draft article יהודית דורי was marked for deletion and removed on 27th March. I did read through the instructions before creating this article, but I must have misunderstood some of them.

I did not realise a draft article could be removed before publication. I only intended to keep the text that was there as a placeholder until I completed the article. I understand I have to provide copyright information, and I have permission from the person the article is about, as well as from their academic institution, but I did not realise this had to be adhered to during the article drafting stage. I apologise for my misunderstand of the rules.

Is there any way you or someone else could undelete the article and just leave it blank, or with minimal information, until I finish it? It should be done by April 15th.

Best Rea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realavi (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright material on this website, not even in sandboxes or drafts, without the express written release of the material under a compatible license. If the copyright holder wishes to do that, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. In the meantime I am sending you a copy of the draft by email so you can work on it offline. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Solar Cycle

As far as I can see the text on the Vencore-Weather site is a word-for word copy of the text from the reference on the article [[17]], a NASA website which is, of course, public domain. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stub Mandrel. I have checked this, and they're not the same at all. For example the phrases "weakest solar cycle in more than a century", "24th solar cycle since 1755", "recent trend of weakening solar cycles" do not appear in the NASA document. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Joyce Wilding

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for checking the copyright status of the image I uploaded of Joyce Wilding. I have to say that I found the whole question of categories, tags and uses way too confusing and I could not see anything that fit the circumstances. I thought that I chose the "next best thing". The original photo was taken in 1970 in India by a professional photogrpaher (name unknown). The original photo shows Betty Shah and her mother Joyce Wilding. I visited Betty Shah in the US (I live in Australia) as I am writing a book about her mother. She allowed me to photograph every photo in her old-style photo album, which contains images from 1957 to 1972. I said that I would like to put the photo of her mother on the internet and I asked if that was OK. She said that was fine. I explained that someone else might copy the photo of her mother and that I could not stop that happening. She said that was fine. So I cropped the photo and uploaded it to Wikipedia. I cannot prove that this conversation ever took place (although I can prove that I took the images in Betty's home in the US). She does not have email (she is 84 years old) and I am back in Australia so I cannot get written permission. I'm unsure who actually owns the copyright on the cropped image - is it still the unknown Indian photographer, is it Betty who has the original printed copy or is it me who made a digital copy and cropped it? I would appreciate your advice on this. Thanks, Cathyday (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

What you uploaded is a photograph of a photograph. That means it's a derivative work; the fact that you copied the photo does not transfer the copyright to you. The subject of the photograph is not the copyright holder either; the person who holds copyright is the person who took the photo, unless it was a work for hire taken by a professional photographer. Sorry but it looks like we won't be able to keep this photo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dianaa. As I mentioned above, it was indeed taken by a professional photographer in India in 1970. It was a posed studio portrait. I don't know the name of the photographer. Does that mean that Betty (one of the two subjects of the photo) is now the copyright holder? Cathyday (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

She is if she is the person who hired the photographer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Message from Rupalavanyan

Thank you for your advices.I'll practice how to make the article on my own.rupa$$$ (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio

Please check recent edits at Narsapur, West Godavari district.--Vin09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have done revision deletion on the diffs you removed. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Elvy Musikka

Can Draft:Elvy Musikka be restored, in order to continue work on it. The text in question had been rewritten by me, in order to comply, after your valid criticism. And the rewrite was noted on the talk page, to prevent premature deletion. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with by the deleting admin. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Malpura - copyvio issue

I have just pulled out a lot of copyright violating material at Battle of Malpura. As best as I can tell, it began with this edit but I can't rule out that there may have been some stray bits in earlier versions. I have the relevant book by Sarkar here, published by Longman's in 1950. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Same source, same problem at Battle of Merta but this time from the very first edit because the article was created by the person who introduced the problem into the Malpura one. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Battle of Lalsot from here. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Patan from here. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This edit also (checked with GBooks, where I only get snippet view but get enough). - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

All done. Thank you so much for taking the time to clean these articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you. It must be like Groundhog Day. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It was quiet overnight! The calm before the storm, I guess!! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Marriage in ancient Rome

Hiya Diannaa -- any chance you can take a look at Talk:Marriage in ancient Rome#Copyvio? The content in question was suspiciously good, and was added way in 2008. Earwig yielded nothing useful, but google-fu worked straight off; I've linked to the source at article talk, and deleted what seemed the most obvious violations; they'd not been tinkered with, probably because the author (Elaine Fantham) is such a damn fine writer. The editor responsible is long gone, of course, but should revdels be done? If so, it would wipe maybe a third of the article history. Haploidavey (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You are truly heroic. Haploidavey (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but there's another copyvio in the same article. The section on Old age and marriage is a virtual copypaste from Parkin, Tim G. (2003) Old Age in the Roman World: A Cultural and Social History, The Johns Hopkins University Press. I've deleted the section. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Kamehameha Schools Song Contest

Hi Diannaa. I've got a question about Kamehameha Schools Song Contest. The contest article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamehameha Schools Song Contest and the close was "merge" into Kamehameha Schools. Some time passed without the merge being done, so I started WP:AN#Afd to merge question and then Talk:Kamehameha Schools#Merging Kamehameha Schools Song Contest. Since the primary contributors to the contest article have been IPs or SPAs and new content continued to be added even after the AfD close, I decided to be a little bold and try to do the merge myself. I think I did it OK techinically, and have no problem with further discussing the content of the new section. I just felt that it should be at least done before the contest article was further edited. Anyway, Ksmele, a new account, did try and recreate the contest article on their user page. It looks like they simply copied and pasted that last version onto their userpage; they then blanked Kamehameha Schools#Song contest and replaced the content with a link to their userpage. I blanked the user page per WP:FAKEARTICLE because it appeared to be more of an attempt to recreate the article, then a userspace draft, but I am wondering if WP:CWW also needs to be considered (which is the main reason I decided to ask you about this). I am also wondering what to do if the same editor or another editor does the same thing. Would it have been better to tag for speedy per WP:G4 or start an WP:MFD instead of blanking? I understand that deleted articles may sometimes be re-created or a WP:DRV requested, but I'm not sure how that applies to closes such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like unattributed fake articles are routinely deleted at MFD. Unattributed copying is a violation of the terms of our CC-by-SA license and of the copyright policy of this website. Material released under license is still copyright, and unattributed copying is a copyright violation. So there's two choices: MFD, or blanking with revision-deletion. I've done the revision deletion at the userpage in question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Joseph A. Loftus

Hi,

You seem to be the queen of copyright issues, from what I've seen in my travels, and I wonder if you wouldn't mind helping me out with something. This short article had close paraphrasing issues before I edited it - the Copyvio detector now is down to 6.5% likelihood (due to job titles, newspaper names, etc.) from 84.5% when I ran it earlier. In this kind of cases, should the earlier versions of the article be hidden?

How would I go about requesting that? Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carole! You can request revision deletion using the template {{copyvio-revdel}} which will place it in Category:Requested RD1 redactions for admin attention. If you find the template confusing or awkward to use just post here and I will take care of it for you. Revision-deletion is done for this one. Thanks for the report, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sumsuma

Can you deal with the rev del here. Was G12 eligible but then the creator completely rewrote it. Good faith contributor who didn't understand how our copyright policy works with referencing. I've already given the talk page new user copyright template. Thanks as always TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting and for your help with copyvio clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright on Gospel Pilgrim Cemetery

Hey! I'm not sure if government documents from Athens-Clarke County are copyrighted. I will find out tomorrow for you. Cranberrycash (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The page has the following copyright notice: "All content © 2006-2017 Athens-Clarke County, GA and its representatives. All rights reserved." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Eliza Larken Monson

Hi again,

If you have a chance, I added a {{Copyvio-revdel}} to Eliza Larken Monson.

Thanks.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, quick question for you. I have been more focused on copyvio checks lately (mostly because of the things that I see that you catch that flash across my Watchlist that you post to articles or user pages). Now that I'm running a copyvio check on each NewPagesFeed review, I am finding more things... and have another one Gary Jackson (poet) that involved the four-sentence lead before I paraphrased. Is it necessary to request that revisions are hidden if it involves only four or so sentences?

If so, I should probably remove a couple of copyvio-revdel tags. (I have a quick summary, too, at User_talk:CaroleHenson/Admin-in-training#April_5-6.) I'm just trying to make sure I'm doing things right and not making extra work for others that isn't needed.

By the way, I won't bother you again about something in the copyvio-revdel queue. Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your interest in helpiung with copyright clean-up. I think you should request revision deletion for any non-trivial amount of copy vio, especially if it's recent. Four sentences is definitely enough. Don't worry about the work it generates; it shows up as an admin backlog so people will come and do it (and using the template rather than posting here frees me up for other tasks that few are working on, especially https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/). Please be sure you make the person who added the copyvio aware of our copyvio policy! There's a couple of templates you can use, or you can prepare a hand-written note. There's a selection of pre-made hand-written notes at User:Ninja Diannaa/sandbox (just open the page for editing for some easy copy-paste of these gentler notices and other useful things. I keep this open in a tab all the time for handy access) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input - that's helpful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Bend your ear?

Cape Cod here, calling Alberta: First, thanks for that fab set of tools on your talkpage. I have a favor/question to ask you, if you have a minute, regarding a minor incident I unleashed upon myself a few days ago when I let my curmudgeonly side get the better of me. As you may recall, I confess to having limited patience for non-fluent editors who engage in sloppy editing here, especially when it's prolific. A few days ago, I noticed some self-promotion from such an editor--one whom I had encountered before and know to be needy and vindictive. He posted on several talkpages seeking affirmation for an article on which he makes a lot of clumsy edits (rarely with edit summaries--admittedly a big pet peeve of mine), and I was compelled to post comments below his nominations. It wasn't my most elegant work here to be sure, but given my knowledge of this editor's behavior and attitude, I wanted to alert others. Anyway, he posted an ANI about my comments, and I wonder if you might take a look and tell me if you think I am way out of line. I'm not requesting that you get involved there; I just want to get an objective read from someone who might have a sense of what I'm about on Wikipedia. I know you are busy here, and this is boring, so if you're not up for it, I completely understand. Two notes: I believe my only direct interaction with this editor (Edelseider) was when I posted on his talkpage in January 2016 (linked on the ANI). He has been blocked twice on de.wp (his native tongue, I believe), where he has made a bit of a name for himself for comparing people to Hitler when they disagree with him. Thanks in advance, and I'm perfectly happy for you to mention this to anyone you see fit. Eric ^talk 19:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I will check this out when I need a break from my copyvio work — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No rush, and thanks! Eric ^talk 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again- Just wanted to alert you that after discovering some new info, I have since posted on one other person's talkpage about this matter. Eric ^talk 02:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I found some additional proof and posted it on Gwen Gale's user talk. After your post I reviewed the ANI case and discovered I did have a look when it first came up on the board, including reading through the FA nomination. There's been some shockingly bad behaviour on both sides and you both need to smarten up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for taking a look. I assume the behavior you find shocking on my part is my posts below Edelseider's A-class nominations. I hope it's nothing else. As I admitted, I don't see them as my finest moment, but I don't think of them as aggressive, given what I know about this guy. The ANI business annoys me, but I'm trying to react calmly. As it seems you have been looking into this matter, I am posting a draft in my sandbox of what I am considering posting at the ANI in response to Beeblebrox--it has more info. I appreciate your attention, even if it exposes my less noble side. Eric ^talk 12:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much of a jerk you think this guy is; your posts were out of line. Posting more stuff at ANI doesn't change that, and reflects poorly on you as it looks like you are out to get him. The stuff in the last paragraph is inappropriate, as you make assumptions about the motivations of the other party, which is something cannot possibly know. Besides, many of us do it so that we can feel better about ourselves. (For example, I personally started editing when I realized I was wasting my life by playing Tetris for four or more hours a day.) A better approach would be to apologise for those inappropriate posts. I think you should focus on the socking aspect right now; either open an SPI and link to it at ANI, or wait for Gwen to respond on her talk. TLDR version: don't post that stuff. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm reading the whole thing if you're taking the time to advise me! I feel bad about wasting your time as well as mine. Well, I think I worded that last paragraph in a way that suggests that what I present above it demonstrates an impression he gives, rather than outright assuming his motivation, but I take your point. I don't want to have anything to do with the ANI; I find it distasteful. But there's some seemingly drive-by commentary there that gives me the impression that people are being taken in by Edelseider and automatically legitimizing his post there, which vexes me. Hence my motivation to post what I showed you. But if you think that's not the place, I'll take your advice. I may proceed with an SPI after I hear what Gwen has to say. Thanks again, Diannaa. Eric ^talk 13:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Remember what Wayne Gretzky's dad told him: People are not going to judge you based on what you say about yourself; they are gonna make their own observations of your behaviour and form their opinion accordingly. A corollary to that might be that stuff people say about you is immaterial if it is not true. Here on the wiki I have found that there's no need to defend yourself against random shite. The people whose opinion you might actually care about will take the time to do their own investigating before forming an opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was considering referring a few users I "know" to the ANI, including admins with whom I've collaborated over the years, but I wasn't sure how appropriate that would be. Eric ^talk 14:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate or necessary, and would likely be construed as canvassing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger, thanks. PS- If you ever do tire of WP and go back to video games, at least pick a game that is worthwhile and has real meaning, like Space War or Asteroids. You'll be ridding the galaxy of asteroids and bad aliens--never a waste time! Eric ^talk 14:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My ears have been ringing and lo and behold, @Eric: is again disparaging me. His obsession with my person is neither flattering, nor understandable. Yes, I used to be RCS (talk · contribs), I also used to be Insert coins (talk · contribs). And I have done lots of good things on Wikipedia! I write and edit articles and from time to time I lose my temper. Without people like me, the encyclopaedia would be much poorer. If that is what Eric wants, he wont' get it. Not sorry about this! --Edelseider (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Response

What kind of attribution? If there is a reference, I put it. If not, what can I do? We talk abt sentences, which also I may change them a little, not about paragraphs or whole articles Greco22 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

When copying from one Wikipedia article to another, attribution is required. This is a legal requirement under the terms of our CC-by-SA license. All you have to do to fulfil this requirement is state in your edit summary at the destination article what the source article was. Here is an example of how to do it. There's complete information at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok!thankyou Sorry for my mistake Greco22 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Message from Minhaaj

You left a message on my talk page reverting changes to an edit i made on article ameer akram awan. I do understand that is coming from your bigoted understanding of the issue between me and jimbo wales and i have never viewed wikipedia gang as honest team of editors but i am still giving you the opportunity to rise above your reputation and don't bring personal fights to wikipedia articles. Content is definitely not copyrighted plus i am an official of the organization and i am editing on their behalf. so if you can stop being a jerk, it would really help the much over hyped wikipedia democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhaaj (talk • contribs) 01:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The article involved is Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan and the material you added was copied from http://oursheikh.org/Home.aspx, which is marked at the bottom as "Copyright © 2015 Oursheikh.org. All rights reserved." There's a second problem: 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. Another editor has posted information on this topic on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion on Tambu (music)

I understand the issue, but I do not understand why the edits have been made unable to be reviewed and changed by me, as I remember that other non-content-related changes were present in my edits, ones which I cannot remember if I don't have the original edits to review. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have double checked and the only content I removed was the paragraph copied from here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In one of my edit summaries on the edits that you deleted, I say that I added links. I cannot remember what these links are. I also say in another edit summary that I added sources other than the one I copied the text from. All of this has been made invisible to me. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. The net difference in the page can be viewed using this diff. Hope that helps. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for making my revisions visible. It turns out that all of my non-copyrighted edits, as far as I know, were indeed preserved by you. SpikeballUnion (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mistake on copied text from History of Grenada to Grenada

It appears that you made a mistake on this issue. The content in the lead of the Grenada page was already present in the Grenada page's History section. This content is the same that is present in the History of Grenada page, but I did not perform this copy. The only thing that I did was change the wording of the identical lines of text separately on each of the pages to fix NPOV. The content, therefore, even if I did copy it over, would've been my own edits and would not have required attribution anyway. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mistake on copied text from Seven Years' War to Battle of Hochkirch

This post appears to be in error. Although I did use some of the structure of the text, I restructured it, streamlined it, added new or additional sources, and condensed it dramatically. I don't think it's much like the original text at all. And I will be going back to the Seven Years' War and updating that text as well. auntieruth (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the diff where the material was added. The edit was picked up by a bot. I checked it using Earwig's tool, which shows a considerable overlap, especially towards the end of the section. So I don't think I was incorrect in this instance. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Deteled 5 articles created by me

I wrote a response in the page of discussion, please read it--Vvven (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore & Eastern Shore revision ...

Hi Diannaa ... thanks for your comments on the Baltimore, Chesapeake and Atlantic Railway article. You deleted some material on diverting traffic from Baltimore to Philadelphia that was sourced from Hagley's PRR chron doc. Hagley was citing the Railroad gazette. v.18, page 585, 1886 which is public domain (PD) from Hathi trust ... I will remove the Hagley reference and use the public domain reference ... This is the PD material which I will work into the section ...

"Baltimore & Eastern Shore.—At a meeting of the directors in Baltimore last week the Executive Committee was authorized to go on and secure the right of way. The plan showing the location of the road was submitted and approved. The line adopted extends from a terminus on the Chesapeake Bay, across the Eastern Shore, through Easton, to Salisbury, Md., where connection will be made with the Wicomico & Pocomoke road, which runs from Salisbury to Ocean City. The length of the proposed new road from the bay shore to Salisbury will be 52 miles, and it will make a line running diagonally across the Eastern Shore to Ocean City, 82 miles in length. From the proposed terminus on the bay shore the distance across Chesapeake Bay to Bay Ridge is 12 miles, which will be covered by a ferry, and at Bay Ridge connection will be made with the new Bay Ridge Annapolis road, over which trains will run to both the Annapolis & Baltimore Short Line and the Annapolis & Elk Ridge road. The money to build the new road will be raised partly by stock and partly by the issue of bonds. The city of Baltimore will be asked to indorse $500,000 of the bonds, and the four counties of Wicomico, Dorchester, Talbot and Caroline $50,000 each. The object of the new road is to preserve the business connection of Baltimore with the Eastern Shore country. That business has been largely diverted to Philadelphia of late years, through the control of the Eastern Shore Railroad by the Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore." (Emphasis added)

Thanks

Risk Engineer (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please when copying directly from PD materials, could you add the template {{PD-notice}} as part of the citation? this will alert our readers (and patrollers such as myself) that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and will prevent false positives of this type in the future. Here is an example of how to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks ...this was a learning curve moment for me and I apologize for inconveniencing you ... Risk Engineer (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Foreign language G12 رياض القاضي

Bothering you here rather than tagging because its a bit difficult to spot, but from what I can see in Google translate, it is the Arabic translation of [18]. Arguably G11. Happy weekend. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for your post. Someone else has gone ahead with the deletion. Suggestion: I sometimes post on the talk page as a way to provide a more detailed reason for my deletion nomination. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

MDA Telethon

I've paraphrased the information you identified from the MDA Telethon article. If you could kindly check what I've added at your earliest convenience and advise, I'd appreciate it. Thank you for your help Spintendo (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

These amendments are good. I am going to go ahead with the revision deletion now that you've had the opportunity to fix. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Revdel please?

Please can you revdel this as personally identifying information. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright on Joyce Wilding image

Hi Diannaa. Since Betty Shah paid the professional photographer in India, to take a photo of her and her mother Joyce Wilding, and Betty has given me verbal permission to uploaded the duplicated and cropped image to Wikipedia, does that mean that the image on the Joyce Wilding page now stays? Thanks. Cathyday (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think so. We need written permission via the OTRS email system. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen image

I'm confused why you removed it as having "no-rationale" for this article - I've reviewed the USHMM policy for their images, there is a charge for high resolution copies but otherwise the images ARE free, for obvious reasons. Seraphim System (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally: I am sympathetic that you are concerned about stability for FA articles and I have worked with you on this in the past rather then edit war, I know these articles are important to you but I think you have to let others edit the article as well. Seraphim System (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary where you stated you would edit war to keep this image in the article. That's not a good idea, as it is against our Edit warring policy. The reason I removed it is because we don't use non-free images where freely licensed images are available. There's already three freely licensed images of Einsatzgruppen shootings in the article, so to add a non-free one violates our non-free content policy rule #1 which states that non-free content must not be used where a freely licensed alternative is available. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you link to that? Seraphim System (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I see why you are confused, you misread my edit summary. It says "I have written to USHMM about copyright before and I will do it again if I must" indicating that I feel it is a hassle for both myself and the research team at the museum. I was talking about following up on copyright permissions, not reverting edits - I self-reverted, I asked for help at media questions, and they explained rationale to me - which was the second revert. I have never worked with fair use before. I don't think you did this on purpose, but you should be careful accusing other editors of edit warring. I will try not to take it personally. Seraphim System (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I see now that I made a mistake about the edit summary. Here is a link to the non-free content policy: WP:NFCCP. I see you already received similar information and advice from a different administrator when you visited Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair Use: since we have several freely licensed images available (and already present in the article), we can't justify including a non-free one that illustrates essentially the same point. A fourth image does not add anything that is not already illustrated by the three freely licensed images. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Australian nationality law

Thanks Diannaa for the note re Australian nationality law#Applying for a Passport ... I have updated the section. Hope it is ok now.Supcmd (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Supcmd. My point was that when copying from compatibly licensed Australian government websites, you need to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. here is an example: Diff of Australian nationality law. If you could do this yourself in the future if you copy their prose verbatim that would be perfect. You can do it manually like I did, or you can use a template {{CC-notice}}. I have checked your additions and they are fine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks ... Supcmd (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Global Combat Ship

Hello Diannaa,

a quick query regarding your recent removal of some updates I did to the Global Combat Ship. The content you removed came from a BAE Systems' (the builder of Type 26/GCS) press release, so I'm not sure how there is a copyright issue. Are press releases not meant to be used by the press and/or in the media in general? I always thought the idea of a providing a press release was to give lazy editors a story without having to do any real work. All over the world press releases are used almost verbatim, and every day. However, you do seem to spend a fair bit of your wiki time on this sort of subject, so I'm very keen to read your thoughts. There may be a Wiki rule somewhere that covers this, and if there is, I'll of course obey it. If press releases are in fact covered by copyright law, I assume I need to re-hash the release to use the information, or maybe get the permission of BAE Systems to use it near-verbatim if I wished to? Look forward to hearing from you, and I'll not do anything until I do--Wolpat (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wolpat. The page where I found the content was here, and it is marked at the bottom as "Copyright © 2017 BAE Systems. All rights reserved" so yes, it is definitely copyright and we can't host the material here unless the copyright holder wishes to release the content under a compatible license. If you intend to contact the the copyright holder to get permission, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.

For future reference, please note that under current copyright law, literary works (including press releases) are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that swift and detailed response. Weirdly I'd have taken that "Copyright © 2017 BAE Systems. All rights reserved" to mean the design of the page..., but that's really neither here nor there when you explanation is taken into account. I may contact BAE, but given the size of the organization, I fear that may be a huge task in itself... I think what I will end up doing is re-writeing the information I originally used so that it hopefully doesn't break any rules. Thanks again.--Wolpat (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Just had another go at that text... Hopefully it will pass muster in this presentation. I did not "" the text I copied directly as this is always an item or items, and I don't think something like an item or list of items referenced can ever be a direct quote. Am I wrong? Either way, do please let me know what you think. Please don't delete again if it still falls foul, just give me a coupe of clues. Will be much easier! Oh, and weirdly I did manage to talk to somebody. Was shocked how easy it was... They laughed that anybody should care about a press release being quoted as such, but acknowledged the technical copyright issue. And while they have no issue with direct copy for what I did, agreed getting something to support that from an organization of the size we are talking of, would be a task in itself... It was agreed it would be quicker/easier for me to manipulate the words, while striving to retain 100% accuracy. Look forward to your comments.--Type 304 (18-8) (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have done some paraphrasing on the section about the six contracts, as you presented exactly the same material using the same words as the source web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'm kind of not really sure about all of this. If Fred delivers a grey wheelbarrow, he delivers a grey wheelbarrow. That's a fact, and surly as a fact it can be used. Surly I don't have to say Fred delivered a wheelbarrow of a colour somewhere between black and white on the spectrum? A grey wheelbarrow is a grey wheelbarrow, a watertight door is a watertight door, it is not just a door. I mention the door as it is important to add the gastight and watertight doors as they are specific/special, they're not just doors. Paraphrasing such things just introduces ambiguity and even errors. To be accurate, to be encyclopedia in the 'get it right' sense, the items contracted here need to be presented as contracted, and not fluffed around. Surly reported the contracted items cannot be a copyright issue? They're not somebody else's words, they are facts. Sadly, and despite your obvious best efforts, paraphrasing has allowed errors to creep in. You now have contractors attributed wrong awards, and the supplier of the gas and watertight doors well be well miffed that you have them supplying what appear to be just doors. I have deleted the block of text for now as it was just so wrong, and will make another attempt at this tomorrow (or maybe later today). I do feel the actual items need to be presented 'as were ordered' for accuracy and not fluffed around as outlined earlier. I will attempt to get it right next time around. Hope this makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Type 304 (18-8) (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but you can't copy material directly from the source document; it's copyright. It's not a straightforward list in my opinion, and it can and should be paraphrased. Since you're not satisfied with my version, please go ahead and create your own, but like I said before you must not copy directly form the copyright source document. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Would swapping 'a red fork, a green spade, and a blue rake' to 'a blue rake, a red fork and a green spade' work, and if not what about 'a selection of garden tools including a red fork, a green spade, and a blue rake'?--Type 304 (18-8) (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Knight Habor or Harbour on banks island edit

Hi,

I'm wondering if you edited my writing on Banks Island about Knight Harbor or Knight Harbour. I seen it was removed but I received no warning or notice of it also I can't click on it on my contributions page. Rrknightjr (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rrknightjr. I removed some content as it appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/cae/peo613e.shtml. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Sorry for the lack of notice on your talk page, I must have got distracted because normally I let people know what I did and why. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, did you recieve my message about deleting my edit in banks island with all my references which were alot.? Rrknightjr (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rrknightjr I did receive your message, and my reply is immediately above — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Copyright Nam Cam

Hi, thanks for correcting me on copyrighted text, I did not know that such was a rule, only thought it applied to photos. However, I cannot see the specific edit that I made due to it being crossed out for copyright violation. I want to see the edit that I made that included the copyrighted text since it includes some good detailed information from the source that I can perhaps reword properly to avoid the copyright issue. However, without access to seeing what exactly I did add in that edit, I do not know what info was removed. Much would be appreciated if you could allow me some way to see the specific edit. Best regards, TTTAssasinator (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed material about the trial copied from http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Vietnam/sub5_9f/entry-3449.html. I can send it to you via email but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I would like to receive the edit by email, which I just activated today so that I can see exactly what I added. I look forward to a response TTTAssasinator (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but something must have gone wrong, as I am not seeing email access as of yet. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps it takes a while to show up on your side then. Try it again, you should be able to see it as I can see that I've already activated my email for this account in the Preferences tab. If you still can't see it then I guess I'll just post my email directly here for you to contact me. Looking forward to a response TTTAssasinator (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's still not there. I've tried in Chrome and Safari on my Mac and Chrome on my Chromebook. Please double check at your end as it's not a good idea to publicly post your email address on this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Triple checked it, it says that my email was confirmed at 10 April 2017 at 14:47, so don't know why you are unable to see it. Perhaps you could post the edit on my talk page if that is no problem? I could always remove the section if it is a problem, so would that be an idea that you find adequate? Looking forward to a response TTTAssasinator (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How about you check and see if you can send me an email? If it's properly set up you should see a link to email me in the links on the left hand side of the page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I've emailed you on this site using the "Email this user" function on the left side tool section, so check if you've received my email. Again I look forward for a response. TTTAssasinator (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Email is on its way. Thanks for your patience. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics

Hi there,

While reviewing your G12 tag for the above, I noticed it was licensed under CC-BY 4.0, which contrary to CC-BY-SA 4 is a valid license, at least according to the FAQ :). I have to say that our situation with regards to CC 4 is clear as mud to me right now. Cheers, MLauba ^(Talk) 08:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. You are correct: CC-BY 4.0 is a compatible license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Gurudwara Nangali Sahib

I shall be granted permission by the content owner shortly for which i have already applied.I request you to remove this from speedy deletion nomination. User:Karankhajuria22 22:52 10 April, 2017 (UTC)

The page has already been deleted. When the permission email is received and verified, the page can be restored. Please be patient, as the people who look after this are experiencing backlogs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have sent the snapshots of permission proof to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.Is there anything else i have to do? User:Karankhajuria22 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lowell Haines

Hi, thanks again for your endless assistance. The page has been created by someone who has a very heavy WP:COI issue that I should have realised much earlier. But now that I have put forward a AfD on this article, is it too late to tag as a CSD? I'm thinking of the best possible way of coming out of this without WP:BITE'ing or looking overzealous. I look forward to your reply. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any CSD category that fits the case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just re-read the criteria for the CSD categories I had in mind... Thanks for your time, greatly appreciated. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Medal recipient categories - Commons

We (and I use the term because I didn't lead the effort) recently finished successful CfDs for recipients of the Purple Heart and recipients of the Bronze Star. I noticed that Commons still has those categories with slightly different names, which I think should also be deleted. User:K.e.coffman, who led at least one of the CfDs, suggested I ask you about addressing that process because you have more experience on Commons. Should we address this at Commons and what's the procedure?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have much knowledge about how things work at the Commons, or about categories in general. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Kimberly-Clark - Can you help?

CityOfSilver reverted an edit by 76.14.173.8 at Kimberly-Clark because of suspected copyright violation. 76.14.173.8 restored the questionable material. I found the source of the text, which was used word for word, reverted, and placed a warning on 76.14.173.8's talk page. 76.14.173.8 restored the material again, claiming that they had "Modified and added non copyrighted material". It appears to be the exact same plagiarized text to me. Can you help out here? 32.218.36.86 (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I see another admin has blocked the IP for a bit for the copyright violations. I've gone back and revision-deleted the copyvio material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Shahzadpur, Haryana, India

Hi Diannaa. Is the text at Shahzadpur, Haryana, India#Demographics too close to the source? Dr Thaane Wala has persistently added similar text and claims that there is not a close paraphrasing issue. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

www.census2011.co.in is a copyright website and we can't copypaste their prose. That being said, Earwig's tool shows the current version to be adequately paraphrased. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

St. John's International School, Kuala Lumpur

Hi Dianna, I hope you are doing good. I am Inderjeet Singh, Vice- Principal of St. John's International School, Kuala Lumpur. We have recently updated our Wikipedia page from our official IP address 175.143.47.217. However, all of our content has been reverted. I do understand on the copyright issue and permission needed. It will be great if you can revert the chances to reflect our school (this was done on 6th April 2017). Please advise if we need to carry out any other processes, frankly quite naive with Wikipedia page/s management.I will also get my staff to rewrite the about SJIS to minimise resemblance to our webpage content www.sjis.edu.my. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.47.217 (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on this article. 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. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Another option is to write material that does not closely copy the material available on the school's website.

The 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. There's additional information on this topic on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a section because it's empty

IP address users 80.1.181.122[19] and 80.2.151.245[20] (could be the same person) keeps deleting an empty section on the Scarlett (G.I. Joe) page[21] and on other pages simple because it's an empty section that hasn't been filled in yet. But there are dozens of empty sections all across wikipedia, that doesn't mean they should be removed. If this person feels so strongly about that then they should take it to the Talk page.108.82.12.10 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well in this example and this example, the sections have been sitting empty for going on six years, so their removal seems justified to me. Perhaps you should pursue this on the article talk pages. Or if you've got some sourced content to add, that would be welcome too — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding Sources

Thank you for the comment. I will keep it in mind.--Markx121993 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Emerald Theatre

Thank you for your comments. I am struggling with the process of using wikipedia and navigating all the rules..just to find out how to respond to your comment was a challenge. The Macomb Music Theatre page should be deleted and the Emerald Theatre page should be updated, as edited, to show that the venue is open, not closed. This is a live performance venue, known as the Emerald Theatre from 2000 - 2012, then the Macomb Music Theatre from 2012-2014. It was closed in 2014 until it was purchased in 2016 and the name is back to the Emerald Theatre by the new owners. BOTH pages exist on wikipedia, but as it stands, it looks like the Emerald Theatre is closed. I'm running into so many brick walls with guidelines, that I don't know how to proceed. Another editing user, 331dot, said he/she has "already posted a merge tag on the article; if some time passes and no one disagrees, an administrator will be able to merge the two articles together. In the future, if you feel any edits are needed to the article about your theatre, you will need to suggest them on the article talk page first per the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk)" However if the Emerald page is merged with the Macomb Music one, that's the OPPOSITE of what should happen, as there is no Macomb Music Theatre now. And because i work for the people who bought the venue last year, I have a "conflict of interest" which is another obstacle.Dhp31 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This article states that the venue re-opened as the Emerald Theatre late last year. I will help --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU!Dhp31 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Copyright problem on Qualifications framework

Hi Diannaa, I believe that the copyright issue you had with me is with the Qualifications framework article, not David Lazer. Regarding that page, the information that you removed was not taken from the websites you listed, but rather from a free content work licensed under CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0: Level-setting and recognition of learning outcomes: The use of level descriptors in the twenty-first century. The content that you removed was taken from p. 80 of that publication. This is part of a project that uses UNESCO's open access in line with Wikipedia's open license policy. If you have any questions about the project, please contact John Cummings. Thank you. (A.mart82 (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi both, Diannaa I've undone your revisions, as A.mart82 says the text comes from an open license source here. The pages you found may be earlier iterations of text but the text is definitely available under an open license (see p3 of the pdf). There is a sources section on the article that gives more information.

Can you tell me which copyvio tool you are using? I'm working with some of the creators to try and help users using the tools to more easily see when there is an open license text attribution on the page.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I also came across one of A.mart82's edits a few weeks ago [22] and initially reverted it [23]. The text added was a section from a pdf and I had checked it using a manual process. Perhaps the brief description that was used in the edit summary and available on the user's page hadn't quite telegraphed to me that this editor was involved in a process of adding free content. I performed a reversion to reinstate the content after I realised what was actually going on. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the material I removed is on page 34 of the Unesco document but it is a quotation from Lokhoff et al., which is not released under a compatible license. The material on page 84 of the Unesco report is a quotation from this document, which has a copyright notice of "Copyright © European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), 2010". Being quoted in a CC-by document does not mean the licensing of the ultimate source documents has changed. So I disagree that this material is okay to copy to our website. To answer your question on copyright detection tools, there's a bot using iThenticate to create reports which are located here and I check them primarily with Earwig's tool and of course manually. I still use the old Duplication Detector occasionally, because it can view some formats that Earwig's tool cannot see. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User not attributing per WP:CWW

Hi Diannaa, I'd noticed you'd left some messages on Torygreen84's talk page about attribution when copying within Wikipedia. Earlier this morning, there was another instance where material was inserted into UK Independence Party leadership election, September 2016 here from Bill Etheridge without attribution. I've again provided retroactive attribution, but they have already been warned about this five times and they don't seem to be adopting the practice. What would be a suitable next step? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I just found another instance: coping from Fred Nile into Burka Ban in Australia without attribution. /wiae /tlk 12:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The next step would be to remove their edits as copyvio, and if they still persist I would block them. Since you have already added the required attribution for the above examples I will give them a final warning instead. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing speedy deletion tag

I am kind of new to creating an article and i used an unauthorized image on my article and what i thought i was deleting was what may have been part of a speedy deletion tag. I did not recognize i was doing this, i was just trying to fix my mistake. DonnyReisdorf (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols

Hi Diannaa! You ahve recently removed the content about Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols from my sandbox and I totally get it because it had been sitting there for quite a while. Would it be possibel to restore it though? I was working on a section for too long which made it seem like nothing was going on, but I actually have something to contribute. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreateWikipg (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The draft was deleted by another admin as it hadn't been edited in quite a while (it looks like I only deleted a redirect to the draft). I have restored it and it is located at Draft:Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:James Jarvaise's Man in the Room Series, 1959.jpg

Hi Diannaa, This is an issue back from 20:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC). I’d like to let you know that the website www.jarvaise.com is now back up and running. Because all related content has been published on this site, what is the best way to reinstate the following images?

• File:James Jarvaise.jpg
• File:James Jarvaise's Man in the Room Series, 1959.jpg
• File:James Jarvaise Hudson River Series.jpg

Thank you so mujch for your time and help with this!

Jean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Jarvaise (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jean. The first image, File:James Jarvaise.jpg, was deleted because you had tagged it as fair use, and we don't allow non-free images of living people. The other two were deleted because they were derivative works, which means that although you provided a license for the photograph, there was no evidence that the copyright holder had released the original artwork under a compatible license. (i.e. we need two licenses for derivative works: one for the photo and one for the underlying artwork.) Your best course of action would be to get an OTRS ticket in place on these files. Please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how to do this. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for the Help with this Diannaa. I will try as you suggest to get an OTRS ticket. Best , Jean

Change "Jadun" to Jadoon

Diannaa,

Wanted to change the wiki on "Jadun" to "Jadoon" because "Jadoon" is the more common spelling. Can I do that? Mulberry sky (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You won't be able to move it there yourself; you'll have to file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

6.9

Diannaa - Thanks for checking in on the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 copyright issue. I don't actually see the issue - I do cross check text against refs, but I don't copy them into Wikipedia unless in quotes. The article looks fine, so no worries. PLawrence99cx (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi Diannaa. Is there a rule on Wikipedia that stub-class articles shouldn't be tagged with "Template:No footnotes"? Another user and I were about to engage in an edit war because we had different opinions as to whether this tag should be placed on these articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) or not. Can you take a look at them and make it clear that which one of us is right? Keivan.f^Talk 10:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't find any information on this topic in our guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Scott Lingamfelter

I thought https://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/interview-with-ltg-candidate-hopeful-scott-linghamfelter/ was a pretty useful source of Lingamfelter's policy stances. At what point does use exceed fair use, I wonder, in a case like this, where we have a legitimate nonprofit educational purpose? The quotations from that source also haven't just been cut down to something briefer; they've been totally removed, which goes beyond what copyright law requires. Anyway, I'd like an opportunity to revise some content and maybe do some paraphrasing and more limited quotations. St. claires fire (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Our non-free content policy is actually stricter than what copyright law requires. What I removed was 165 words of copyright violation and 2,711 words of quotations in a 5,307-word article. So the quotations were more than 51% of the article (since some quotations remain). There's a couple of problems with this volume of quotations. First, our non-free content policy calls for non-free content to be used sparingly. Over half the article being quotations cannot be considered sparingly by anybody's measure. The second problem is all the removed material was quotations from the subject of the article, which is a primary source. Here on Wikipedia we build our articles primarily on secondary sources, i.e. what others have to say about the subject of the article rather than what the subject has to say about himself. That sort of material might be suited to the politician's own website, but it's not what we're looking for on Wikipedia. I have received your email and will be sending a reply in a minute here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. St. claires fire (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation for Garfield High School (Seattle)

Hi Diannaa,

An article titled Garfield High School (Seattle) has a copyright violation in the history section since it was tagged on May 2014. The violation ends just before:

By 2011, due to the success of this program, an alternative program, IBx, was opened for APP students at Ingraham International School in North Seattle to help relieve pressure on an overcrowded Garfield. The program has been renamed from APP to HCC, the Highly Capable Cohort as of 2015.

CubeSats4U 11:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I found the original document, which was archived here on March 24, 2012. This pre-dates the insertion of the content, which happened on 05:47, January 22, 2013. According to this page the material is released under a CC-by-NC-ND 3.0 license, but that's not a compatible license, since it does not allow commercial use and our license does. I have cleaned the article. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Indian Centre for Space Physics

Hi D, sorry to trouble you, but can you have a look at what's left of this article? I got most of what I can find, going back months, but what remains seems in the same tone as what was removed, so I'd like a second set of eyes to make sure I didn't miss anything. Similarly, the photos were all sourced as "sent to me personally" which suggests the uploaded is not the photographer. Thanks! -C Crow^Caw 17:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I did further checks and found nothing else. Do you want me to do some revision deletion? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is probably warranted here, given the amount involved. It would be a lot of revs though, 756896499 through 775215148. Crow^Caw 19:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ta

Hi, Diannaa. Just wanted to say thank you for your help making sense of the rules Wikipedia operates under. After your last response, I've realised even if I managed the copyright issues, it would still end up reading like original research. Which it pretty much is. I hope the thaw is making progress in Alberta. I grew up at Gull Lake, near Red Deer, and remember spring was like an annual rebirth compared to the mild changes that happen here in Australia.CactusPolecat (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We had good progress and the street sweepers came and cleaned the sand off the street but then yesterday it started snowing again and it's going to be snowing till Thursday. Ah well at least it's good for the albedo — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.CactusPolecat (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I done some attribution and some person deleted saying it it is not desirable to duplicate material. say what. Torygreen84 (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The person has a point. We don't build the wiki by copying, we build it by writing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphasing question

Quick question because I'm unsure what our exact policy is on close paraphrasing/breaking up copying over a few sentences. I came across some very close paraphrasing in Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration form the Washington Post and National Geographic. I've since removed it, but not quite sure if the issues are severe enough to need rev del, so I'm not quite comfortable placing the template without a second opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony. There's two-three sentences from each of these sources. In both instances the material was added by Wiki-Ed students. I think there's enough to warrant revision deletion. I have warned the two users re: our copyvio policy. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Can you make the revision history available for all the other revisions. I understand the copyright concern, but there is no edit history available at all now. Can you limit your deletion of revisions to the 2 issues in question? Thanks! --EJustice (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but each diff that contains the copyright violation has to be hidden in order to completely remove the copyvio from the website. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice, I'm now currently going through all of your students pages to see if we have copyright violations. Aylapeters added a blatant copy and paste violation at Open Space Accessibility in California on April 12. It was cited, but in my estimation was well within what many universities would consider unintentional plagiarism since there were no quotations marks and it was presented as the student's own words with only a footnote. There are also some direct quoting in other articles that are from federal government sources that don't make for engaging writing, but aren't copyright violations since they are in the public domain. I'm going to do the best that I can to get through the projects tonight, but I did want to leave a note here for Diannaa so she was aware if I don't get through them since she is somewhat of our local copyright expert. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've finished my search. I didn't find any other copyright violations, the only similar example of what would be unintentional plagiarism academic paper but is not a copyright violation is this edit [24]. Direct quote from the FDA website so its public domain. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! All the students' submissions are also automatically checked for plagiarism with the online system we use at Berkeley. They typically know that by the time they get here and certainly by the time they're juniors. So we'll catch that. --EJustice (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dianna

Hello Dianna, I am User:Vvven, I can not connect to my user account, I even wanted to enter placing my email, but this do not recognize the email. I hope you help me. I was given a warning in the recent past, you told me that the next block but was not a next time because I did not contribute until today in anything else. i ask try to help me please. Thank you--200.35.214.201 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but if you can't access the account through a normal log-in and the email isn't working, there's nothing that can be done :( — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio

Can you take a look at this article Chittagong_Cantonment_Public_College? - Mar11 (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the copyvio had been removed by the time I arrived, but I found a bit more (copied from some other school's website). Revision deletion done. I did some clean-up and copy edits too while I was there. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

MusicMuskrat and copying within Wikipedia

Hello Diannaa, I noticed your second attempt to advise MusicMuskrat about copying within Wikipedia requiring proper attribution. I'm starting to have concerns about the user and wondering if there is a possible language barrier. As you can see from their talk page, they have received numerous advice notices, and yet the user doesn't respond and continues to work against the advice. In August 2016, they started to become disruptive with their edits across a variety of Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles. Only yesterday I had to remind them not to add nested tables that contained no information into articles. Do you know if there is some sort of multi-lingual template that could possibly be posted on their talk page, so that we can determine their native tongue and see if we can converse and get any advice across much easier? Also, while I'm here, I've been working across a variety of similar articles and fully rewriting them from scratch (User:Wesley Wolf/sandbox/10). Main parts of my own wording, I have used as a base template to assist myself in expanding one-liner stubs into multi-paragraphed C-class articles. As I am merely copying my own wording, would I need to be attributing my copied work on each edit summary? Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wesley Wolf. To answer your second question first: If you're copying your own prose, you don't need to provide attribution. But I usually do anyways, as this gives some clarity to things and will help speed up the processing of bot reports (sometimes such edits get flagged as being copyright violations). I wouldn't bother for addition of tables or lists; they're not unique enough to enjoy copyright protection. Regarding MusicMuskrat, I checked the user's SUL and he is not editing any other wikis, so I can't guess if he is more comfortable in another language or which one it might be. He has never made a talk page edit or user talk edit. I will try posting on his talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

Hello Diannaa, Without taking much of your time, regarding your recent removal of some updates I did to the Opicapone page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Opicapone. I noticed I initially had the page under investigation due to copyright issues. Now the issue has been solved, but I’m back to square one. The page no longer has the last version I uploaded but instead, it has the first version. Am I right to assume that the most recent version was removed due to the three references mentioned on the “Copyright Problem Removed” section? (http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002790/WC500209536.pdf, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12081/full and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474442215003361). If so, would removing these references and its content be enough for a new upload to be accepted? I’m a little confused, cause, if the answer for the above question is “YES”, then -respectfully- why was the content of the other 39 references removed? From my limited understanding of the Wikipedia platform, I believe the removal of the new version to be due to copyright problems, more specifically, showing exactly the same contents of the references provided. I would like to express that the contents I wrote on the page had to be exactly the same as from the place I took them from as, in the pharma industry, contents such as “Adverse Effects” are incredibly important to remain untouched. We want to use the Wikipedia platform to give people access of our product, not in any way assist them by giving them opinions about the products. Even the slightest changes to such sections could prove to be detrimental on the readers. I really appreciate your help, and hope to make the Pharmacology coverage in Wikipedia a better place for everyone. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraambc (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in creating an article for for wikipedia. 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.

Another problem is conflict of interest. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Unknown copyright problem for Blood Surf

Hi Diannaa,

An article titled Blood Surf has a possible copyright violation. However, the violation is unclear since this site was never cited and the link also has its own references list that cited the exact same article.

CubeSats4U 05:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi CubeSat4U. The page appears to be a Wikipedia mirror, that is, they copied from us rather than the other way around. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The L Word (season 1)

Hi. I tagged a page in NPP for "excessive or improper use of non-free material". I did this rather than tagging it with a speedy delete for copyvio, since a majority of the article isn't a copyvio. You do a lot of work in copyvio, should I have speedied the whole thing? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Checking the user's edit history, I see that the material was removed from List of The L Word episodes and sub-articles created for each season at that time. This happened in February-March. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. But now I'm really confused. Large portions of this material seem to be copied from imdb (I left a link on the talk page). I understand that you can take material from other Wiki pages, but I was talking about the imdb potential copyvio. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

These plot descriptions were copied from Wikipedia to IMDb rather than the other way around. For example the Season 1 plot descriptions were present in this old diff from 2007 and appear to be the work of Wikipedia authors and not copied from elsewhere on the Internet, because the sample diff shows that the material was being edited and improved by Wikipedians over time. Then in Feb-March 2017, the content was removed from the article List of The L Word episodes and moved to The L Word (season 1), The L Word (season 2), and the other individual articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Chanchal Kumar Majumdar

Hi, I have created a page on Chanchal Kumar Majumdar, which you had earlier deleted. Thought I should let you know. Thanks. --jojo@nthony (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks for doing that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Collective Action Content Removal

Hello, Some content I submitted to the Collective Action wikipedia page was deleted. I'm curious to know why, as I cited my source. I'm a student and contributing to a wikipedia article was a part of an assignment, I've never done this before so your insight would be helpful. Khysimp (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit was flagged by automatic plagiarism detection software. I removed the material as it is not a simple non-creative list of items, and thus is copyrightable material. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Probable copyvio image on 2016 Oakland riots

Hello - Today editor Lilahdog568 added an image to 2016 Oakland riots which I determined is most likely non-free. I was going to post a warning, but saw you'd already posted a final warning on their talk page, so thought I should alert you here. (I haven't looked closely at their other edits on that article, but did also see a large addition to the 2014 Oakland riots article today from an IP editor.) Funcrunch (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The image is on the Commons so I can't block him for that. (You shoulda gone with a copyvio template rather than a deletion nomination; I will tag it as copyvio so you can see what I mean). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't tagged many images on Commons so I wasn't sure. But I thought knowingly adding a copyvio image to an en:wp page might be a blockable offense considering the previous copyvios. (Same user both on Commons and en:wp) Funcrunch (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

About Word to the Badd!!

Diannaa, I've done my best to tidy up that article. There may still be some WP:COPYVIO concerns - from an LA Times article, and quite possibly from other reliable and/or unreliable sources. Could you possibly have a little look into this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shirt58. The version you are talking about was deleted and the current version is ok from a copyright point of view. The big block of prose added in this diff might be copied from somewhere, but I can't find a source online, so I haven't revision-deleted it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. I guess the text in the diff was just someone thought about the song; I asked because your eyes are so much sharper that mine for copyvios. :-). --Shirt58 (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue with DG CONNECT

Hi Diannaa,

Thanks for your comment about DG CONNECT. The article's source is acknowledged. The information is about a non-profit public organisation and I do not see misuse with the copyright. Here's the excerpt from the Copyrights section of the website: "Copyright notice © European Union, 1995-2017 Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged. The Commission's reuse policy is implemented by the Decision of 12 December 2011 - reuse of Commission documents [PDF, 728 KB]".

Although not an experienced editor, I don't see the point to skip detailed information.

Many thanks for your help. --Konstantinos Ziakas (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. I did look for a copyright notice when checking this but somehow missed it. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Shah Jahan copyvio

Please see this revert at Shah Jahan. I've warned the contributor, who seems to have had prior warnings about copyright issues. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The same contributor created Sati-un-Nissa and that, too, has copyvio. Eg: the "fine elocutionist" and "queenly heart" bits come from this and the "political faculty" bit comes from this. It looks like an assembled copyvio across the entire article. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. I've done some revision deletion on Shah Jahan and issued a final warning. I can't clean the other article though, as Google Books won't let me view those sources. Perhaps it should be listed at WP:CP? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and, yes, Sati-un-Nissa should be listed at WP:CP but the instructions for doing so are horrendously complex, as indeed is the assembly of violations in the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you got it listed. I notified the editor of the listing, so this one is done for now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I meant to let you know that I found something that might be appropriate. I am still dubious about whether or not I selected the correct thing and it is now obvious to me that I didn't do the notification bit. Honestly, that CP page is very confusing, simple country boy though I may be. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I know, right? I still find it scary and hard, though I've done quite a few. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

University of Georgia Law School Alumni Edits of Alumni Not In Wikipedia

Hi, Diannaa

After I reverted your deletion of all alumni listed in the University of Georgia Law School - Alumni section who had names externally linked and were not subjects of Wikipedia articles, another editor came behind my reversion and eliminated ALL external links in the Alumni section, which I now believe is the appropriate and best way to handle the matter. I do not believe use of alumni who happen not to have a Wikipedia article about them is improper so long as they obviously don't have their own article, are in plain black type, have a citation for support and for further information, and provide condensed, relevant and useful information to the public.

I spent much time isolating example alumni to give the reading public superior information about alumni by several differing examples so readers may obtain a complete understanding of the school and for the benefit of an encyclopedia that provides information for the public. Nonetheless, I just didn't (and don't) have the time to produce a Wikipedia article for each alumnus. Also, I believe an article for each would be a "one off" project not of general interest to the public in most cases, the singular references in the alumni section without a full article fulfilling the reason for an alumni section and best serving the reader with logical, helpful and sufficiently valuable material.

I have seen many other editors put lists of names, names in sentences, and alumni names not being subjects of Wikipedia articles in brackets [[ ]] (so they show up in red typeface). Other editors leave such names in plain black typeface. I believe my more conservative acceptance of plain black typeface for certain alumni is proper by Wikipedia standards so long as the alumni meet the intent of the section title "Georgia Law Alumni" and the introductory paragraph defining language including that "Georgia Law alumni and alumnae include the following random examples:" (notice "Notable" is neither in the section title nor in the introductory paragraph). However, even if you conclude that the alumni included must be "notable," they well meet that criteria, also.

Why should a lawyer with at most five years in practice be allowed in the alumni list because she was in a couple of films when a youth and has a Wikipedia article (Clara Bryant) while a lawyer considered "one of the Top Ten Trial Lawyers in the United States" or one who has tried cases in 31 different states and who obtained one of the largest (if not the largest) U.S. verdicts ($454 million) not be included in alumni because they don't happen to have their own Wikipedia article?

Even if articles for the latter attorneys could be produced and accepted, time usage with attendant extensive citation research might not make them doable. While these alumni may or may not warrant an article even if time allowed, they are worthy of mention in just a section of an article, as many people and things are throughout Wikipedia.

The section is about "alumni", not necessarily just about judges, politicians, et al. who are subjects of Wikipedia articles. For the most part law school alumni are lawyers who are not usually subjects of Wikipedia articles regardless of their being well known by fellow attorneys, clients, and rating services. There are many worthwhile persons who happen not to be in Wikipedia. Please reread the list and I trust you will see it meets Wikipedia standards. Of primary importance, my list of alumni gives the general public useful, worthwhile, valuable and noteworthy information that provides a sufficiently plenary and ample sampling of the sort of alumni the law school has, thus assisting the reader in understanding the law school as a whole, which is the point.

Best regards, /DBManley /tlk —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)‎

If you look at the history of University of Georgia School of Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I've clean more copyvio from the article. I haven't had time to trace all of it back to determine which revisions need RD1 yet though. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The promotional and copyright violation issues with the above account go back to 2013. See also the article talk page and discussion at my page. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa:

Hello Diannaa, These are my previous writings with two editors, as follow:

Extended content

@2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: @JJMC89: Thank you both. I have been up working to absorb your notes, efforts and Wikipedia standards. I am an alumnus of the school, but have no contact with the school including its dean, staff, admins., profs., students, prospective students, etc., don't contribute money to it, don't even go to reunions or other school events, and don't know any of the alumni I was using in my edit. I edit this page because I am an alumnus with some historical knowledge of the school, care about it in a general way, and get newsletters from it. I thought the alumni I listed with their information and citations were common sense notable (I found them through Wikipedia listed law firms' web sites searching for law school grads, not from any personal information, was ignorant of the notability guides and had messaged an administrator before I did my final reversion). I have been editing small things mostly as a periodic diversion and during illnesses/operations recovery, and obviously needed more research, knowledge and care in my edits. Thank you for the references. I had my alumni status on the LinkedIn page I linked in my user page, but will note my alumnus status on any revisions of this page, will not edit it further except to correct past problems or provide unique additions probably not known to other editors, and will actually avoid editing - then only unless of course within Wikipedia standards. I will avoid any appearance of advertising or writing other than in a neutral manner, will be a good steward and avoid any coi, and will avoid repeating others' information. If you have any things you have spotted that have not been corrected please let me know. Obviously I have much to learn. Thank you for your help. DBManley /tlk DBManley 08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC) This seems to go back years, and was only properly realized last night. You've been adding promotional content and slow edit-warring over alumni since 2013, and were first notified about copyright violations that same year [1]. Last week you promised another editor that you would stop adding copyright violation content to articles [2], and have since gone on what could be fairly described as a copyvio binge (administrators, see edit history of the article). I've requested a user block; I'm also seeking advice from administrators. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC) @2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: I haven't had time or present ability to recall having but only two writing copyright problems, plus waiting for picture copyright permission from the University that sent the pictures to me (none of which related to the law school). The latter were not extreme and, in any event, these few problems since 2013 do not warrant a user block. You give me no examples, and I am presently clueless, regarding your statement that I "have since gone on what could be fairly described as a copyvio binge." This all started with my wish to add alumni to the law school page and I messaged administrator Diannaa (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Diannaa) on my position, also set forth above. I have learned about notoriety now, and will be more vigilant as to copyright, would appreciate a list of what I am ignorant of regarding a "copyvio binge" and would very much like to have the intervention of Dianna or another administrator. Your extreme act to ban me, all things taken together, makes me wonder about any motive besides just being an enforcer of good editing since I believe that I have contributed to Wikipedia and am still learning the ropes. Regards, DBManley /tlk DBManley 13:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry, but an editor can not credibly refer to an edit history of more than four years and then claim to be learning the ropes. A brief look at the article edit history of last night will show just how much copyright violation content that was restored--after the promise to not do so--had to be removed yet again. My suggestion, should this be brought to ANI, would be a block from editing this article. A broader review of hundreds, or thousands, of edits to other articles may be merited to confirm that similarly promotional problems don't exist--my hope is that this article has been an exception. As for questioning my motive, that probably will not prove to be a beneficial path. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 - It may be four years but most edits were just error corrections, or neutral additions, with any problems being minimal and periodic specially compared to the number of edits. Yet I will be better informed and will not relax my editing again. I don't recall restoring any copyright violation content unless you are referring to the alumni that I restored and don't believe they violated copyright. If otherwise, please be more specific. I just stated my belief and always felt this use of such a right beneficial for me. On the other hand I appreciate cordial and helpful, rather than irate, accusatory and authoritarian, discussions. DBManley /tlk DBManley 16:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DBManley: Please don't copy conversations here from Talk:University of Georgia School of Law. I will watch-list any pages that I wish to follow and may or may not participate any further. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Issue – Araby (Mason's Springs, Maryland)

Hello Diannaa, an IP user appears to have added considerable 'cut-&-paste' material to the Araby article on April 13 & 14, taken verbatim from the National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form. Is text from those NRHP Inventory Forms considered to be in the Public Domain? Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The original document is here. There's no reason to believe that prose submitted to the NPS would become their intellectual property. This certainly would not be true for the photos, so we have to assume the same would apply to the prose. Here is the copyright page for the NRHP website, which states that not everything there is their property. Unfortunately the page has material copied from there right from the first edit. So I have created a wee stub to replace this foundational copyvio. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you wipe the recent changes, rather than wiping the entire change-history? TEDickey (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page had material copied from that website right from the first edit, so revision deletion was done on all the diffs. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:American Genius

If you wish to comment at his AN/I, it would be welcome. Dlohcierekim 23:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Please don't post such stuff at ANI; it's the most-watched page on the website. What you need to do is quietly email the Foundation using the instructions at WP:Emergency. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been away for a while. Did not know current procedure but felt a sense of urgent concern. Glad there is a better remedy than posting to AN/I. Dlohcierekim 00:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Hello D. When you have a moment would you take a look at the edits by 2405:204:F18B:2A00:FD97:EA48:57C3:5220 (talk · contribs). I came across their edits at Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and most of the post looks to be copied from the website for the university. However my sense of copyvio stuff like this is limited so I'd like for you to check on things. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

At least some of it is from https://ssrvm.org/our-institutes/higher-learning/sri-sri-university/. The IP was never informed why the content is being repeatedly removed, perhaps that's why they keep re-adding it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD|Talk 13:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: It looks like this article Art of Living Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has some of the same material. MarnetteD|Talk 13:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Chittagong Cantonment Public College

Couldn't decide if I should AfD or leave be. Don't want to get carried away. Dlohcierekim 12:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong person, as I don't have much experience at AFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Narayana Guru

This is copy/paste from this. I think you revdel'd a similar thing not long ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Zog nit keyn mol

"remove song lyrics; material from 1943 has to be assumed to still be under copyright"

No it doesn't, Hirsh Glick died in 1944, so the song is in the public domain since 2015 (70 years after his death). Ausir (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The translations may be copyright though. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Pomegranate plagiarism?

Hello Diannaa. Could you please check this edit (and others by the same frequently-reverted editor) for possible plagiarism? The content does not resemble the editor's prior attempts and use of grammar to add to the Pomegranate article, so is suspicious for being stolen. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but since the source document is not available online I have no way of checking this for you. The editor is enrolled in a WikiEd program, so you might try contacting their instructor via the link Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Michigan/Practical Botany (Winter 2017) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for checking it out. --Zefr (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger of Macomb Music Theatre page into Emerald Theatre page

Hi Diannaa. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion of the proposed merger, which will eliminate the confusion caused by the existence two pages for the same venue, and clarify that the Emerald Theatre is the current name of the venue, and also that the venue is open. Can you tell me what amount of time is given for any objections to be made before the administrator will process the merger request? Anxious for this to be corrected.--Dhp31 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If there's been no new comments for a week or so, it's ok to go ahead. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging for how to proceed from here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio issue

Hi. Junior Professional Officer (JPO) had a copyvio issue, I think it needs some revdel work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This one too: UN JPO Programme Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

These are both taken care of. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

IG Farben

Hi Diannaa. In light of your longtime help in patrolling Zyklon B, I wonder if you'd take a look at recent edits to IG Farben‎. I'm unsure about some of them, especially the insertion of the phrase "four of whom were Jewish" (inserted here and at least twice before). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it again and started a talk page thread. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Maytech

Dear Dianna, nice to meet you.

Please, please restore my article. You have deleted a draft article without any notice. It's a draft and I'm still working on it. Can you send me a message, I'm willing and happy to talk with you and improve the article as many times and as long as it takes until it will be perfect and ready to be published on Wikipedia.

I don't have it saved anywhere and I have been working on it for 3 weeks and a many paragraphs are written in my own words. Because I haven't saved the article it means I just lost a result of 3 weeks work and I can't restore it. Please restore it so I can at list copy everything I had and save it to my computer.

For me Wikipedia was a perfect place for collaboration. I have worked on my article, shared with our people what I had in there, they comment me on what they think about article, what should be added and what should be edited. Now I understand that I can't use Wikipedia for collaborating on my article as you can delete the article at any minute without even noticing. Why? I am so resentful and shocked. Why don't you gave any notice?

The article is written in my own words. It is true there was one paragraph from Maytech Security and Confidentiality statement which was not rephrased and I was planning to rephrase it. It is a draft article, it means I'm working on it and until it is submitted please let me finish with it. Please let me work on my article in a draft and once it is ready I will submit it for review. I am ready to work on it as long as it takes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasiia09 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, the draft cannot be restored, as it contained too much copyright content from at least five different pages on the corporate website (not just one paragraph). We can't accept copyright material, not even in drafts or sandboxes, unless the copyright holder has released it under a compatible license. I am sending you a copy of the draft via email. Please don't re-post the draft to this wiki until it has been cleaned of all copyright material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa.Anastasiia09 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Abou Simon Tedeschi edits

Hello! I received an announcement stating that you have erased some of my contributions to Simon Tedeschi's biography. I have based myself on the biography that appears on his website, but I have taken care to rewrite it with my own words. You seem to have deleted paragraphs that were very similar. Can I retrieve the text, rewrite it and re-include it?--Ane wiki (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything you add to this website has to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it now then, and I'll reset the erased paragraphs in my own words. Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Done! Please tell me if something is wrong. Also I added "citation needed" template to other paragraphs, I will search for those references.--Ane wiki (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you!--Ane wiki (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC). 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.

David J Johnson (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi David. The place to go with edit warring problems is the edit warring notice board (WP:EWNB). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have reported this matter to the Admin Edit Warring Notice Board. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels

D - can you please protect this article from vandalism for at least a short period of time. There as been a rash of ip vandalism today, which I have had to revert. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am too slow - someone else has already done it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Guilty as charged...it's on my watchlist. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Translation criticism

Hi Diannaa. Sorry for the inconveniences regarding "Translation criticism", I should have further reelaborated the ideas. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Guatemalan vandal at it again

The IP is 190.104.115.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If another IP from the same vandal comes, I'll let you know. Erick (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Checking the range 190.104.115.0/25 shows no further IPs are involved at this time. There's been no further edits since your warning, so we will have to monitor for now rather than block. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just checked just now, the IP is still making disruptive edits. Erick (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's odd; I must have been looking at a wrong tab. I am going to block, just the one IP for now. One week to start. Please post here of any further IPs that pop up so we can start working on a range block. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! Erick (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

IP is back and doing the same shit. Erick (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. If you could check and revert any untoward edits that would be perfect. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright in Lists Rabbit-hole, TPS input welcomed too!

Hi D and stalkers! Please note Category:University and college rankings, not so much the category itself, but the pages contained within. I see many pages in there that post entire ranking lists from various sources. Some state the methodology used to rank them, others just show the raw list with little commentary. My take has always been that a list formed from either opinion or from proprietary formulae (even when based on factual data) are copyrighted as someone's creative expression. Thoughts on what to do here? Take to a wider audience? G12-o-fest? Something in between? Crow^Caw 19:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that subjective lists should not be copied verbatim. Articles such as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time don't quote any of the list, but present information on the subject in other ways. Other lists such as the Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women show top ten only. I think this would need to be presented to a wider audience if you wish to proceed as there's bound to be some blowback or even a donnybrook if you try to proceed unilaterally. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinion

Could you take a look Draft:Stratford Caldecott and the Caldecott thread on my talk page? Some of the copied content was quoted, but as there were three bullets in a row of material that appeared lifted, I thought it extensive enough to remove under limited quoting. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree the material qualifies for revision deletion, as the material outside of the quotation was also copied verbatim. There's no reason why this material could not be re-worded at least a little bit to remove the copyright issue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for your recent feedback on the draft page I am working on (Total Operating Characteristic). I'm working on this page for a class project and am brand new to wikipedia so I appreciate your guidance. I will look into the resources you shared. I couldn't figure out how to post this on your talk page so I sent it via wikilove. I hope you get this message. Thanks again and please let me know if you have any further feedback for me! Emoody17 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Fullerton College rev hist page

I was very surprised to see that no past revisions could be compared. I have never seen anything like that before on any Wiki Rev Hist page.[25] Is this some new policy at Wikipedia, or what? EditorASC (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is called WP:revision deletion, and in this case it was done to remove from the page history copyright violations that were added to the article back in 2006. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Standards Leadership Council

Diannaa, please read the Talk page for Standards Leadership Council in which I tried to explain why the material is important and the copyright issue should not be one since I (the author of the page) am directly involved in the organization described on the page. However, I admit that I am not a specialist of a very experienced Wikipedian, so if there are further things that need to be done to satisfy you, please let me know. The article is important to the community of software and information management people in the Petroleum industry, for reasons explained on the Talk page, so we don't want to see it disappear. I was also very careful about NPOV when writing it. Claude (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several 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 notability. I am not sure the organisation is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. We require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newpapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organisations that are not notable are typically speedily deleted.

The third 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.

So if you wish to add the copyrighted content to a Wikipedia article, the proper licenses and permissions will have to be in place. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how that would be done. Or, you could write a new article that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. And you would have to avoid the conflict of interest guideline while doing so. Even then, chances are that the article would be speedily deleted as not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Maurice J. Summerfield

Hi Diannaa. Would you take a look at Maurice J. Summerfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) re Talk:Maurice J. Summerfield#Copyright problem removed since you hid the revisions the first time that I requested it. It needs RD1 again or revision unhidden. Thanks. (I wasn't sure I you got my ping.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not receive the ping. Thank you, I have commented at the talk page and done the revision deletion. Also added a comment at the deletion nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maurice J. Summerfield Biography for Press and Publications.pdf. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Elder law in India

it was public release.. i dont understand why you delete it.. if you dont know about India then please dont edit topics related to india. pib means press information bureau. i copied those thing because they released it in public domain.

i am quieting wiki.. you so called old editor always bite newbies... you will never understand good faith

i am done... i tried too much fixing wrong links... wrong data ... but there always someone who undo it — Preceding unsigned comment added by India1277 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by India1277 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC) 

Hello India1277. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law to do so. This includes press releases of the Government of India. All prose you add to this wiki must be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

ok i had rewritten it... please review... thnks

I have removed your addition, as this time you copied from this copyright press release. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Standards Leadership Council (again)

User:Primefac deleted the page I created just a few days ago, after you marked it for speedy deletion. I was in the process of responding to the issues you had raised. Specifically:

• I had explained in the Talk page why it was relevant as an encyclopedia article
• I was in the process of obtaining the copyright release of the text that was quoted from the SLC Web site, as well as the logo, and as of earlier today I have in fact received the e-mail from the SLC chair, using the Wikicommons template about copyright release.

User:Primefac did not give me a reasonable amount of time to respond to the request for copyright release, and it seems they were just trigger-happy and didn't even try to tell me why they weren't going to wait when I had explained what I was doing.

I request that the page be restored. If there is a specific process I am supposed to follow in order to get this to happen, please let me know what that is. What just happened is very demotivating to someone who isn't necessarily an expert Wikipedian but wants to contribute useful information to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baudoin1 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted for two reasons: (1) copyright violations (2) and it was worded like an advertisement. In my opinion the page met both these criterion for speedy deletion, so even if you do get the copyright holder to release the material under a compatible license, the article would still qualify for deletion under criterion G11 (unambiguous advertising). The procedure to follow when contesting a speedy deletion is to first discuss with the deleting admin (Primefac in this case) and if you are not satisfied then proceed to WP:Deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about scientist

Hi there, I really liked your edit of Sethi! I think the news article references makes a lot more sense at the end of the paragraph! I just wanted to point out a couple of quick points which I would be happy to fix if they sound okay: the last sentence ("and the Associate Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Postdoctoral Research,[14] The Conversation, and The Sentinel.[15] His work has been featured on The Huffington Post.[16]") makes it seem like he's the EIC for The Conversation and The Sentinel but I believe those outlets only featured his work like HuffPost and he's not the EIC there. It seems it might be better if it was restated as: "and the Associate Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Postdoctoral Research.[14] His work has been featured on The Huffington Post,[16] The Conversation, and The Sentinel.[15]" If that sounds okay, I'd be happy to make that change. Also, I believe the notability tag should be taken off if it's okay as his work on science learning and analysis of visual stylometry and fake news detection is very impactful and featured in a lot of media. But I will defer to your expertise on both points of course! — Gumby55555 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC and decide for yourself whether or not he meets the notability guideline for academics. I don't think he does. I suggest you post on the article talk page and see if anyone else would like to comment on that point. Regarding your suggested edit, it looks like I mangled it a bit when I moved the content. Fixed, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks great! I'll do that! — Gumby55555 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick request for your perspective: a question arose whether this would fit the Wikipedia:GNG due to the extended media coverage of the research and professor? Your perspective on this would be very appreciated! - Gumby55555 (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I already gave an opinion. Please open a discussion on the talk page and see if you can attract any other opinions to this matter. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)