User talk:Diannaa/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Right_Monitor speedy

Hi Diannaa, I _think_ I had a redirect at that article which you speedied (before it was again recreated as an article...). Would you might recreating the redirect? I'd do it myself (as I think it was uncontroversial) but I've forgotten what it was a redirect to. I think the founder, but I honestly don't recall. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It was redirected to Richard_A._Falk#In_human_rights_groups--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! I've recreated the redirect. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I wasn't sure if I should delete it or not. — Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, still more to do. The right title is "Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor" and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor is salted. Could you move the redirect proposed above to that location please? I don't think unprotecting is the best way forward, but that would work too. Sorry for the additional work. Hobit (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the mis-spelled one and created a redirect at the proper title. I have protected them both. — Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright on Images

Hey. I understand you aren't an admin on commons, but you might know enough to help me. I've found a couple of images that I'd like to upload to Commons from a website licensed under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. The issue is that the website is a wiki; I can't be sure that whoever uploaded it there had permission to begin with. Would it be within whatever the Commons considers a tolerable risk to upload them, or should I search for better versions? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that you should not trust that the person who uploaded it had the right to release it under license. Best not to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for your opinion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you Diannaa for your advice. I have few things to clarify from you. They are: Do we need to get permission from the website or blog admin or the writer if are to use the content of an article when we write? For an example, if I am to use an article on DramaFever do I have to write to the Admin and seek permission even if I am to put them as reference? Is it the same for photos? Kindly assist. Thank you Hazidil (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't copy from other websites. Everything you find online is copyright, and we are not allowed to use it here. — Diannaa (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My Page was Deleted and Can Only Be Created by an Admin

The article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Stephenson

I will discuss the reasons given for deletion. 1. Social Links - initially I included links to Google+ and Linkedin, which I have now removed and still have 25 reliable and notable references.

2. No "solid signs of the applicable notability" - The article is on the founder of a very large dating site, who is a legitimate best-selling author and who hacked one of the largest companies in the world with several reliable sources to back up both included. There is no way this isn't notable.

3. One sentence on irrelevant content - I think it's relevant, but I don't mind removing the part she or he mentioned.

That's it, those 3 complaints. One is false and are very minor edits. Therefore this article should be restored, with the history of edits removed if possible. Message me if you decide to rightfully restore the article so I can send you the updated source.

Hacking: http://www.zdnet.com/article/nike-hacker-steals-over-80000/

Dating Site: http://www.13newsnow.com/features/love-week-online-dating_20160223080029769/51794313 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certifiedwiki (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The article was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Stephenson. The consensus was that the subject is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for a Wikipedia article at this time. If you wish to contest this decision, the place to go is Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

CSD

I'd love to be able to help clear some of that backlog myself. If I was to set up a request for adminship today, how would you vote?--Launchballer 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick look – I am not seeing any obvious red flags. Article contribs don't show a big commitment to any particular article or any GAs or FAs. I had none of that when I was elected back in the day, and I turned out okay, but it's something a lot of people look for nowadays. On the plus side, lots of article creations, including some DYKs; a lack of drama; and temperamentally you seem well suited and mature enough. @Kudpung: what do you think? — Diannaa (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Launchballer: you can get broader feedback on a potential candidacy by posting at WP:RFAP. (Not to imply you’ll get poor advice here!)—Odysseus1479 23:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I had come here hoping for a nomination, since that usually increases the odds of success.--Launchballer 23:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to be looking for a nominator just yet. It's absolutely essential that Launchballer posts at WP:RFAP but first reads the instructions and follows the links very carefully. They will need to invest a lot of time ascertaining whether or not they have a chance or are simply going to waste the community's time, after all, it even takes a serious RfA voter up to one hour to do the research for their vote. It's an initiative that was launched by Anna Frodesiak a year ago and it works very vell providing some objective feedback. That said, Lunchballer's edits have been a bit thin for the last couple of years and there are parts of their user page that some RfA voters will almost certainly take exception to, especially since the recent RfA reforms now draw a large number of voters who are not necessarily well informed about how Wikipedia works.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung Looking at it now I can see one or two sections of my userpage which could do with being trimmed, however which bits did you have in mind?--Launchballer 01:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Launchballer I think the best place to get feedback is at WP:RFAP, but as a possible future admin I think you should be able to see already what parts of your user page might be considered contentious on the page of an admin candidate.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Rif revolt 1957-59

Hello. The speedy deletion was indeed speedy: I have not been logging in for 3-4 days so I couldnt comment about it. The article, yes, was at times relying heavily on one source, but it had like 7-8 additional sources (so at least some sections were fine with copyright issues) besides the translation from the French wiki. The problem with speedy deletions is that there is nothing I can modify now.

It took me one night of work and red eyes the following morning (no, I did not just block-copy anything without further edition). I am not ready to do the same effort now.

Is there a way that you can salvage the deleted material so that I can work on it at my sandbox and try to offer a better and more compliant version?

Regards. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 18:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

We can't host the material on this wiki (even in a sandbox), because of the overlap with the source web page. I am sending you a copy via email so that you can work on it off-line. — Diannaa (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. I will try to improve that. If I manage to present a new version, I would appreciate it if rather than block delete -if you still see problems with it- you could point out what should be challenged. Anyway, I am getting better at copyright issues so I'll try to produce something that deserves minimal or ideallly no intervention from your side. Thank you. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 20:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Red Barrels

Hi, Diannaa.

Thank you for noticing this and giving this extreme caution. However, this was not a cut-and-paste move. The article in it's entirety was not copied and pasted anywhere, nor is it plagiarism. I completely handwrote and referenced the article myself and in no way did I copy and paste content.

If you think that I reverted the article through the history, I never looked at the history of Red Barrels Games. I only saw that it was mentioned in the redirect history of Red Barrels, not Red Barrels Games. Also, since the company is now Red Barrels Inc, I would highly suggest that you do not move the page to Red Barrels Games.

Thank you for notice and I'm glad to say what happened. sheldon.andre (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, when I mean move, not general move. History move is fine. sheldon.andre (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What I am thinking is that the history of the page Red Barrels Games should be merged with the history of Red Barrels, as the corporation is named Red Barrels Inc. and are marketing themselves as "Red Barrels". When a company changes their name, the article needs to be moved (using the move feature), not copy-pasted, so that the article history remains intact. A lot of the content at Red Barrels is identical to content at Red Barrels Games; hence my thinking that the article histories should be merged and the page should live at the new title. An administrator experienced in doing history merges will examine the two pages and determine what to do. — Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:05 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up email sent. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:00 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

CaptainHog

Doug Weller blocked Sjick14 (talk · contribs) as a sock. I am going to revert all changes made, but there are several images that were uploaded by Sjick14. Should those be deleted? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:59 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

I went through his uploads on the Commons yesterday, so that part is done. Transparent images are preferred over opaque ones, so there's a case to be made for keeping them, but I think edits made in violation of a block or ban is an important principle to uphold in this case. Let's remove them; they qualify for F5 speedy deletion once they are removed from article space. — Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought, regarding the images, but I wanted to make sure that was still the correct and current policy. All edits have been reverted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:11 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through with Twinkle and added the F5 tags. Done (for now) — Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, just wait around for next time. :) Thanks again for your continued help in this matter. It is greatly appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:18 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Thought you'd enjoy this. He actually admitted that the Sjick14 account was a sock and he was abusing multiple accounts. He then throws out this demand or whatever it is. I think he actually believed it was going to work. I believe with this, we can actually go to WP:LONGTERM and get a community-wide ban. He clearly shows with these two edits that he has no intention of stopping his socking. He might as well just said "I'm going to continue unless you unblock me". Reading between the lines, he said just that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:13 on September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Transparency Directive

Dear Diannaa. Thanks for your message. You removed some content from the Transparency Directive article. Maybe this is the information you were looking for: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011D0833 My understanding is that it is allowed to use EU (legislation) documents, as long as the source is acknowledged (see article 6) and the contents are not distorted. I made a reference to the source in the first lines of the article. Apart from this, I am not literally copying its text, but summarizing the key elements. So I think there should be no objection. Luc. (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Fengbo

Hello Diannaa you removed copyright content from the Fengbo page, yes I do own the copyright to that material, or rather I am the licence holder, and I put it on the wiki page at orb.uk.net you referred to, how can I make it so it can appear on the wikipedia page on Fengbo? Chuangzu (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What you need to do is get an OTRS ticket in place. There's instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials and a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at 25 Cents FC's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I have respond. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 19:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

23 objectives of the Australian Democrats

Hi Dianna. Thanks for your time and making input to the article. I do understand the importance of respecting copyright. However I was wondering if you might clarify your grounds for believing that the text of the 23 objectives is subject to copyright? And, if so, which legal entity holds this copyright? My understanding is that the text of the objectives were in fact in the public domain. For instance, the text was published in the National Journal of the Australian Democrats in 1997, a publication which holds or held an ISSN and thus is in the public domain; and the text was also published in two other information websites, which I have referenced. Incidentally, I deliberately did not cite the australian-democrats website as reference, as that is not a neutral source, and thus not a reliable source. Your point about the need to put cited material in inverted commas, or perhaps italics, by the way, is well made. But I think there is a strong and logical case that the actual text should be provided, as this is what the article is all about. For instance, Wikipedia articles about a particular clause in a national constitution of a country logically will include the text of the clause, usually under the paragraph heading of 'Text'. This is what I have done here. Anyways, if you might get back to me on the above queries, it would be much appreciated. Regards, Sue2016 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course the material is subject to copyright; the copyright is owned by the Australian Democrats. The 23 objectives are listed on their website: http://www.act.australian-democrats.org.au/objectives.php#.V8t2Nj4rIzB, which is marked at the bottom © 2015 Australian Democrats. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, 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 or in books and magazines is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government; legislation of some but not all countries; and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. ISSN numbers are issued to periodicals, i.e., magazines. Of course magazines and other periodicals are subject to copyright. I am totally baffled as to why you would say they are not. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa. Thanks for that. My apologies for not explaining in more detail earlier, and I will try to rectify this. 1. I would refer to Article 10 of the Berne Convention, the so-called fair dealing clause. It is relevant that the 23 objectives amount to less than 10% of the National Journal where the objectives were originally published. The objectives were later included as a preamble to the National Constitution of the political party called the Australian Democrats. You can find these here: http://australianpolitics.com/2000/01/15/democrats-national-constitution-and-regulations.html. It is noteworthy that here too the 23 objectives take up less than 10% of the total document. 2. Now I should provide some more information about the authoring of the 23 objectives. I understand the "author" of the objectives was the political party called the Australian Democrats. This entity was the publisher of the Australian Democrats National Journal, and the entity created the objectives. However, last year, this legal entity ceased to exist. The political party the Australian Democrats was de-registered. See the report here from the ABC, the national broadcaster for Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-17/democrats-officially-stripped-of-party-status/6399326. In copyright terms, even if copyright does apply, then the material is an "orphan". 3. Merely because a group who put up a website called "australian-democrats" assert that they hold copyright over material, does not in itself establish that such copyright exists, or that the individuals hold such copyright. As you know, Wikipedia operates on independent and reliable sources, and at best the "australian-democrats" website is not independent, and thus not reliable. Lots of people make claims on the internet, and they are not necessarily true. 4. In summary, I think there is a strong case that citing the 23 objectives should be regarded as "fair dealing" - the fact that a number of other reputable sources cite them in full suggests there is and has been consensus on this. Certainly the "australian-democrats" source is at best partisan, and I would suggest should not be cited as a reliable source, as is required for Wikipedia. There are a number of non-partisan and independent sources available. Let me know if I can explain further. Sue2016 (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The fair use policy here at Wikipedia is actually quite a bit stricter than that allowed under copyright law. Our non-free content policy does not allow copying from non-free sources when there's a free replacement available (WP:NFCC#1): prose that we write ourselves. There's a brief summary of the contents of the 23 objectives already present in the article. That's the sort of content we are looking for, not verbatim copying. And we don't base our copyright decisions on what's happening on other websites; the document we use is our own copyright policy, an official Wikipedia policy with legal considerations, and its adjunct, the non-free content policy. As an administrator on this wiki, I am bound to uphold these policies. There's no such thing as an orphan under copyright law; somebody still holds the copyright to this prose; the copyright did not cease to exist when the organization folded. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Dianna. Thanks again for your input. However I am requesting that, as an Administrator, you review your actions in this matter. I will try to respond to the points you have made. 1. At the outset, I think that an overarching problem is that you may not be familiar with specific circumstances in Australia impinging upon this article, and its subject matter. As I've indicated previously, my apologies for not providing more information earlier. 2. Thanks for that link to the WIkipedia fair use policy. I've looked at the link, although I am not quite sure which part of this you think that has been breached in the original article. 3. I note your comment about not using subscription sources for Wikipedia articles, although in this case only one of the three sources that I've suggested are subscription, so there is plenty of opportunity to use one of those two other sources. 4. My assertion is that it is contrary to the Wikipedia WP:V to use the hyphenated AD website, as this is self-published, and the claim that the anonymous group who runs this website holds copyright is clearly self-serving. As the above Wikipedia policy correctly warns, "Any one can create a personal web page ....". 5. I note your comment about your duty as an Administrator to comply with Wikipedia policies, and I agree with you on this. But I believe, pursuant to this duty, you should not be citing the hypenated AD website. It is not a reliable source, as defined in the relevant WIkipedia policy. 6. I think it is difficult to contest that there was (is) a consensus in Australia that the citing of the 23 objectives themselves was fair use, as defined under the Australian copyright legislation, given that a number of reputable organizations did indeed cite the text of the 23 objectives, and given that in each case the text was less that 10% of the whole. 7. I understand the point that you are making when you indicate that copyright does not extinguish when an article or material becomes "orphan" - you're quite right on this. However my point is that, if the article is now an orphan (which must be the case given the 2015 extinction of author of the original text of the 23 objectives, published in 1997, namely the registered political party the Australian Democrats), then your claim on 4/9/16 that the copyright is owned by the authors of the of the AD hyphenated website must also be incorrect. 8. In other words, anybody can create a website and make a claim on the internet that they hold certain copyright. For instance, I can create a website and make a claim that I hold the copyright to the US Constitution. But whether the claim I make is true is another matter. 9. As I understand the situation, the person making the allegation that there is a breach of copyright in the original Wikipedia article is you, and my understanding is therefore you need to substantiate this allegation of breach of copyright. 10. In summary, the claim that the makers of the AD hyphenated website currently hold copyright over the 23 objectives is contradicted by the documentary evidence, and evidence from the time suggests that there there was consensus that citing of the text of the 23 objectives was fair use, and thus an exception to copyright. I appreciate the work that you are doing with copyright on Wikipedia, although I would request that you might have another look at this Wikipedia article and the surrounding circumstances, and ultimately restore the original article. Sue2016 (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The relevant part of the non-free content policy is WP:NFCC#1: we don't allow quotations from non-free sources when there's a freely available replacement. In this case, the quotation is replaceable by prose that we write ourselves. There's a brief summary of the contents of the 23 objectives already present in the article. That's the sort of content we are looking for, not verbatim copying. Your talk about percentages is not relevant, as the fair use policy here at Wikipedia is actually quite a bit stricter than that allowed under copyright law. I have changed the citation to this one as per your suggestion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I still think that the claim of breach of copyright is problematic, but let's leave this for the moment. I will attempt to gain some more background information on this, and then get back to you. In in the meantime, it seems that you are OK with the summary. Would you have any objection if I add one or two more items, and also provide relevant references? Sue2016 (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Moses de Leon

Thanks Dianaaa, please do as you think fit. However please note that before I added the para, I discovered that the preceding para seemed to be a verbatim copy of the same source. My issue was that Moses de Leon's most important work, his publication / channelling / editing / whatever of the Zohar, needed some detail, and that the crucial second para from the EJ had been omitted. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to add details using the article as a source, that's fine, but we don't copy directly. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. I have checked our entire article against http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Zohar.html and found no further violations from that source. However, I found extensive copying from this page, which is a translation of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia itself is public domain, but this translation is not, so that had to come out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That looks much better, with just the hyperlink to the Jewish Encyclopedia bio. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences

Hi - ran into this looking for something else and found it uses a large amount of quotations in the notes, in some cases I think far beyond what we allow. See for instance note 59. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Do you have time to clean it up, or should I do it? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Realistically I don't think I have time. I've tried to figure out what needs doing and I'm still confused. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will do it. You owe me some cookies though :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User talk:100.34.209.153

Experienced editors ignoring WP:UP#CMT, and insist on restoring an undeclined-block notice. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sadly that‘s not at all unusual behaviour. Note the IPE is not taking the bait to incur further sanctions for incivility, which I‘ve seen happen elsewhere. See also WP:DRC and WP:CAIN.—Odysseus1479 19:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:OTRS pending

Hi Diannaa. Thanks for that. I note that the template says this (my emphasis added):

"An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS.

Note to uploaders: Please copy the URL of this image or article in the email to assist OTRS volunteers to find it. If an email cannot be found in the OTRS system, the content may be deleted for lack of valid licensing information."

Presumably that's the URL of the original image, if it existed somewhere on the internet, not here? But do you see any temporal contradiction in those instructions? I seem to have been mistaken in assuming that the permission to publish should be sought before' publishing? I'd be pleased if you could explain this. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(tps) No, URL is not the URL of the original image that may have existed elsewhere on the Internet, it is the URL of the image after uploading to Commons. There are several things that need to be done and in some cases the order is not critical but I'll throw out a common sequence:

1. An editor uploads an image to Commons. (If it is their own image they will identify the source as themselves, if they found it elsewhere on the Internet they will provide a URL to the original place on the Internet as the source)
2. Once the image is uploaded to Commons, the upload or will know the URL of the uploaded image.
3. If the uploader is the copyright holder they will fill out a permission form and reference the image using the Commons URL to identify it.
4. If the uploader is not the copyright holder, but they are in correspondence with the copyright holder, the copyright holder should fill out a permission statement and include in the permission statement the URL to the image in Commons to uniquely identify it, and send the permission statement to OTRS
5. An OTRS agent will review the permission statement, be able to find the image because it has already been uploaded and the link included in the permission statement, then verify that the person providing the permission statement is the copyright holder and add the OTRS tag to indicate that proper permission now exists--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The OTRS team needs the url of where the image lives on Wikipedia (or the Commons); this makes it easy for the OTRS volunteer to match the image with the email. Not all images that require an OTRS ticket exist elsewhere online; for example, I could be uploading an unpublished photo taken by my mother or other family member. Here's how I visualize the sequence of events: Get permission from the copyright holder; upload the photo to our website (or the Commons); immediately send the permission email to the OTRS team, and include the url of where the image is located. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought the copyright owner had to send the email. That's the way it's worded isn't it? It has to come from them, or I could just fabricate or alter it? Again, I'm just surprised that the official order of events is to upload an image and only then to get the permission, from the copyright holder, in writing. And... I don't see any explanation for that contradiction in the template wording? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. when do I get my OTRS ticket number again?

The copyright holder (or an authorized representative) has to fill out and sign the permission statement. In many cases, the copyright holder will directly send the permission statement into OTRS. I often write to the sports information Dir. of athletic teams to obtain photos of players and coaches. To help make the process easier for them I often fill out the permission statement for them, email it to them asked them to review it and ensure that it is acceptable and send it back to me. I then forward it to OTRS. Some agents are wary of emails that do not directly come from the copyright holder. I understand the concern but in cases where I have made direct contact to the copyright holder, and asked them to send it to me, I am confident that no one is spoofing a permission statement for an image I requested.

I think I understand why you are surprised that the image is uploaded first and then the permission statement is sent. However, the reverse order would lead to problems (it does happen and it is a problem). For example suppose the photographer files a permission statement and makes reference to a photograph but there is no link because they have yet uploaded it. Most agents are unwilling to accept a permission statement without seeing the image. If we tell the copyright holder to send in the permission statement and then upload it, the agent will have to review the permission statement without the image ask for it to be uploaded and then follow up once it has been uploaded. The system is badly overburdened as is and that alternative would slow down the process. That said, the existing process may not be a model of efficiency and if you have better ideas please share (although if you want to continue that conversation we should do so on my talk page)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENT doesn't clarify what is meant by "URL" in the standard permission request text. I had assumed it meant the original image URL on the web. It doesn't start off by saying "Upload the image, then get permission". If this is the required process, then I'd suggest it should say that. So now, my recent request for permission for File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg is invalid, and we'll have to do it all over again? The process, as you have just described it, is open to wholesale abuse. Sorry for the interrupt and ambush, Diannaa. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm continuing this on your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Form 1099-OID

Hi Diannaa,

You removed my edits from Form 1099-OID for copyright violation. This is fine; I guess if I look at copyright guidelines, I did follow the original source too closely, so I accept this. I'll try to avoid doing this in the future. I plan to work on Form 1099-OID in the very near future, but I'll make sure I do the copyright stuff better. Ethanbas (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

IP hopping F1 editor again...

This ES needs striking out. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Y Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Hi Diannaa. You may want to look, yet again, at this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks.

Y Handled by Sphilbrick — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sphilbrick. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like this edit, already reverted for POV, could also use hiding: very close to a passage from this paper (mentioned in the above RevDel), also excerpted in reviews at Google Books and Amazon.—Odysseus1479 21:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Revdeled, thanks for pointing it out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Now one too many, I think: [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

blocked, thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 20:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: SRN Fast Seacrafts Inc

Hi Dianaa! If you might wonder about "FilSEC" / "Filipino Ship Enthusiasts Coalition" as the photos being used was my shot at the page SRN Fast Seacrafts (Weesam Express 7) and the organization, Filipino Ship Enthusiasts Coalition (FILSEC) is an organization where I'm the co-founder.

Don't get confused. It was my shots and my organization's contribution to Wikipidia as well.

Whenever this is resolved, hope I can delete your posting to my talk page. Thanks!

God Speed! Bumbl_loid 13:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

If you are the copyright holder and wish to release the 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) 13:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio User

Mihaem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) doesn't seem to be grasping that copying from Emil Constantinescu's biography is not allowed. Is a block in order, or should I (or perhaps you) warn him one more time? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa and Compassionate727: I've removed more copyvio going back to 08:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC). It looks like every contribution the user has made is a copyvio. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done some more revision deletion and made it clear this is his final warning. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Volkswagen Samba merged into Volkswagen Type 2

...it was an approved by consensus article merge from two years ago I suggested. Everything in the smaller article was moved to the larger article. (Regushee (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

I understand. The problem is that when you moved the content into the destination article, you did not say in your edit summary where you got it. Attribution is required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license, so you need to add details to your edit summary at the destination article. Like I did here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Reengineering (software) UNDO

Hello Diannaa, you restored the previous redirect of the page Reengineering (software) to Code Refactoring. I would like to let you know that this not accurate. Software Reengineering and Code Refactoring are too different practices. The Software Reengineering is correclty defined in the french wikipedia version that's why I added a stub with a minimal translation referencing the french version. Restoring the redirection is very misleading to the newbies in software development, I had to clarify this to some colleagues today ; the redirection made them confuse software re-engineering and code refactoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El tayara (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Your version was completely unsourced. What we need is a well-sourced replacement article — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Article on Maratha Army

Fine, I will re-word the article (in my own words). Once I am done, I will re-publish it. But why so harsh language? Why did you use the words "last warning" like I am a routine violator or vandal.

User:Amit20081980 talk 08:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Revised Article on Maratha Army

I have re-written the article using my own words. Kindly check and scrutinize. I have a confession though. At times, re-writing means replacing words with synonyms or re-constructing sentences. I might be guilty of that. But if so, kindly help me re-write it. Requesting you not to strip me off my ability to edit. Please trust - whatever edits I have done till date were in good faith, although I might have unwittingly violated some rules.

User:Amit20081980 talk 09:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The current version is much better from a copyright point of view. The reason I said "last warning" is because you were warned already in 2014 about our copyright policy. Repeat violators are blocked. Here is some general advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any copying at all. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Cioyvio link question

Is this editor correct in saying you can link to a C-Span video on a non-official site.User talk:Ne0Freedom#September 2016? Thanks. 09:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Here is what C-Span's copyright page has to say. It looks like what he said here is a pretty close match for that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right. But the link[2] is to a UN Ambassador's dinner run by the Business Council for the UN[3] so have I missed something or is that still copright? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Maybe you should ask User:Moonriddengirl — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ISTM the problem is that the licence only covers videos of US government proceedings, which would not include events hosted by the UN or other agencies.—Odysseus1479 21:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Why can't the user simply link to the original video? one wonders — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question. In any case this is a fringe editor trying to rewrite an article so it supports conspiracy theories, see Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)/13 Secret Families. And this is weird: [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ne0Freedom}} - he created it last night. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for taking care of the vandals and persons whom have attempted to vandalise and attacked editors like me <3 keep on being an admin! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Albuquerque, New Mexico

A couple of days ago, I reverted the addition of some COPYVIO content from this page. You later hid the content. There have been further additions of COPYVIO content today by dynamic IPs. The edits have been reverted, and I have requested page protection. I don't have time to go through and find the sources of these additions right now, but they appear to be more copy and paste jobs from web sites promoting events in Albuquerque. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't find any copyvio in those additions from the point where I did the rev-del the other day. Airplaneman has now got the page protection in place for 2 weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Scorpion Fish

Hi - you removed the disambiguation page that I'd just set up for the page Scorpion Fish. Please could you explain why I was wrong to create the disambiguation page? I know of at least two noteworthy items to be filed under that page, so I felt confident that the disambiguation page would be helpful. If I've overlooked a matter of policy, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StenLasha (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that we don't add things to disambiguation pages unless there's a matching article. Since that left only the primary topic, we don't need a disambiguation page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Declined Speedy on Lemmium

Hello,

I noticed you declined my speedy on Lemmium...i'm curious as to if there is a correct rationale this falls under to renominate for? I couldn't determine the specific rationale but I don't quite see how we keep a redirect for to a page that doesn't even reference the topic we're redirecting from, which is why I added custom rationale?

Thanks -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing to do with an undesirable redirect is to list it at WP:RFD. I meant to pop by your talk page to tell you this, but I forgot. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, this is surprisingly my first time trying to get a redirect deleted, I'll read up on WP:RFD and post it there. Thank you for the quick response. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Rail Traffic Management System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAF. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Cobie Russell

Hello, You deleted our wiki page for a living artist - Cobie Russell. I previously had her ASK ART link as a reference - http://www.askart.com/artist_studio_bio/Cobie_Russell/11271959/Cobie_Russell.aspx ASK ART is a very reputable art website. And then recently I added her studio website - www.cobierussell.com, which we (the artist and I) designed and built for her work. Please advise how I get her wiki page back in the system. Thanks. Lrbarnes88 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in creating an article 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 this policy Wikipedia:Copyrights which explains how it works.

The second problem is notability. I am not sure the artist 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 yourself or a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page.

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:donating copyrighted materials 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) 02:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Mushroom9

Thanks for blocking the latest Mushroom9 socks. I have reopened the CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mushroom9. Regarding your create-protection of ASEAN–India relations, though, I'm wondering whether it might not be better to leave it unprotected. In my experience, watching for recreation of, or copyright-infringing contributions to, relatively obscure articles like these is a very good way of catching new sockpuppets. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Scissorkick

Thanks for the heads up. I kept receiving alerts over the last few days telling me the page had been reviewed, but couldn't understand why anyone would bother to review a redirect. Now I see someone created a page about a non notable sports magazine. I've just redirected it back to Scissor kick again. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Abaco Barb.....

It was simply good faith edit done without much thinking as that strain is now extinct. I hope there won't be any sanctions. (Maybe hidden notice in article would be in order in future as it most likely get more attention?) Fruitmince (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't worry, of course there won't be any sanctions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Elaine Fantham

Hello Diannaa, I hope I'm messaging you correctly. Please can you explain what was removed from Elaine Fantham's page, and what was wrong with it? Many thanks, Srsval (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Srsval, there was some content copied word-for-word from the source web page, https://classicalstudies.org/scs-news/tribute-r-elaine-fantham?combine=&field_category_tid=All&page=49. I paraphrased it myself and then did the revision deletion. If you wish I can send you the exact details via email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Young Storytellers Foundation

That makes sense. Thank you! I was wondering how to go about that. IBelieveAliensExistAndVisitMeWhenISleep (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Oop, however, I see that you deleted a section that was paraphrased and cited. It was right underneath the large block of text. Can you please find and replace that? Thanks. IBelieveAliensExistAndVisitMeWhenISleep (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Or I can probably replace it faster than you. Sigh. What a pain. IBelieveAliensExistAndVisitMeWhenISleep (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed two segments that were copyrighted, from two different sources. I have double checked and I think I got it right. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Trống_chầu

Hi: My students are involved in editing music instrument stubs project. I thank you for your vigilance looking out for copyright issues. However, you deleted one of my student's updates to the stub so thoroughly that I can't even see what Etanyag did originally to help her fix the error (we're also not clear in your note about what triggered the removal what specifically was the issue.

You wrote "remove copyright content copied from http://vietnamtourism.com/disan/en/index.php?catid=8" but: was it a matter of poor citation practice? or incorrect coding on the student's part in an attempt to cite the information? or something else?

Can you please revert the content for me, so that I can go in and help her fix it to comply with Wikipedia's policies while I also teach her how to update Wikipedia? Thanks, Cubanabop (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Cubanabop

The problem was that content was copied from http://vietnamtourism.com/disan/en/index.php?catid=8, a copyright web page. Some but not all of it was removed with her next edit, and I removed the rest. We can't copy and paste material from other websites into this website, not even temporarily for editing; to do so is a copyright violation. All content has to be written in our own words. I have temporarily undone the revision-deletion so you can see the page history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

SNGCE

Hi Diannaa,

I noticed that you had deleted several lines from the article SNGCE recently claiming that they have violated the copyrights. How can we expect the users to contribute anything to Wikipedia if you just delete everything they enter? Can you please mention what copyrights were violated so that it can be corrected and updated properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.164.29 (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't copy material directly from copyright web pages. To do so is a violation of copyright law. The college's web pages are marked "Copyright © 2015- All Rights Reserved - Sree Narayana Gurukulam College of Engineering", which means we can't accept content copied directly from there. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

William Seifriz

Hi Diannaa, The quotes came from four separate references. I think that that is fair use. I would be willing to have one quote from each reference. WHat do you think?BinaryPhoton (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi BinaryPhoton. Here's the policy page: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically if you could have a look at the section WP:QUOTEFARM, which gives a detailed explanation as to why we don't accept this type of content. What we had in the article was an indiscriminate collection of quotations (nearly 30 per cent of the article!) at the bottom of the article without any context or explanation. Our fair use policy requires that we only use non-free material when there's no other alternative, and must meet all of the requirements listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

COPYVIOs after warning

In May, you warned Carsten11 to stop uploading copyvio images; at 22:12 UTC today, the user did so again. Two minutes later, 212.112.150.222 added the offending image to Grace VanderWaal. This is at least the second time your warning has been disregarded. May I be so bold as to suggest an extended block? TIA. —ATS 🖖 Talk 22:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Done :( — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning Whole Article

Hi I have a request from you as adminstator please investigating below edition

I dont know what does this edition mean that a user clean up whole article

Even some of part of this aricle included copyrigth viloation but Lead of this Article, Infbox, Categories or references are not involve it.

thank youModern Sciences (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The user who tagged and blanked the page believes the material was copied from http://www.armenianorthodoxchurch.org/old-archives/htdocs/v01/doc/main.htm, a copyright web page. We can't host copyright material - everything we add here has to be written in our own words. Investigating, I find that the source page was created on April 1 or 2, 2008, and the material was added to this wiki in December 2008, so it is indeed a copyright violation. I will remove the copyright content right away. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for Cooperation best regards

Modern Sciences (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Frank Mears

Diannaa

You have removed some of my contributions to the Frank Mears page in the mistaken belief that I have somehow infringed copyright. The material I have added is from my own Ph.D. research on the architect Frank Mears and articles based thereon. I am Dr. Graeme Purves, the leading expert on Frank Mears and I cannot infringe my own copyright.

Yours,

Sandy Fortingal (AKA Graeme Purves) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy Fortingal (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

In order to protect the rights of copyright holders, we have a procedure in place that you must follow before incorporating it into the article. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release the 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) 13:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No thanks! Returning that would afford me no protection whatsoever, rather it would undermine the protection I currently enjoy!

You haven't adequately explained what the problem was with the material you removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.199.195 (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Purves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.199.195 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

By copying the work onto this wiki, you in effect released the copied part under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and GNU Free Documentation License. So it's just as well I removed it, if you are not interested in doing that. You also copied from http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/12/01/something-less-than-love-from-the-province-of-the-cat/, which appears to be by George Gunn, not Graeme Purves. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I have no problem with putting selected elements of my work into the public domain. I'm not going to sign away rights to all 649 pages of my Ph.D.! If the information derived for George Gunn's article was a problem, why didn't you pick me up on it at the time? I'm really quite taken a back by your aggressive and unhelpful attitude. But remind me, what text, exactly, was copied from George's article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy Fortingal (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the material from http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/12/01/something-less-than-love-from-the-province-of-the-cat/ with this edit. Note the edit summary, which mentions the specific source. The edit was about rural depopulation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sandy Fortingal: I don't think it is quite sinking in that Diannaa is trying to protect the rights of Dr. Graeme Purves. You claim to be that person, but we have not been provided proof of that. Until there is some evidence that the copyright holder is willing to license some portion of the work, we err on the side of caution and remove material which matches or closely paraphrases copyrighted material. The attitude isn't aggressive or unhelpful, on the contrary, it helpfully specified exactly what needs to be done if the material is to be used. And no one asked that all 649 pages be released - there is no problem with specifying exactly what portions are released. I urge you to thank Diannaa for her diligent support of copyright, not castigate her for failing to take the word of an anonymous person who hasn't shown interest in following our quite reasonable and fairly simple process for licensing copyrighted material.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I fully understand that Diannaa was trying to protect the rights of Dr. Graeme Purves, who happens to be me, and that she would not have been aware that 'Sandy Fortingal' is an alias. I apologise to Diannaa for being sharp with her, but it was exasperating to find material which I had spent some time adding to the Frank Mears page purely in the public interest immediately removed from it. The material I added was verifiably factual information about the work of Sir Frank Mears for which references were provided. Given that it did not include comment, interpretation or conclusion, it would be difficult to make the case that it constituted intellectual property. I do not think it is particularly helpful for you to seek to cast doubt over my claim to be Graeme Purves. A glance at my contact details might prove instructive. I am struggling to imagine what possible advantage someone falsely claiming to be me might gain in this context. There is a lot to get to grips with in using Wikipedia and if it is to be a welcoming platform for sharing information, it is probably a good idea to avoid leaping to the conclusion that a person making a contribution is a miscreant. I will give careful consideration to whether it might be helpful to use a more transparent identity when making additions to the Frank Mears page and to which pieces of my work it may be appropriate to release to Wikipedia under license. Sandy Fortingal (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

My primary activity on Wikipedia lately has been checking the bot reports at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol. What this bot does is check all additions over a certain size against material already online, and lists them for assessment. The edit that triggered the bot report was when you added material by George Gunn from this article. As part of reviewing the bot report, I noticed that you had also copied from https://graemepurves.wordpress.com/category/frank-mears/, so I removed that as well. Then I went to your talk page and placed the message that you see under the header "Wikipedia and copyright". I did not write that message; it's actually one of a collection of carefully worded pre-written messages that patrollers have available. Many people that contribute to Wikipedia don't even realise that, unlike other editable websites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, WordPress, etc) we don't accept copyright material, so I for one certainly don't get judgemental about people who violate our copyright policy. Sorry if you thought that I did. Most people just don't realize how strict we are about it: Prose that's already available online or in print sources is copyright, and we can't accept it here without the written consent of the copyright holder. None of us have any way of knowing your real-life identity from the information available publicly on the website; there's nothing stopping you (or anyone else for that matter) from selecting the username "George Gunn" or "Graeme Purves" or saying that's who you are on your userpage, so that alone is not enough. Back in 2006 we set up a system where people can provide information via email that shows they own the copyright to works already available online. That's the system you can access by following the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Whether you decide to do this or not is up to you. If you decide to release the material under a compatible license, you won't have to re-write it, as your edits are still available in the page history and can be restored. I apologise for any stress these events may have caused you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

review and Help

Hi Dear Administrator

Please review this talk

Thank you, Best RegardsModern Sciences (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

NPA and/or OUTING

When convenient, would you be so kind as to delete these two edits? Obvious reason ... —ATS 🖖 Talk 03:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Done; oversight contacted. Cases like this, you might consider skipping the revision deletion step and contacting the oversighters immediately. I usually get a response within minutes. Just go to WP:Oversight and click on the handy link. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged, in both cases. I saw you online and figured I'd try here first. —ATS 🖖 Talk 03:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It was probably the best course in this case I guess. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the same user just visited Skip Bayless, which I happen to have on my watch-list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

See also the account’s first edit, already anonymously reverted.—Odysseus1479 06:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. Note the semi-protection on the page expired just a few hours earlier. The account’s behaviour seems very similar to that described here.—07:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your alertness Odysseus1479. I've rev-deleted that diff and asked the oversighters to have a look at it as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh ... how weird is that? —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Many Thanks-

Many thanks for helping with the Plymouth, Wisconsin article-RFD (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. They mention on their talk page that they are editing "at the behest of the county" so I have added some information about conflict of interest to their user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

A continuing problem

Hi Diannaa. Film Fan is up to his old tricks again of edit-warring over film posters, the same pattern that got him blocked before. Recently he's made these edits: [4], [5], [6] to remove an existing .jpg file with their uploaded poster. His most recent block was for this exact same pattern ("Disruptive editing: disruptive movie poster uploads after final warning").

Ontop of this, I've asked this user to not post on my talkpage. This was met with the blanking of my talkpage (!) not once, but twice, and then (four days later) another edit to my talkpage, including a personal attack. I'd be grateful if you could look into this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, I am on vacation right now and am a little wiki-weary but will help when I get home on Friday if this problem is still actively happening when I get back to YEG. Cheers, — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 21:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope you had a nice break. Sadly, this is still ongoing. I'm pretty sure the main condition to appeal his last block was not to do this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts. Did you see there's discussion on the article talk page about the image Talk:Neon Bull? Not sure what administrative action I can undertake under these circumstances. Even a warning strikes me as out of place. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this user continues to post on my talkpage, despite telling them time and time again not to. And that discussion was only started in a weak attempt to game the system after reverting the poster several times. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

He has a valid request about your edit summaries ("don't call me an idiot in any more edit summaries"). I am not going to block or even warn on the basis of an interpretation of his motivation - that path has never worked for me in the past, and just leads to endless bickering. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?

Hi Diannaa! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a very active Twinkle user (top 25, actually!). The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle User. Include the following information:

• Username
• Email where we can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you
• Your primary use of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment that needs its history deleted Comment

Please see this diff, I think it should be permanently removed. Thanks, WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am on vacation and don't have access to admin tools till Friday. Regardless, I don't think this remark is bad enough to warrant revision deletion. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 13:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thanks Diannaa for this clarification. Well, I thought in the beginning that I am helping my hometown to be put on the map, as it is in my beliefs one of the most beautiful villages in Lebanon, but not recognized and being very underestimated or underrated, but it seems that it's not as easy as it looks the first while. I will work on adding some extra information about my village, legally this time :p with sources and everything you mentioned in your message. Regards, YS Ys1921 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

While the cat's away....

...the mice will play. Seriously, enjoy the time away. It will all be here (copy right violations, edit warring, vandalism, Hitler is alive and living in South America - edits) when you get back. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Evil laugh) Now I can eat away at your Copypatrol lead of only.... 5600???? *cry*. Seriously, have a good time off! :) Crow^Caw 22:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Diannaa. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"Taxi for Ms Diannaa"

I know copyright control must be a tough job, but I do hope you won't resort to sending out "speculative invoices". Yours, on the rank. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Large scale copyvios

Hi Dianna. We have large-scale copyvios on Antisemitism in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have cleaned up but I think you should also have a look just in case. Thank you as always. Dr. K. 02:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tired right now, I will do it tomorrow. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio

Yes you are right diannaa the story was copied by me because the story of the content is present.so, that I copied it to save my time. Only the 75% of the story is present in that site remaining story i want to type it when I am free .. Joshq1234 (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't copy anything from other websites. Everything you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Can i upload a images of Chi La Sow Sravanthi creating by me ?? Joshq1234 (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Joshq1234: No, because the show itself is copyright, which means you do not have a legal right to do so. Don't upload any more things please. And please learn how to properly use talk pages; instead of posting in random places on the page, post in this section, where we already have a conversation going. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

B-Dienst

Hi @Diannaa, thanks for drawing that to my notice. It was in the back of my mind, and knew it would need to be attributed at some point, after having a similar problem with some photographs I uploaded after getting some permission via email from a German University. The document I'm pulling the information from is from World War II. I've read through the article at Public Domain Sources. The document is coming from the British Archives at Kew, these folk [[7]]. I don't see a template which is applicable. Can you help? Thanks. Scope creep (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at the Diff of B-Dienst where I added the PD-notice template, and you will see I also added a citation. The same content is available at https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/battle-atlantic-volume-3-german-naval-communication-iIntelligence.html, a US Navy web page that is in the public domain (pretty much all US Government publications are PD). Other countries (including the UK) do not have the same copyright rules; in the UK, Crown Copyright will last for a period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, I see there is a number of fair use clauses attached, in this case as long as there is acknowledgement, it is satisfied. 125 years is a bit tasty. Crown copyright for you. An extra helping. I see what needs done. Do it in the morning. Scope creep (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia, the fair use provisions are actually quite a bit stricter than what is permitted under copyright law. Please see the policy page WP:non-free content criteria. The main point is that we can't accept non-free content when there's a free equivalent is available: prose that we write ourselves. Unless absolutely necessary, quotations are to be avoided in favour of purpose-written prose written by Wikipedians. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

About localism camp

I have restored the edit of Localism camp, because the article is talking about the camp, but is NOT talking the ideology. UU (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Marshall County Correctional Facility

P.S. I appreciate that you can disagree without being disagreeable. Activist (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual abuse#Latest additions

Hi. Diannaa. Just to be sure, you have no copyvio issue with the content currently in the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to look at it. I will have a look in a minute here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Because the material was framed as a quotation, I don't think revision-deletion should be done. We don't give advice though. Full remarks at Talk:Sexual abuse#Latest additions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hi Diannaa, Re: Submission (Gerhard Medicus) Thanks for all your hard work! I know you guys really have to churn through all our material. I am a little lost and not really sure if I am still in the queue for an AFC (Gerhard Medicus). I was deleted the first time and think I re-submitted correctly. I really think it is ready this time, but as a rookie wiki person, not sure at all after a few months if it will be looked at. I know you may not handle AFCs, but could really use some guidance. You helped me previously and told me to check with AFC help folks ... I did...just not sure if they have it in their queue for submission. Any way to check and move this rookie slug along? Thanks, Harry (Behal509) Behal509 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you’re referring to Draft:Gerhard Medicus, it hasn’t been submitted to AfC as far as I can tell. @Behal509: according to the instructions at WP:AFC you need to put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page to get it into the queue for review. There’s nothing to stop you from moving it to mainspace yourself, but if there are still issues with sourcing or notability it will be liable to deletion. I have little sense of how likely that is—better if Diannaa or someone else more familiar with inclusion standards than I can comment on the advisability of that; AfC is certainly safer. Meantime I fixed a couple of little things that jumped out at me.—Odysseus1479 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Like Odysseus1479 said, the draft is not currently submitted for review. I don't normally assess drafts, but I see a couple things: you need to add some citations for the personal details (date of birth, education history, work history). Also, please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and make sure you've got content that support notability; especially note that he needs to meet at least one of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much for your guidance Diannaa and Odysseus - reposted with correct submit command and suggestions. Behal509 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright removal from Steven Durgarn

Hello Diannaa, just a quick thing... I own the copyright for the Steven Durgarn page. I am the webmaster for the website as well... At worse, as several people pointed out that it is a conflict of interest for me to post it, not a copyright violation... Anyway, it seems to be on its way to being deleted anyway. Just wanted to say something. Topherjchambers (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2016 (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 you are the copyright holder and wish to release the material under license, please see the instructions at Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. A second problem is notability. I am not sure that Durgarn 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. Please see the specific notability requirements at WP:NACTOR. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright removal from Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings

Hello Diannaa, quick thank you for your correction, reminder and thorough explanation of copyright material removal in APRIL's Wiki page. I shall try to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Cheers - BlueskyMarion (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

most secret place on earth

Thanks for your message. I didnt use quotes for established historical facts. Other snippets came directly from me as i made the film. But deleting first and asking questions later is not very constructive, is it? Weltmeister123 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright material on this wiki. All content has to be written in your own words please. If you are the copyright holder of the text on the two websites and wish to release it to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, material that's written like an advertisement or a press release is not suitable for inclusion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Haye Farm Cider

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Haye Farm Cider? It's just been created, probably as a result of this edit, by a new editor. The sources provided cannot be easily verified and the text is a bit promotional, but it's not clear whether this is a candidate for WP:A7. I did find this and this after a bit of googling, but not sure if that's enough for WP:ORG. Quite a number of hits came up for other websites, but these appear to be many blogs or other promotional thing which are not very helpful. The first sentence is also a copyvio from the official page. Anyway, thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have done some more copyright clean'up. I'm not sure about the notability aspect, there's a claim of notability so it probably passes the low barrier of A7. But I doubt it would survive an AFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I tried to clean up some of the copyvio text, but there wasn't much to work with to begin with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CP backlogged problem - entry I'd like to get addressed

Hi Diannaa. I've somehow mostly avoided working with copyright violations, so I'm not clear how the current process works. I see you maintaining the entries at WP:CP, so am starting by asking you. If there's better venue, please let me know.

The initial description is for Alexander Berzin (scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) listed Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2016_September_15. The article started a simple cut-and-paste by the webmaster [8], Rudyh01 (talk · contribs). Another editor has worked to get the copyright changed on the current version of the copied biography (http://studybuddhism.com/en/who-is-alexander-berzin).

I want to know how to move this along properly. I was thinking of updating the WP:CP page with subsequent dates up to this 15 Sept entry, but thought it would be best to contact you. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI the editor that got the copyright changed has made a request at BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Alexander_Berzin_.28scholar.29 to remove the copyvio notice. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had time to update the WP:CP page. Normally someone else has been doing this, but I did some since no one else was taking care of it. I will pop over there next and straighten things up and bring it up to date. In the meantime, since the source webpage for the Alexander Berzin article is now released under a compatible license, there's no reason to leave the copyvio core template in place. Other issues remain, obviously. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! Can anyone help with the WP:CP listings? Is it simply tracking down the daily reports, adding the necessary header if not already done, then including it on the WP:CP page? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why you couldn't help keep the page up-to-date. Three steps: Determine whether or not the daily page exists (they are only created when there's actually something reported that day); add the necessary header if it's not already present on the page; transclude the daily page onto the WP:CP page under the header "Older than 7 days" once the correct number of days have gone by; update the hidden note to indicate what-all dates have been posted to the page. Thanks for offering to help with this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

image has been removed

Hi Diannaa, Re: image, File:Maja Krzic.jpg, I have written confirmation from the creator of the image and the subject of the image that this image can be used on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maja_Krzic The file has been deleted from Wikipedia before I could respond. Can you please suggest next steps? Thank you! Katherine katmil2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katmil2020 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What you need to do is follow the instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials to get the required permission into the hands of the OTRS team. Once the permission email has been received, the file can be restored. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:North Elevation.jpg

Hi Diannaa. I'm wondering if File:North Elevation.jpg should be tagged with {{nld}} per WP:F4 or {{db-f7}} per WP:F7? The file has a source, but it's only a direct link so it's not exactly clear when it was created. the source url also looks like it is Squarespace which just appear to be some hosting service, but I can't find the actual website the file was taken from to verify whether the age of the plans and whether they are actually the plans used to build the theatre. In addition, there is claim of "fair use (older than 50 years)", but this seems hard to verify without a better source information and "fair use" and "freely licensed" are not really the same when it comes to Wikipedia. Any suggestions on what to do here? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1. The image does not have a license tag, and thus could be tagged as F4
2. F6 also works, as he's stating fair use but has not provided a rationale.
3. Copyright term is not 50 years. What we have to do is look at the Hirtle chart to determine when the copyright expires. Who is the author and when did they die? Was the image, likely created in 1951, ever registered as copyright, and if so, was the copyright renewed? Was the image ever published? Without the answers to all of these questions, it's impossible to determine the copyright status of the blueprint. And yeah, without better source information, it's impossible to even verify that the blueprint is correctly identified. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking and clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Diannaa. Would you mind rechecking this file once again when you get some time? A nfur and copyright tag have been provided, but it is still hard to verify the source/copyright status of the blueprints using only the url given. It's a direct link to the file, and trying to work backwards does not get me anywhere. If this is fine by you by you and not a candidate for speedy then OK with me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Attribution

Thanks for letting me know, I'll add them in. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello... you... must... watch... this... video... it... is... extremely... funny... :)

Share it with your friends, and I definitely recommend you watch the whole movie if you get the chance. Best :) (PS - will understand all the periods in the title after you watched xD). Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Tasha Eurich at TedX.jpg

Hi Diannaa. File:Tasha Eurich at TedX.jpg appears to be a copyvio. I'm not sure where it exacty comes from but it can be seen online at various places like this. Should this be tagged per WP:F9 or should it be tagged per WP:F11? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File was tagged by ITB so things appear to be being taken care of, unless it's necessary to go ahead and tag this as a copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged it as F9 as well, since F4 has a one-week delay. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for taking a closer look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dlasthr

Hi,can you please monitor Dlasthr Page. a wikipedia user has been copying and pasting information,also has been adding information that has no reference or actual sources. the user is Meganesia.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlawdon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. The user that he's talking about is myself. And the article is Dlasthr. I added new content, with updates here and there. I expanded the rather obsolete article and made it more "current". Of course, I did base my wordings on the articles that I sourced, but I am confident enough to say that what I included in the article is summarized of their source (besides the quotes). Please, have a look at the article, and if you think that there's plagiarism, you can revert the content or we can work on it and try to iterate the thing better. I wouldn't opt for reversion, because I've added new, updated content on the matter. This will just regress the state of the article to last year. Furthermore, I do NOT want Outlawdon to be reverting my edits. I think that an admin like yourself should be in charge of that. Thanks. Meganesia 11:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

hi

[9] just wanted to double check if this attribution if fine, 1. I indicated in edit summary 2. I indicated in quote in actual reference, let me know if I need to change something, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Why do you need this material on your talk page? Both the image and the quotation
2. Adding a quotation is not the same as providing attribution.
3. What is the copyright status of the image File:178-EbolaVirusProteins VP40.png? You are stating CC-by-SA 3.0, but I am not seeing any evidence on the source web page that this is so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

• [10] this was at commons(I didn't upload it), should I take it off my page?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• what should I add additionally for attribution?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Why do you need the image on your talk page? If the image is just there for decoration, why do you need the citation and the attached quotation?
2. Please see Wikipedia:Attribution for what is meant by attribution (the way Wikipedia defines it). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

1. its for reference in regards to the topic (I deleted the file you mentioned File:178-EbolaVirusProteins VP40.png)

2. I read attribution (let me know if there is anything further I should do)...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

3. just noticed you removed the quotation[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Birth Dates

Hi Diannaa Ajlscl14 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC) 2 October 2016 (UTC)https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19560 This is the info re: new law AB1687 which forbids online information cites such as Wiki & IMDB from providing birth date information, if the individual requests it. Please review this requested information re: deleting birth dates on Wikipedia.

• (talk page stalker) That law only applies to a commercial online entertainment employment service provider that enters into a contractual agreement to provide specified employment services to an individual paid subscriber, and was intended to prevent an individual's age from being used against them when seeking employment online. (ref:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1687 ) Crow^Caw 21:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Problematic uploads

A user uploaded some pics, which don't meet WP:IMAGERES. This pic – which was copied from here, without decreasing the resolution – is wrongly attributed, as the source's pic is of lower resolution. So, its resolution & attribution needs to be sorted out. The same user copied this logo from here; this pic from here; this pic from here & this pic from here – again without decreasing the resolution. So, their resolution should also to be reduced. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged these images as {{non-free reduce}} and a bot will come along shortly to reduce them. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - NitinMlk (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You can do this yourself in the future now that you know how. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I never used Twinkle. But it seems helpful. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's great for repetitive tasks — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will enable it. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Newburgh Raid

Without any real justification, you reverted all of my edits to Newburgh Raid. It appears you did so based on a mistaken and erroneous belief that the material was copyrighted by the Newburgh Museum [12]. First, the material on that site is released to the public domain [previous edit corrected]. See the website's footer for proof. I know this is the case because I am a director with the Newburgh Museum and authored the material on that website which was used in the Wikipedia article. I authored it and allowed it to be posted on the museum's website solely on the condition that it could be used anywhere else, like Wikipedia. Therefore, your revisions were in error and I would kindly ask that you restore all of the edits.--YHoshua (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) YHoshua: Public domain/CC0 is not the same as CC BY-SA. CC BY-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89: good point, but it is simply in the public domain. I'll trust Diana addresses it. --YHoshua (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the material, as it is now released to the public domain. Thank you for taking care of this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

National Multiple Sclerosis Society

I disagree that the content I added to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society page was a copyright violation. I write for publication, I've talked to many copyright lawyers and editors in my professional life, this is the way I do it in my work, this is the way other editors do it, and I don't know what your objection is.

The NYT itself routinely paraphrases articles in the same way. As I recall, I did a Google search for other articles, and they were written with substantially the same words -- because they were all based on press statements from the NMSS and from Zagieboylo. It's also important to quote certain words, not paraphrase, because a pharaphrase can change the meaning of what the NMSS was saying. Did they "express concern"? Did they "protest"? Did they "complain"? It makes a big difference.

Since you have deleted my copy from the History, I can't compare it to the original to see what you mean or explain why it is not a copyright violation -- and to explain why certain words had to be quoted, not paraphrased.

If you thought that it was a copyright violation, then I think it would have been better for you to rewrite yourself it in a way that kept the essential facts in your own words without a copyright violation. WP:PRESERVE

Furthermore, this is an important fact about the NMSS. According to the media responses, it was very courageous of the NMSS to take a stand against the increased prices of MS drugs, even though it would be very likely to cost them the financial support of the drug industry. Patient organizations are routinely accused of being front men for the drug companies, and the NMSS is not doing that.

I'm trying to improve that article by deleting the WP:MISSION and the promotional material about MS walks that was copied from the MS web sites, and instead explaining the substantive research that NMSS is supporting. But their policy decision to challenge the prices of drugs was extremely important, based on the coverage it got in WP:RSs.

Can you restore my text so that I can see it again? And if you don't like the way I did it, can you show me how you think it should be done? --Nbauman (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was picked up by a bot as being a copyright violation. The content I removed was copied from The New York Times. Our copyright policy is stricter than the policies in place on other websites and our non-free content policy is far stricter than that permitted under copyright law; we don't use copyright material at all when a freely licensed substitute is available: prose that we write ourselves. Since we have to assess around a hundred reports a day (many of which take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour to clean up), there's not enough time for me to perform re-writes, so sorry. I will send you a copy of the removed material via email so that you can re-write it in your own words. I would be happy to review your proposed re-write via email before you post it to the article if you like. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Helena Modjeska Chase

I can not see the content that was supposedly copied as it has been erased from the history. If you would be so kind as unerase it then I can change the text into my own words that is different than was previously entered. Thank you so much for you kind help. Swanstone (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't restore it, as it's a copyright violation. I have sent you via email a copy of the version of the article at 19:33, October 2, 2016, right before the removals commenced, so that you can use it to perform your re-writes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Eric Nagler again

The latest round of the usual nonsense at Eric Nagler could probably use rev-delling (probably not OS-worthy), and the new probable sock blocking. Zzuuzz was the latest admin to do the honours, but since you‘re the more recently active, and this probably relates to the “NPA and/or OUTING” thread above, you’re elected this time. ;)—Odysseus1479 05:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. User now blocked by Widr as a VOA.05:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Question (potential copyvio)

Hi Diannaa, I am wondering if this report is sufficient to consider this a copyvio (link)? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No. There's really only one phrase that's duplicated, and there's no way to re-word it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've updated the article since I posted here. Here's the report with a specific version, which shows 66% chance of copyvio: rev 743012355. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What we want to do in that case is compare the source web page with the oldest revision, to see what-all was brought over from that source in the long-ago. The page was created on February 19, 2008. Wayback machine revision of http://www.luftwaffe.cz/seeger.html from December 11, 2007, shows a 74.5% overlap with the first revision on this wiki. We are looking at a foundational copy vio. I have done revision-deletion up to the first clean version, which is 08:01, October 7, 2016‎. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe the same may apply to the Gerhard Schöpfel article; here's the copyvio report rev 742977897 with 82% match. I suspect there may be more. If I wanted to check in the waybackmachine.com, how would I proceed? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't let the percentage fool you; a lot of that is list content, and the percentage only dropped to 64.1% after clean-up. Comparing the Wayback Machine revision dated August 12, 2007 with our earliest revision dated September 24, 2007 shows that some of the content was copied over from the very first edit. Clean-up is now complete on that one.

You can use the Wayback Machine to verify that the Wikipedia page was copied from elsewhere on the Web rather than the other way around. The pages at luftwaffe.cz seem to have been archived pretty thoroughly, which means you will have a variety of archived material to choose from.

1. Go to the Wikipedia article and select the version you want to compare. It might be the very first revision if you suspect a foundational copyvio. Determine the revision number with which you wish to compare. You may wish to compare with the current Wikipedia revision or an old revision or both. For Gerhard Schöpfel, some content was a foundational copy vio, and more was brought in from the same source as time went on, so I had a look at both the first revision and the current revision before I decided what to do.
2. Go to http://archive.org/web/web.php and plug your source web page into the box provided.
3. Select from the available archived web pages at the Wayback Machine the one immediately preceding the Wikipedia revision where you think the copyvio was added.
4. Take the full url of the archived web page and plug that into Earwig's tool as the source document. You will now be able to determine who had the content first.
5. Remove the copy vio content once you are sure it's a violation. (Scan the source web page to make sure it's not released under a compatible license.)
6. List the page for revision deletion using the {{copyvio-revdel}} template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. The editor who appears to have inserted the copyvio material (Special:Contributions/Philby_NZ) has been cautioned about this behaviour before: Scheel and Schieß. Perhaps they need a reminder? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in music

There is a bit of a do on Women in music. Of course, as it's an article on women, mostly men are involved. I reverted the blanking of some sexist quotes which may or may not be good. I left a message on the blanking editor's Biancachavez91 talk page. Airplaneman then fully protected the article and started the talk page discussion. I don't feel comfortable pushing my pov here. I thought you might want to take a look. Airplaneman's discussion is here: Talk:Women in music#Current editing dispute regarding article quotations. I left a copy of this on GorillaWarfare's talk page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I am gonna need to buy a vowel here, because Oh... My... God... — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

CV Concerns, not sure the best way to proceed

Regarding article Complex agent representations for crowd simulations. The EranBot caught one recent edit but I'm concerned there are more not being detected (even by myself searching manually). The version that EranBot caught gave the following iThenticate report: [13]. However, Earwig's report for the same revision, using Turnitin which uses the same source as Erin, reports clean: [14]. So after pruning the known content, Earwig still comes back clean but the tone of the entire article suggests there may be more there that nothing is finding. Not sure if this is just a routing WP:CP listing or what since there's nothing currently to link to as a suspect source... Thoughts? Crow^Caw 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What I usually do in cases like this is do a google search on likely-looking snippets from the article to locate the source document(s). For example, the section that starts "dense crowds exhibit a low interpersonal distance" is copied from http://acs.ist.psu.edu/papers/BRIMS2011/BRIMS2011Papers/11-BRIMS-026.pdf, which is listed as citation #4. The Duplication Detector reveals what-all was copied from that source (the Duplication Detector sometimes works where Earwig's tool does not, but you have to have a source web page to compare with).

The Turnitin report is able to look behind the paywall and do a comparison with http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cav.1581, which is something the Duplication Detector and Earwig's tool are not able to do. So the material highlighted on the Turnitin report was copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cav.1581, which is a copyright paper. It's likely that the entire article was cobbled together from the material listed as sources. I suggest blanking with the copyvio core template and listing at WP:CP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

For the second time in as many days you have erroneously claimed a copyright violation of something I authored and have every right to offer on Wikipedia. That would be annoying enough in and of itself, but then you include threatening messages like "This is your final warning." It's really tiring and has no justification. So just as before, I'll go out of my way to prove to you there is no copyright violation, even though I've taken the proper steps already with Wikipedia standards.--YHoshua (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What I saw was copying from http://www.evansvillepolice.com/early-epd-history (a copyright web page, marked as Copyright Evansville Police Department. All rights reserved) into the article Evansville, Indiana. What am I missing here? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As an initial matter, I assisted in researching and authoring the page you cite. Additionally, I submitted permission regarding this to the appropriate email. If you did not see or check this, I can re-submit it. But what I think you're missing most is the tone and tenor of your message. It was unnecessarily threatening and condescending. My "final warning"? That's rude and unnecessary, especially on the heels of a very recent error on your part. I'm fine with the changes you made because it retains the basic facts, but going forward you ought to work on a more cordial and civic approach to such things.--YHoshua (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have sent a permission email, the thing to do is add an {{OTRS pending}} template to the article talk page, or in the case of an image, to the file description page. I am not an OTRS team member, so there's no way for me to check for receipt of this email. Sorry for the heavy-handed warning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

How to get my first page published

Hi Diannaa, I created the first page on "West Valley Chinese Language School" but got a copyright violation on using my other webpage. I put "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse ..." into my other webpage. Please let me know if this is ok. What do I have to do next to get it published in Wikipedia? Thanks, Ken Kenng5 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the article, since these are compatible licenses. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations in Retrospect (software) article

I had just done a major enhancement of the Wikipedia article on the Retrospect backup software product, bringing it up from around 2006 to the present. Up to a couple of days ago the enhanced article included descriptions of new features in Retrospect Macintosh 8 through Retrospect Macintosh 13.5, broken down into sections by major release. I quoted these from two places: (1) For Retrospect Mac 9 through 13.5, the quotes were from the “What’s New” chapters of the User’s Guides—appropriately footnoted in the introductory paragraph at the top of each section. (2) For Retrospect Mac 8 , the quotes were from a beta announcement sent in an e-mail—appropriately footnoted in the introductory paragraph at the top of the section—which appears to be a copy of an EMC press release and has no copyright notice.

Yesterday I received a message from you: “Hello DovidBenAvraham. All or some of your addition(s) to Retrospect (software) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here. You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source ….”.

There are fairly simple solutions to the removal problem, based on my understanding (IANAL) that press releases are not copyrighted: (1) For Retrospect Mac 9 through 13.5, most of the new features are described—somewhat more briefly—in press releases that are currently posted on http://www.retrospect.com/en/press; I can quote those, and supplement them with a few brief quotations from the User’s Guides. (2) For Retrospect Mac 8 , the quotes should be legally OK as is—because the e-mailed beta announcement has headings indicating it was a copy of a press release (if there ever was a User’s Guide for Retrospect Mac 8, I cannot find it online—even using the Wayback Machine).

I have yesterday e-mailed mailto:pr@retrospect.com , asking them to let me know ASAP whether or not Retrospect Inc. will have a problem with these solutions. It is, of course, to Retrospect Inc.’s benefit to have as much description of Retrospect features as possible (the article still includes mentions of differences between Retrospect Mac and Retrospect Windows) in the Wikipedia article. The daily readership of the article has quadrupled since it was enhanced this week.

What I propose to do next week, subject to your and Retrospect Inc.'s approval, is (a) to revert the removals you have done and (b) to implement the solutions (1) and (2) I have proposed two paragraphs above this. Step (b) would include footnoting each quotation inline with its source, rather than relying on footnoting in an introductory paragraph above the quotations in each section. Please indicate your approval or rejection in my Talk page or this talk page, whichever you prefer.

If you tell me how and where to send it, I will be happy to send you a copy of the e-mailed beta announcement referred to in (2). As background for why it never became a User's Guide, you may wish to read this Macworld article. My knowledgeable interpretation of information from the second and third paragraph in the "Enter EMC" section is as follows: EMC shut down its Insignia division—that included the Retrospect product—in 2007; EMC re-hired some of the Retrospect engineers in 2008 and put them into its newly-acquired Iomega division; those engineers went against Iomega management and developed a greatly enhanced Retrospect Macintosh version 8 with a changed UI; the new version was shipped in a hurry without sufficient testing; and Retrospect Macintosh customer satisfaction slipped because of the changed UI and many bugs. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi DovidBenAvraham. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, 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 (including press releases) is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. The reason I removed the content is because the quotations were excessive, comprising 30 percent of the article. Please have a look at our non-free content policy, which calls for quotations from non-free content to be used only when there's no alternative. In this instance there is an alternative: prose that we write ourselves. If the copyright holder wishes to release the material to Wikipedia under license, please have them follow the instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. The fact that you are in contact with this company makes me wonder if you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. I've placed some information on your talk page on that topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. It's best if I deal with your subjects in reverse order. First, I have no connection with Retrospect Inc. other than as a somewhat-satisfied user of their software since at least 1995. After a five-year hiatus in a period during which I no longer had an extra computer (which is typically required) to run the "backup server" process on, I paid $119 for a copy of Retrospect Mac 12 in June 2015. I mentioned this immediately in a thread on the Ars Technica Mac forum, and encountered real hatred from disgruntled former users of Retrospect Mac 8. Therefore in February 2016 I started this new thread there to describe and justify my recent experiences with Retrospect. My justifications are mostly in the OP of that thread, and the guts of my enhancement to the WP article are in a post on the second page of that thread. I have also voluntarily re-started contributing posts to the Retrospect Inc. user forums; my criticisms—cast into NPOV—are the basis of the "Documentation" section of the enhanced WP article. My only other contacts with that company, before I sent an e-mail the other day to their PR person using an address at the bottom of one of their press releases, have been to put a couple of Retrospect software bugs I have discovered into their Support reporting system.

The reason I put so many quotations into the "Retrospect Macintosh ..." sections of the enhanced WP article is that I would find it difficult to succinctly paraphrase descriptions of software features, particularly when those feature descriptions were originally written by expert technical writers. Since IANAL, I thought that even my one-page-total of quotations from what would have been the "What's New" chapter of a 250-page Retrospect Mac 8 User's Guide (which, as I have noted above, was AFAIK never published) constituted fair use. However, because those Retrospect Mac 8 quotations describing a really major release are from an e-mail that contains no copyright notice, I may be able to persuade Retrospect Inc. to contribute that particular e-mail. As I pointed out above, it is in Retrospect Inc.'s best interests to have the WP article enhanced with succinct feature descriptions—although contributing only the "What's New" chapters from later User's Guides that are already published with copyright notices might legally be difficult for them. - DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what's in the best interest of the subject of the article or how many page views the article is getting; what I'm bound to do as an administrator is to enforce the policies of this website, including the copyright policy and the non-free content policy, which here at Wikipedia is actually stricter than that allowed under copyright law in the United States. In order to qualify under our policy, the non-free content must meet all ten of the criteria listed at WP:NFCC. I don't think these quotations qualify, hence the removal. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I have two questions in regard to the e-mailed announcement of the beta of Retrospect Mac 8:

(1) Since—for a probable reason I have stated above—that beta announcement was never put on the Web, would WP nevertheless consider it to have been published online? If not, then I'm not violating any copyright by quoting it.

(2) If—regardless of your answer to (1)—I leave in the article only the quotations from that e-mail, which total only about 28 lines on my monitor (less than a page), would that cut the percentage of quotations down to a WP-acceptable level? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Emails are also written works, and are protected as copyright under the Berne Convention.
2. Our non-free content policy is stricter than that allowed under copyright law, and we don't use percentages. We don't allow any non-free content that can be replaced by freely licensed material. So the answer is no; please re-write the material in your own words. Regardless of the copyright issue, emails are not considered as a reliable source for this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed your recent additions to the article, as the material appears to have been copied from the copyright web pages http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1306619&start=40 and https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1307101&start=40. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Both of these are marked as © 2016 Condé Nast. All rights reserved and © Ars Technica 1998-2016. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. You and/or your bot are absolutely correct about the first paragraph I added to the section "Retrospect Macintosh 13 and Retrospect Windows 11" in the article. I did create that paragraph from a (re-ordered) combination of two posts on those pages, but those posts were written (from scratch without copying) by me—because my handle on Ars Technica is DavidH. Last night when I wrote that first paragraph I thought I couldn't possibly plagiarize from myself, but this morning I looked at Ars' Forum Usage Agreement, and found that it says "All posts become the property of Ars Technica, except when copyrighted material is posted (and properly cited)." I'll take the question of whether I can get permission to copy elsewhere from my own Ars posts up with the Ars Moderators, because that paragraph represents hours of work that I would find difficult to reproduce without—at least inadvertently—copying myself.

However you were too enthusiastic in your removals. The second and third paragraphs I added to the section "Retrospect Macintosh 13 and Retrospect Windows 11" in the article were not copied from anywhere; I wrote them from scratch for the WP article after researching the new features in the Retrospect Mac 13 User's Guide. If there is any way you could un-remove only those second and third paragraphs, I would be grateful. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa, for un-removing the second and third paragraph in the "Retrospect Macintosh 13 and Retrospect Windows 11" section. As far as the first paragraph in that section is concerned, I started a thread on Ars Technica's Ars Help & Feedback forum asking about this problem. I received the following reply from Aurich Lawson, who has been the Creative Director of Ars Technica since 2003: "I am fairly certain you don't lose your own rights to what you write, we just gain rights to it, so we can't be punished for hosting it, or putting things from the forum into an article, or whatever else. I have no idea how to help you with Wikipedia though." Aurich Lawson's display e-mail is mailto:aurich@arstechnica.com. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Both of these forum pages are marked as as © 2016 Condé Nast and © Ars Technica. Both of these organizations will have to release the material under a compatible license before you can copy the material to this wiki. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I just completely rewrote the first paragraph in the "Retrospect Macintosh 13 and Retrospect Windows 11" section. Please be as merciful as possible; all the info I have to rewrite from is about 3 pages of text (exclusive of UI screenshots) in the Retrospect Macintosh 13 (duplicated in the Retrospect Windows 11) User's Guide. BTW, is the little maple-leaf icon after your name a standard Unicode character, or is it a custom-drawn image? I ask because copying your latest reply—without removing the maple-leaf—into a post on the Ars Technica Ars Help & Feedback forum caused Ars' forum software to report its server couldn't do a Submit of my post. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I guess it’s from the Apple Color Emoji font, and it would probably be copy-pasted as a UTF-16, as the emoji have their own page or whatever in the Unicode map. It just looks like a red box to me, using an obsolete system (Snow Leopard), but it did display correctly on a more recent (Mavericks) iMac at my former workplace. I imagine recent Windows versions have an equivalent font, as well as the updated rendering machinery to support full colour—‘traditional’ fonts have no inherent colour.—Odysseus1479 04:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The new version looks okay from a copyright point of view. Sorry I don't know the original source of the maple leaf; I copied it from another user's signature. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Faramir, an Ars Technica Forums member with nearly 40,000 posts, replied "Emojis don't work here (thank goodness).

As for your original concern, whomever it was at wikipedia misunderstood the user agreement. The relevant paragraph is:

Amendment to Conde Nast User Agreement & Privacy Policy wrote[Faramir evidently copied a quote]:

Except as expressly provided otherwise in the Agreement, you or the owner of any Content you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available on or through the Service retains ownership of all rights, title, and interests in such Content [presumably Faramir's emphasis]. However, by posting, uploading, transmitting, sending or otherwise making available Content, registering for the Service, entering a sweepstakes or contest, or engaging in any other form of communication with us (on or through the Service or otherwise) you irrevocably grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide right and license to copy, reproduce, modify, edit, crop, alter, revise, adapt, translate, enhance, reformat, remix, rearrange, resize, create derivative works of, move, remove, delete, erase, reverse-engineer, store, cache, aggregate, publish, post, display, distribute, broadcast, perform, transmit, rent, sell, share, sublicense, syndicate, or otherwise provide to others, use, or change all such Content and communications, in any medium (now in existence or hereinafter developed) and for any purpose on or in connection with the Service, or the promotion thereof, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so. Among other things, this means that we may use any ideas, suggestions, developments, and/or inventions that you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available in any manner as we see fit on or in connection with the Service, or the promotion thereof, without any compensation or attribution to you. In any event, you should make copies of or otherwise back-up any and all Content, personal data or communications you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available on or through the Service that you may wish to retain."

In any case, my paragraph is probably better for my having rewritten it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovidBenAvraham (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Faramir made another post in my Ars Technica thread, giving me this link to "Amendment to Conde Nast User Agreement & Privacy Policy: Applicable Only to Use of ArsTechnica.com". It's what he quoted above, but without the bolding in the first sentence of the third paragraph. In its first paragraph there is a link to the "Conde Nast User Agreement & Privacy Policy" it amends. Faramir goes on to say "The added language is very slight and I'm a little puzzled why they bothered, but in any event it has nothing to do with the bolded part that deals with ownership." DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I am now proceeding to rewrite the descriptions of features for all the different versions of Retrospect in my own words, as I have already done for the "Retrospect Macintosh 13 and Retrospect Windows 11" section—which got your OK. The one change I have made to that section is to insert a two-to-three word "official section heading name" in quotes at the start of each feature description. Each "official section heading name" is cut down from the section heading entry for that feature in the "What's New" chapter of the appropriate Retrospect Mac User's Guide, which of course is credited in the section. That "official section heading name" really makes the paragraph for each feature clearer than I could do without using it, since it was written by an expert technical writer familiar with Retrospect. Please let me know if you have a problem with my doing that for all of the sections as I rewrite them. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Short quotations of two-three words are not problematic. I have watch-listed and will follow along. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Copyright violations on Richard Schöpfel

This is disappointing that you find the table to be a copyright violation. If you chose to compare the version I set up there with that at Petr's website you would see that I had not, in fact, just copied it verbatim but had augmented the data that he had listed with further information regarding the unit's basing and the pilot's commanding officer. Also, I do not see how this information can be considered copyright. It is like saying the results of a race are copyright to the first person who publishes the information, which is plainly silly. Perhaps I should also have included this weblink: http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/doc/victories-germany-ww2-1940.pdf which also lists the victories for all the pilots, but in chronological order, rather than by pilot. The same information is presented there and would need to be sorted by pilot to be of relevance - I have done that. Is that a breach of copyright to cite the same information from separate sources? Or are you saying the format I used is indication of copyright-abuse? I'm not sure how I can present such information any other way - should it be in reverse chronological order or in a random pattern. Should I have the type of aircraft first, then the location and then the victory number. I would appreciate your advice on how to do this, as your User page obviously shows you to be an eminent Wikipedia editor with far more experience than I have, and it will influence how much use I can be to the foundation going forward Philby NZ (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is Gerhard Schöpfel. I think you may be referring to this diff, where list material was removed. If so, you need to speak to user: K.e.coffman, because that's the person who removed it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed so, but why have you deleted all the previous writers' works and edits, and not just mine? Why are you censoring reference and comparison back to all previous versions? Also, do you agree with K.e.coffman's edit because as I have tried to explain to you, I don't believe the table was a copyright infringement, but rather an updated list of the pilots results that included data derived from several sources, not just a single source. And I am genuine in your request for advice on how to represent such information, or any race or competition's results for that matter that would be public knowledge without infringing copyright. Because if this action is going to keep happening then I am uncertain what value I will have to the foundation going forward. It is disappointing that such unilateral and final action by you both has been taken without first having a reasoned discussion with the various authors beforehand - labeling us all guilty until proven innocent, when in fact we had written up the article in good faith Philby NZ (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

What I did is remove from the article prose that was copied unaltered from http://www.luftwaffe.cz/schopfel.html, where it has been present since at least 2007. The Wikipedia article was a foundational copyright violation, meaning material was copied from the other website right from the original article creation. Additional material was added to the same article from the same source at further points in its history. Revision deletion of the page history was done under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, which calls for revision deletion of copyright violations. I think you need to find out from user:K.e.coffman as to why they removed the table. It is not a copyright violation to include list material in chronological order, and I am pretty sure K.e.coffman is aware of that, so they must have removed it for some other reason. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to reply; I can understand the written prose of some of my earliest postings may have been primitive, and would like to get back to remedy those. I will once again try and ask K.e.coffman for some explanation or help in updating the articles but he/she seems intent on just ripping things down without prior discussion, so it is very difficult to liaise with someone like that. He/she seems to blindly accept book references but web references seem to be anathema - I should learn to just not include them as references and sources in the first place in a pre-emptive move from their sabotage. Thanks again Philby NZ (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: since our interaction on Talk:Günther_Seeger#Recent edit, the above editor has not attempted to communicate with me. I also question their judgement in evaluating the sources in question (apart from apparently inserting copyvios into articles). For example, the editor attempted to convince me that a self-published source was okay to use and that "we have to trust and accept at face value tertiary sources" (including POV-challenged fan pages). These are not acceptable sources as Wikipedia aims to work to an academic standard. I would also encourage the editor to review WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Kennel Club breed standards

I'm unsure what the position is regarding The Kennel Club breed standards on WP, so hope you can throw some light on it. The KC own all the 215 UK breed standards as indicated on its website and all its web pages are marked with the copyright symbol. I have printed copies of all the breed standards and each group booklet carries the wording "The right of reproduction of these standard descriptions is restricted and application for permission to reproduce the Standards in any form must be made to the Secretary of the Kennel Club .....". I also know that even influential KC General Committee members acknowledge permission has been given from the KC if including copies of any Standards in books they have authored. Yet some articles, for instance Large Münsterländer, have the breed standard reproduced in full? It was added way back in 2008 and did say "Courtesy of the UK Kennel Club". Do you know if permission was ever granted or perhaps not required for some reason? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of permission being granted for these additions. Permission would be required, and an OTRS ticket would be required. The OTRS system has been in place since 15 March 2006, so you might consider asking whether a ticket is on file. But I doubt anything would be found. The content should be removed/paraphrased as copy vio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

List of universities and colleges in Kenya

I am unsure of your position regarding the changes I made on the above page. all my contribs are in public domain hence uncopyrightable. for instance TVET authority has closed several institutions listed in the list. Hence the information presented may be incorrect. However, I wish to give appropriate references where necessary. Regards. Shadychiri(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The part I removed was prose copied from http://www.keshouk.co.uk/kenyaeducation.html, which is marked at the bottom as being COPYRIGHT (C) 2008. You can't copy from that page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

INFLIBNET Edit

Thanks. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

B-Diesnt Copyright

Hi Diannaa, regarding copyright content on table. No it's not copied from that. It may look like it's copied from the uboat blog, but no. To be honest it didn't actually know about that entry. It's a blog and reference would've been removed by TedColes on copyedit anyway. It's actually built from information from the Historical Dictionary of World War II Intelligence, a document called HMTR-2066-2.pdf which is written by Ralph Erskine, the Bletchy Park Code Breaker and the David Kahn book The race to break the German U-Boat Codes 1939-1945. The list is the list. Any list made up of these 14 items is going to look roughly the same, with the same content. There is only 14 items, and I was planning to flesh it out tonight. it took me 10 hours to create it. Scope creep (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The content you added is the same material in the same order using the same wording as the material at http://uboat.net/technical/enigma_ciphers.htm. Some of the material is identical (not merely "roughly the same"), for example the material on Shark (Triton). The material at http://uboat.net/technical/enigma_ciphers.htm was prepared by Ralph Erskine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not taken from uboat.net. The material is ordered in that manner because that was the date they were broken and is historical fact. There is so little information regarding this subject as it was secret by nature, so it is entirely possible that all these entries on the web and in secondary sources, like the Kahn book are taken from the same source and have not been changed, because there there is no other salient information available anywhere that provides additional detail around it. Most of the material regarding name, code, date of cypher introduction and date of being broken are all going to be the same and are fixed, as it is historical fact. Certainly I can change some of the wording in the comment/remarks section, but I think that is as much as can be done. It is fixed historical information. I never knew uboat site was written by Ralph Erskine, but certainly the Ralph Erskine document is the only English document that details this information, that I know off. It is the oldest from that time on the British side. He was there, and describes in some detail how it these were broken. The only other source of information is this regard is Seekrieg im Äther. Die Leistungen der Marine-Funkaufklärung 1939–1945. Mittler, Herford, 1981. ISBN 3-8132-0120-1. which was written by Heinz Bonatz, who worked in B-Diesnt. It is in German and was never translate into English. Certainly I tried to get it translated into English, and spent about 3 weeks on it, back in 2015, but it was impossible. That table is critical for the article. Scope creep (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If you could provide me with a link to the Ralph Erskine document that you used, I will have a look at it and see if I can determine what its copyright status is. Uboat.net may have copied Erskine, but that does not mean Erskine's work is in the public domain and available for us to post here unaltered. In the meantime I will restore the table, without the descriptive prose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa I will look it out. I'm always aware of how critical copyright is around content, after the work I had of getting several pictures of Gisbert Hasenjaeger work removed as I could satisfy the copyright properties. It's always in the back of my mind. Scope creep (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Divine Truth

Diannaa, I wonder if this edit should be deleted [15]. A new editor copied 30k from one of their websites. JimRenge (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Revision-deleted. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Why did you delete the image with the two swans nesting? I personally took those photos and didn't get them from the internet. Can you please put it back, and not accuse people of copyright when you have no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelaxtJosh (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on temporary copyright

KSci ^(talk) 16:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle nomination for G12 when already nominated for another reason

Occasionally, when working on copy patrol, I'll come across an article with a clear copyright problem. If it is an article that existed prior to the copyright I will do a rollback, but if it is in the initial creation stage, I'll CSD. I realize I could directly delete but I'm a bit of a fan of the four eyes concept, so I'd prefer to nominate and let a second person confirm and do the deletion.

However, on occasion the article has already been nominated, typically A7. I have been marking these as "page fixed" but I'm now rethinking that. I note that if I try to nominate it for CSD G12 using twinkle, the system will tell me that it has already been nominated and will not do the nomination. Until now, I haven't been to troubled by it but it occurs to me that there are two reasons I should not simply treat this as resolved and move on.

There is a slight possibility that the editor will see the A7 nomination and "cure" the problem, resulting in either a removal of the nomination by a non-admin editor, or the reviewing admin agreeing that the nomination is no longer appropriate and accepting the article. In each of these cases, one problem has been cured but it is no longer known that there is a copyright issue.

The second, related issue is that the article may be deleted, but maybe the editor or some other editor decides at some later point to work on the same subject and request restoration. I know I'm very open and eager to restore deleted articles for an editor who wishes to work on them in most cases but refuse to do so if the deletion was for copyright reasons. However, while the was a copyright issue, it wasn't noted anywhere so this article may be restored and worked on. Perhaps it will be picked up again by copy patrol but perhaps not.

Sorry about all this tedious background but my question is whether there is an easy way to add a CSD nomination for G 12 one an existing nomination already exists?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries about the detailed question! It beats shovelling snow! To answer, what I would do is manually change the {{db-a7}} to a {{Db-multiple|A7|G12|url=http://example.com/}}. You can add additional urls, by going {{Db-multiple|A7|G12|url=http://example.com/|url2=http://example.com/}}. You will have to manually add the page to your watch-list if you wish to watch and make sure it gets resolved to your satisfaction. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, easier than I thought. I'll do that. (As an aside, I saw snow, and rime ice this last week-end, but not enough to shovel.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way I also always tag for deletion to get a second set of eyes on the page. Sometimes saving the article is easier and more worthwhile than it first appeared. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That Ben Carson/Quincy Jones/Karen Bass/etc editor...

Their username is promotional, see WP:UAA report. Also, they are inserting their website link into the various articles so the link looks like a Wikilink...I am certain that is against WP:MOS but can't remember what it's called, where to find the policy/guideline... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Another user points out at Jessye Norman that the book is self-published, so the content needs to come out altogether on all the places where they added it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like edits/account are all basically cleaned-up. Shearonink (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, just finished. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio image

Is the File:Manakmc.png file a copy vio?--Vin09 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Kinda sorta. We can keep it as a fair use logo. I have fixed it up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

B-Diesnt Referred Documents

Hi Diannaa, Here is the additional document I intend to use for B-Diesnt Offensive cryptography including cipher table and the rest of section. Regarding the Ralph Erskine document; author as described beforehand, he is Historian specializing in WW2 cryptography and Bletchley Park Signal Processing. This is him - [Erskine]. The document I was originally talking about last night I originally saw here: [[16]] where I got the name HMTR-2066-2. Searched both .doc and .pdf and eventually found this blog. [[17]], which says it's crown copyright, but I can't find a reference for it. I see, it is not in any ww2 archive, because it is current. This is the reference on Taylor and Francis Online: [[18]]. That would be valid? Except I don't have a login for T & L. I'm also planning to use the following, if you want to take a squint. This [[19]] KRIEGSMARINE SHORT SIGNAL SYSTEMS - AND HOW BLETCHLEY PARK EXPLOITED THEM , if I can get hold of it, and this [Essential Turing] book, the [[20]] Enigma: The Battle For The Code By Hugh Sebag-Montefiore. I also plan to cite this doctoral thesis called 2009-Carper.pdf, which described similar information and provides some truly excellent sources found here: [[21]] BLETCHLEY’S SECRET WAR by Colleen Carper. Also several Google Book refs as described below. Scope creep (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

These sources all look like they're reliable sources, but none of them are released under a compatible license or are public domain. So they can be used only as sources of information and nothing should be copied verbatim. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. 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. I know it's difficult to re-write technical information, so please feel free to ask me via email if you are stuck and are not sure how to effectively re-word a passage. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Kinda sorta like a free license

Hi D, I'm working through the CP list and came across Convergence (Pollock). The content used is from https://prezi.com/yp5glgdozmyr/jackson-pollock-convergence/ which doesn't specify an easily referenced license, but lists all the license terms at [22]. The license allows re-use and modification, but is revocable, although they do comment regarding termination of the license: uses made of your presentation or the underlying User Content, whether by Prezi or its users, are subject to the licenses that were in place at the time such use was originally made by the person or entity who originally made the use. For example, licensed uses of Public User Content, or content that allows reuse, may continue to be made after such content is designated Private User Content, by those users who previously used the content under the prior license. So it seems to me like this is a viable license, but I thought I'd ask for your opinion on all the terms and whatnot they have. Thanks! Crow^Caw 21:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I would remove the content regardless of the copyright issue, as this does not look like a reliable scholarly source but rather someone's homework. It's filled with original research and opinion ("The painting was done during the Cold War meaning people were angry and depressed." Oh really?). Regarding the license, it says "you may choose" to allow reuse and modification, and we have no evidence that this particular author chose that option. So my opinion is no, this is not a compatible license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding the re-use, the submission does have an icon declaring the work "public and reusable", which implies it was released thusly, but it does seem to require some synthesis to put it all together. I agree that the content should go, copyright or not, for reasons you called out. Thanks! Crow^Caw 21:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I think if the content were suitable in other ways, you might add a note that as of such-and-such a date the material did appear to be released under a compatible license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Checking

Hi. Would you please check my recent edits on Diana, Princess of Wales to see if there's any copyright violation? As long as I know paraphrasing is OK. If you approve it, then I'll continue to edit and add new material to the article. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 09:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

When copying from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary where you got the content from, like I did here. I did not check your edit of 21:31, October 16, 2016 — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Did you see any other problem? Keivan.f^Talk 22:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No, but I did not check the edit of 21:31, October 16, 2016. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to let you know that I'm editing the article. If you see any kind of problem, please tell me. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 22:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And I have a question as well. Since you had warned me a few months ago about the copyright violations, I haven't added a single sentence from a source by copy-pasting. So why is my name still on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations? What does it mean exactly? Because as long as I know you cleared the whole article before and everything that I've added to it since then has been checked by you as I've reported every single change to you. Keivan.f^Talk 07:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Also based on the article's current situation, do you think it has the potential to be nominated as a good article? Keivan.f^Talk 07:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Your name will remain at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations until such time as someone goes through all your contributions listed there and checks them for copyright violations. Unfortunately there's nobody working on that task right now, so the listing could remain there for a long time. I was looking at the article as a potential GA and felt there's some potential. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Great. Maybe you can also help to expand the article a little bit more. Although you had said that you were working on copyvio and I wonder if you have actually finished working on it. Besides you own some books about her which can be used as sources for new material. So it's not bad to edit and expand popular articles like this, of course if you have free time. Keivan.f^Talk 05:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I had completely finished checking for copyvio on Diana but had not finished improvements towards GA. I reached "Marriage to the Prince of Wales" when I stopped. To achieve GA status, checking the material already in the article and confirming that it is backed up by the sources provided is an important task that needs to be done. Anything unsourced needs to be removed. Adding more examples of state visits is not necessary or desirable. All the prose will need copy editing to bring it up to GA standards. The article is about the right length. Unfortunately the source material (even the books) does not have much depth and only scratches the surface of who she was and what she did. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. You did a great job on first two sections of this article. I also think that the section relating to her trips has enough material. I don't know which biography books you own about her, but it could be much better if those books, or any other source that can be found, were used to create a section about her public image and style. I was looking at numerous articles about famous men and women (like Jackie Kennedy for example), and I saw that there was information about their public image, popularity, etc. Currently I believe there's only a little information on "Legacy" regarding her public image, popularity, style, etc, but honestly it's not enough for a public figure who was praised by millions. You, as an expert in Wikipedia, are the best choice to improve the article in these aspects. Keivan.f^Talk 05:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry about this.It hadn't happened before and I guess I got complacent. I mean I was never before made aware of this. I thought the message "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" handled that sort of thing. Am fixing now as best I can. Thanks. Yours,Quis separabit? 01:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Quis separabit? 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Image Request

Hey Dianna, could you upload this image for me? I tried, after scaling it to the standard 300px, and it came out looking like this. Yeah, a mess. I was hoping you could help. Thanks....Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:06 on October 17, 2016 (UTC)

I deleted your version and uploaded a bigger version under the same file name, and asked the bot to reduce. Let's see what kind of result that gets! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, that works! :) Thanks! Hope all is well with you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:07 on October 17, 2016 (UTC)

Bot has reduce the file! it looks okay :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Denisthiyam

Hi Diannaa. Hope you are doing well. Would you mind taking a look at Denisthiyam's contributions when you get the chance? The account is only about a week old and they have been upoloading some image files without proper copyright licensing and source information, moving various articles around, and adding File:Udaykiranhanging.jpeg and File:Kunalk.jpeg to the main infoboxes of Uday Kiran and Kunal Singh. I understand Wikipedia is not censored, but this seems more then a little over the top per WP:PERTINENCE and there's no way to know who these photos really depict without better source/copyright information. Maybe we're not quite at WP:NOTHERE yet, but it does seem to be heading in that direction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I have deleted a couple of the photos, as I found them elsewhere online. I will watch — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sean Haugh

Sean Haugh, an article you reviewed a little while back, is being contended as not notable. I believe the article meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG standards and wanted to bring this to your attention. A user is making the page into a redirect because he does not believe it is notable and I have suggested to him to start a discussion. I wanted to bring this to your attention as I thought your input on any discussion would be important. Acidskater (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio file

File:Ruthvika Shivani.png seems copyrighted, as it first appeared here in February. Its higher resolution versions like this one has also appeared before. In fact, bot tagged it for deletion. But the uploader removed the tag. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the image and alerted the uploader. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion image

I understand your rule, I picked it from other website I will not repeat the mistake again please forgive me , I have done lot of information on this page from scratch. Kaminenibharath (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio on E-SCREEN

Diannaa, as this appears to be a school project (the folks at the Biochemistry department at the University of Barcelona (BQUB) often run undeclared school projects here at Wikipedia), might it be worth the effort to try to identify the class project leader / teacher, and have them better inform their students about copyright issues? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Further to this, the student appear to be operating under an education project at ca.wiki (ca:Viquiprojecte:Bioquímica UB). I'll reach out to the project leader there. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, as there are over 150 users whose usernames start with "BQUB16-" and this is not the only article they have been editing. Thanks for offering to help — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Impact

No problem. That's what we gnomes do. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your awesomeness is unsurpassed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WE ARE THE STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA AND WE ARE WORKING IN A PROJECT THAT HAS A DEADLINE, SO PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH THE WORK UNTIL WE HAVE FINISHED IT, BECAUSE IT IS VERY HARD FOR US, AS WE ARE 18 YEARS OLD, TO LOOK OUT FOR INFORMATION ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND YOU REMOVE ALL OUR INFORMATION WITHOUT THINKING IN THE HARD WORK THAT IS BEHIND. SO PLEASE, BOTH OF US, BE EMPATHIC!!!!! THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Gjimenez (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but there is no excuse for violating copyright law and the policies of this website. Please read the information on copyright already posted on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Diana thank you for your time and I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by our ignorance in the process of editing Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Gjimenez (talk • contribs)

E-SCREEN

Hello Diana,

You don't know me but I'm Gonzalo Jiménez Fernández, and I'm from Granada, a beautiful city of Spain. Now I'm studing Medicine in Barcelona and we are making a project that consists in creating or improving biochemical terms in the Wikipedia. But we don't know how to use Wikipedia well because our teacher hasn't taught us. So I beg you that please don't change anything of the article, because our teacher will give us a bad mark and we don't want it. I think 30th October is the deadline, so after this date you can change what you want, as you want, but in the meanwhile please don't change it. We know that we can't put things with copyright, but instead of removing it, you can tell us how to do it and we can do it well. It very sad that we are almost all day working in the project and to get up the next day and see that evertything has been changed our removed. So please be empathic.

Thank you, I hope you understand me.

Gonzalo Jiménez, University of Barcelona (18 years).— Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Gjimenez (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but there is no excuse for violating copyright law and the policies of this website. Please read the information on copyright already posted on your user talk page. @BQUB16-Gjimenez: Multiple members of your class are violating copyright law on several different articles, and there's no reason why this website should allow your copyright violations to remain in place so that you can get good grades. In fact, your professor needs to be aware that you are violating copyright law, and grade you accordingly. One way to do this is to remove the violations immediately. There's already information on your talk page about copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing; to add to that, let me say that content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. 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. This is difficult but not impossible to do with technical material. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diana, I’m the present instructor on the ca:Viquiprojecte:Bioquímica UB. I’m sorry to hear from user:WikiDan61 that pupils working on updating of the en.wiki article E-SCREEN are violating copyright of some documents. Plagiarism is unacceptable in our institution and I will act in consequence. But, to ascertain if the pupils had a malicious conduct or they just misunderstand the publishing rules, I would acknowledge some details about the violations they made. Could you please explain me if they verbatim copy text or if they performed some unacceptable paraphrasing? Did they cite the documents they plagiarized? Please accept my apologies for that unacceptable behavior. RodriguezAllue (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi RodriguezAllue. Thank you for attending to this matter. The copyright violations were verbatim copying from the sources. Sources were cited. Violations that were detected were committed by the following users: BQUB16-Jcalvet, BQUB16-Jdiaz, BQUB16-Plapenya, BQUB16-Emaicas, BQUB16-Gjimenez, and BQUB16-Mcuenca. Articles involved are E-SCREEN, Death effector domain, and Alpha-tubulin N-acetyltransferase. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, RodriguezAllue. Our intentions were not to violate any rights of the articles, in fact, we tried to rephrase them and we did our best. However, we will try to readapt them again in order not to make anything that breaks Wikipedia's laws. Thank you for your good intentions, we know that you were just following the rules and just tried to help. We feel really sorry about the possible misunderstanding of our intentions and attitude, we only wanted to do our best. Thank you for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Mcuenca (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your edit "20 October 2016: we don't need all this, as CorenBot is no longer editing"

Regarding your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2016_October_20&curid=52049354&action=history please review Wikipedia:CP#Instructions as well since it is the page I was following. --Fukumoto (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I have amended the instructions to reflect this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Alpha-tubulin N-acetyltransferase

Hello Diannaa, I am @BQUB16-Plapenya. My colleagues and I are creating a new web page on Wikipedia because it is our homework. We understand that if we violate copyright, your duty is to advert us and delete if we are committing any violation. However, we do not clearly understand (maybe because we are new in Wikipedia) but if you go to: Alpha-tubulin N-acetyltransferase > View history > Revision history statics > English: it looks like you have done all our work, because it provides fake information, as the only thing you have done is deleting our work, and there it is said that you have done the 58.3 % of our work by uploading 22.000 bytes approximately. However, it has been us who have done all this work, and it is not the impression caused studying this statics. Therefore, I would be glad if you could explain it to us and, if possible, to correct this, because when our teacher visits our page to evaluate us he will probably have the wrong impression that we have done nothing and you have done everything, when it is absolutely false. I'm looking forward to hearing from you, @BQUB16-Plapenya — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Plapenya (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi BQUB16-Plapenya. This is one of several articles where you and other students in your class copied material from copyright journal articles. Material you find online is almost always copyright, and it's against the copyright policy of this website and a violation of copyright law to copy it here. Please have a look at the material I already posted on your talk page for more information on copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I completely understand this. The thing I cannot clearly understand is why you appear to be the major editor of our work, having uploaded around 22.000 bytes, when the only thing you have done in our work is deleting our stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Plapenya (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know the answer to that. I have only done three edits to the article, and they were all removals. I suggest you contact the maintainers of the tool for more information. https://tools.wmflabs.org/?list shows the tool is maintained primarily by user:MusikAnimal and user:Cyberpower678. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by our ignorance in the process of editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Plapenya (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the WP:REVDEL that Diannaa performed (which is the procedure when removing copyright violations) is throwing off the calculations. If you compare the last visible diff to Dianna's last edit you get this. I'm not sure if this should be considered a bug, since the tool has no way of knowing the content of the hidden diffs, it simply looks at the before/after. I can open a ticket to investigate further. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Issue is now being tracked at phab:T148857. Thanks for the report — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Colinetto/sandbox

Colinetto (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Diannaa - I'm just about to start work on some Wikipedia entries as a result of an Editathon with Clem Rutter - noted that my Sandbox seems my Sandbox was deleted on 4 October - and the page referred me to you?

Hi Colinetto. You had a draft in your sandbox, which was moved to Draft:Rachel Gadsden by another user back in March. At that time, your sandbox became a redirect to that draft, which was deleted on October 2 by another admin. I see you have already made a new sandbox, so if you need any further help or need to retrieve your draft on Rachel Gadsen, please let me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Doubt

Hello Diannaa, I am @BQUB16-Jdiaz. As you know, you've deleted some contents that I've include in the page of Death Effector Domain. I have rewrtied the information and now I think it has no copyrighted material. Please can you check it and tell me if it's fine now or if you consider that I have to change anything? Thank you so much and sorry about my ignorance about how to add information to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Jdiaz (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A bot picked up some of your recent additions as being copyright violations, in particular the material added at 12:44 UTC on 21 October. The paraphrasing you have since done is adequate. Please don't add copyright material to the wiki, even temporarily for editing; all your amendments should be completed before you save your edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe

You may be interested in this discussion regarding a user you have blocked. Sentence from their edit "This would be the first time Golovkin fails to fight three times in a calender year since 2012, when he first came to the United States and teamed up with HBO." and from source "This will be the first time Golovkin has not boxed three times in a calendar year since 2012, when he first came to the United States to fight and linked up with HBO." 80.235.147.186 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is copyvio/too-close paraphrasing and have re-worded it and commented. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

quote farms

Are this and this ok? You'd previously warned the user about copyvios, but this is far too much non-free content IMO. —SpacemanSpiff 10:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree this is too much, especially in U Turn (2016 film). I've removed some of the non-free content and explained to the user why this is not okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Medici: Masters of Florence (TV Series)

Apparently an entry was made by another user, for the above new international television series, and you deleted it. Perhaps it was full of inaccuracies, copyright violations and spoilers? What happened there? Fb2ts (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation, top to bottom, with the plot section copied from http://www.luxvide.it/en/medici-masters-of-florence-166.html and the remainder copied from http://biglight.com/work/medici-masters-of-florence. Your version contained some copyright material as well, copied from the Variety article. I have placed some info about copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what version you're talking about. I got the original version from imdb, which may be where Lux got it, or vice versa. I've switched it out to quote the co-creator from a 2015 interview. I'll rework the Variety quotes. Fb2ts (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Right. Think I caught all the copy & paste bits. Please let me know if I missed something. Thanks. Fb2ts (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I already edited out all of the copyright violations. Your edit has removed some of my improvements, so I have restored the properly formatted citation and properly formatted bulleted list. References go before external links. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Oi! Sorry. I was editing when you were editing and was less careful than I should have been in merging my new changes with your new changes. Thanks for your patience.Fb2ts (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

BLP image

Hi Diannaa, I'd like to check with you if it would be appropriate to upload a non-free image that I found here: photo. I'd like to use it for the article on Ronald Smelser, but I'm not sure if this would be okay under fair use rationale. If you could help clarify for me, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't permit non-free images of living persons (fails WP:NFCC #1, as a freely licensed image could still be obtained). You might consider contacting the copyright holder of the photo and see if you can get it released under a compatible license. There's instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; I will inquire with the school. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Springs Toledo Page

Hi Dianna, I was fixing the page when you deleted it. You're so fast deleting it you didn't even gave me time to fix it. Anyway, I already recreated the page. Pacphobia (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. I am going to place some detailed information on copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The copyright issue has been fixed already. Pacphobia (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Diannaa, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• You copyright violator, you! Crow^Caw 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I wonder who did not receive their template?!! I will try to figure it out using the time-stamp. :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

I remember now; I was trying to paste this in my sandbox, but it displayed here instead, because I used Twinkle. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I was scratching my head on this one. "Diannaa warning Diannaa" in "The Twilight Zone". Kierzek (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed

— John Lennon

ColeB34

I don't think they are getting the message about NFCC and is uploading multiple screenshots without addressing NFCC#8 (or 3 for that matter). I think they are thinking that if they comment on the image that satisfies the criterion. Do you want to have a try at explaining as I'm already big bad wolf. Nthep (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what I can say that you have not already said, but I will try. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

OMG he has uploaded 82 of these images. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I was on my way to bed when I left you my original message, sorry that ColeB34 seems to have gone on a revenge tagging spree and dumped the results on your doorstep. Nthep (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry --ColeB34 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

re: Panama Private Interest Foundation

Rather than G12 it, perhaps rollback to before today's edits. One new COI user likely is the violator for the copyright.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked at that, but the Earwig's tool shows that there's more. I couldn't find a clean version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Copying

This page has content copied from this site and also at this page from this site. A discussion at User_talk:Vin09#Bhogapuram_Airport was made. Can you deal this?--Vin09 (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

please delete

I think you have forgotten to delete these screen shots. Thank you--ColeB34 (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/UpDown

• File:Rose and Sarah.jpg
• File:Sarah and James.jpg
• File:UpDown S3Ep8.jpg
• File:UpDown S3Ep11.jpg
• File:UpDown S5Ep11.jpg
• File:UpDown S4Ep1.jpg
• File:Elizabeth and Richard Bellamy.jpg
• File:UpDown S5Ep5.jpg
• File:UpDown S5Ep2.jpg
• File:UpDown S4Ep11.jpg
• File:UpDown S3Ep7.jpg
• File:UpDown S4Ep9.jpg
• File:UpDown S4Ep8.jpg
• File:UpDown S4Ep7.jpg
• File:Richard Bellamy.jpg
• File:GordonJackson.jpg

Normally we have an image of the actor in character at the top of the article about that character, so any like that can be kept. But we don't use non-free images in list articles, so those will have to go. File:GordonJackson.jpg, File:UpDown S3Ep7.jpg and File:Richard Bellamy.jpg can be kept as the images are used in the article about the actor, and we have no free images of them. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Even though the uploader has not edited for several years, they are entitled to a notification about the deletion nominations. I have gone ahead and done that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think, there are much more to delete. I will help you. Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

see the image in Leonard Trolley, Mary Wimbush, Nicholas Selby, Donald Burton, Roger Brierley, Angela Browne, Patsy Smart and Heather Canning (article about the actor/actress). I think these images can be kept. They are used in the article about the actor, and we have no free images of them. thank you. --ColeB34 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

please delete

• please delete File:RoderickSpode.jpg . thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• please delete File:ThomasWatkins.jpg. thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• please delete File:Elizabeth and Richard Bellamy.jpg. thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• please delete File:Lady Marjorie 1906.jpg. thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ColeB34&diff=745878858&oldid=745778546 Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understandingCriterion 10c, because there is no detail of the name of each article on which the image is used, or the image is missing a separate, specific, and relevant fair-use rationale in clear, plain language for each use. Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We normally have an image of a character in the article about that character, so these are okay to keep. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Mrjob - it's back!

Hi! Thanks for deleting Mrjob that Zkc131 ripped directly off the internet - it seems they haven't learnt and have recreated it again, despite my advice on their Talk page and the numerous copyright warnings! Might a salt and/or block be in order? Thanks again! Mike1901 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This is one of several persons adding similar articles, perhaps classmates? I have blocked for copy vio, as there's plenty of warnings already in place on the user talk page. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa! I did notice that (and had similar thoughts!) but ran out of time to deal with/report the others. Agree they're likely classmates or similar. Mike1901 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion

Hey Diannaa, I would like to contest the deletion of a page I created with the title: The Citizens' Empowerment Center in Israel. You deleted this page based on criteria: G11, G12. Source URL: http://www.ceci-israel.org/ Please revise your decision in the light of the following reasons:

1. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion - This page is a description of an NGO for which I work, and its public activities. It also has a linked page in Hebrew with similar information as shown here: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%96_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%97 If you find the content too "promotional" or not neutral enough, please point out the parts which you find as such and I will edit them.
2. G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement - The text in the page was written exclusively by me for the purpose of the page and the organization's website. I hold all the legal creative rights for it. Additionally, you may see in the website that there is NO declaration or a demand to reserve copyright for the text.

Waiting for your reply and hoping for a change in your mind. Danya Leshed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledanya14 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 26 October 2016 (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. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, 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 online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required.

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. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your 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. 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) 13:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Wilson Parking (Hong Kong)

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for your comment to the page. You are so fast and very effective while I was amending and re-collecting information to revise the problems. I’m sorry that it was my first contribution, so it’s great I can learn more here :) Just understood about G11 and G12. This time I’ve further source and looking for more information from 3rd party (e.g., from Bloomberg, HK Trade & Development Council, SHKP’s 2015/16 Annual Report…etc.) and see what’s more up-to-date. Would you mind to read again? I’ve already recreate the page Wilson Parking (Hong Kong). I wish this page can be a good start for Hong Kong region, it is because there’s just only little information of HK’s Wilson Parking. I think most car-lover would like to contribute via this new page. Some of the parking locations were deconstructed and most of them with long history for HK people. Hope this page can help to rebuild the history for this theme, cheers :) Please feel free to let me know if anything still wrong or violated the rule, thank you very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeiau (talk • contribs) 12:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Great thanks for your time, and I'm happy for the opportunity to this lesson. Cheers~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeiau (talk • contribs) 13:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC) --Tkeiau (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The River Flows.

Thanks, both. I've added to the Lucas page a reason for the inclusion of the book cover image (the cover was unknown even to the Hogarth Press researchers who wrote a book on the early Hogarth publications). The book itself is discussed in the Biographical section below, as a semi-autobiographical novel. Regards, 193.39.159.73. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Mosaic of the Female Musicians

I have forward the permissions (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License) from the Hellenic Society for Near Eastern Studies for the image File:Mosaic of the Female Musicians.pdf to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Thanks! Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Niihau incident

I have been directed here (thank you Irondome)  :) this article is (apparently) a 94% copyvio of this Hawaii Reporter article from 30 June 2013. Thing is, I can't work out the point at which it was inserted to say whether the reporter has just ripped off WP or it actually is a violation. What would be handy is if Earwig could compare versions of our article with the paper. Can you advise? Many thanks! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The source webpage is dated June 30, 2013, so we need to compare with a version of the Wikipedia page prior to that date. Comparing with revision 554905793 dated May 13, 2013, shows a 95.7% overlap. What this means is that the Hawaii Reporter article is copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. I have placed a {{Backwards copy}} template on the talk page of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I thought it might be the case- it takes the piss a bit though! Imagine Woodward and Bernstein copying our stuff  ;) So how do I compare an old revision, if you don't mind my asking? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Select the old revision you wish to compare. Go to that revision and collect the revision number from the url. In this case we see a url of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niihau_incident&oldid=554905793 for the May 13, 2013 revision. The number at the end of the url is the revision number. Plug this into Earwig's tool in the box labelled "or revision ID:" and compare with the source web page. Et voila — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks very much. I'll be stealing that then :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

See one, do one, teach one — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

RETScreen article - your comments

Hi Diana - thank you for your messages regarding the article on RETScreen. I do not see that any changes have been reversed. If so, can you please put them back? There are no copyright violations as I work for the Government of Canada (Natural Resources Canada) and we own the copyright on the RETScreen software and all related text and materials. Some of the text is repeated elsewhere online (for example, the OpenEI site) - this is standard practice for our division as much text is translated multilingually. I would be happy to discuss with you further or allay any concerns; feel free to contact me at dinesh.parakh@canada.ca. I am not very proficient with Wikipedia coding and usually employ the visual editor. I'd appreciate any sort of online tutorial to help me better understand how and what to post on Wikipedia. Thank you for your input.

In Canada, government works are subject to Crown Copyright, and do not enter the public domain until 50 years after publication. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please follow the instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Just saw your message - we can provide the sample permission e-mail. Where should it be sent? Kindly advise.

There's complete instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. We will look into this. I cannot quite identify which "copyrighted" material you removed. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsparakh (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The "Partners" section and the "Applications" section were both previously published in https://www.utwente.nl/bms/cstm/education/icrep/RETScreen.pdf and http://en.openei.org/wiki/RETScreen_Clean_Energy_Project_Analysis_Software — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars image

Hi Diannaa, I noted your copyright notice on File:Leiadeathstar.jpg and have addressed the issues:

• the image has now been substantially reduced to 360px @ 72dpi
• an improved fair use rationale has been added

I think the problem is that a user very recently uploaded a new, high-resolution version of the image (2,560 × 1,536), about 1 month ago. Prior to this, the image has survived without controversy for over 10 years on Wikipedia. I hope this addresses your concerns. Cnbrb (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You still need to address the concern about criterion #8. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions how the rationale could be improved? It already explains that "the image serves as a means of illustration of the main characters portrayed in the film, in an article discussing the history and production of this film." It illustrates the topic of the article, depicts the characters being described. What does it need? Cnbrb (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably enough. I have withdrawn the nomination, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh OK, thank you! I thought it seemed pretty non-contentious in the context it was being used. Here's to another 10 years! Cnbrb (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Stephan Riess

This article was in DRAFT form and not to be redirected! Stephan Riess will receive his own article for submission. It will contain material that is cut from or not pertinent to the Primary Water article. You need to restore the latest draft of Stephan Riess so all the material can be accessed and saved. Same goes for "Draft:Primary Water Institute" which appears to have been deleted from DRAFT form before allowing final edits. For now the various articles have some of the same information; once the PW article is accepted, duplicate content will be removed and placed in the respective article.BurrME64 (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)BurrME64

Sorry, no. These drafts were both loaded with copyright violations, same as the main article, and contained huge amounts of non-free content, which is not permitted under our non-free content policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I am going to ask you again nicely...to return the article to its original DRAFT form. I will delete all material copied and saved from the PW article, which is finally being edited by reviewers for any perceived NPOV etc. I need the text of the full Stephan Riess introduction as edited in later versions that you have deleted.BurrME64 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)BurrME64

I can send you a copy of each draft via email if you like, but I won't be restoring. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid of restoring? Once restored, I will get the material I want and then delete the draft. Is the information shocking in some way? Do you feel some sort of great power by playing this game from your Canadian bunker?BurrME64 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)BurrME64

I am not going to restore the drafts, because both of them contain copyright violations and excessive non-free content in violation of this website's copyright policy and non-free content policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

SEND ME THE LATEST DRAFT VERSION VIA EMAIL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sieg Heil! Now that you and Sjrct have edited the "Primary water" article NPOV and copyright etc, you can remove the header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of religion

Hello again, I am sorry I did not remember about this since you already explained it for Kliment Timiryazev. Thank you for your clarifications.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please delete all

• Chestnut (Westworld)
• The Original (Westworld)

Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Nativity

On the Nativity (film series) and Dude, Where's My Donkey? you removed the plot "remove copyvio plot, copied from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3558642/ or elsewhere online" could you help put in an polt that crealy for Wikipedia for these pages.82.38.157.176 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film. Perhaps someone else should do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Saturday Live Australia logo

Hi, I'm responding to your tagging of File:Saturday Live Australia logo.jpg.

• On criteria 3b (size), I agree with your assessment (I don't think I realised how large it actually was when I uploaded, so that's my mistake). I'm happy to revert to a significantly reduced-size image using {{Non-free reduce}} and letting a robot do this.
• On criteria 10c, the current rationale does list the article in which the image is used.
• On criteria 8, The image is of the logo of a program, which does not have its own article but the program is noted as a spin-off of the program in the article where is does reside. The current rationale does suggest it lives in the infobox at the top of the article, and I've changed this to where it actually is (in the relevant spin-off section of the article.

If there are further concerns with this image, or these changes still do not meet any criteria, please let me know. Thanks for your time, -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to show why we need two logos on the Friday Live page. How does displaying the Saturday logo on the Friday Live page significantly increase the readers' understanding of that topic, to the point where its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? I'm just not seeing it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Saturday program doesn't have its own article, it is however a spin-off of the article topic. It is relevant in much the same vein as the Friday logo, it provides a visual identification of the spin-off program. Additionally, the disambiguation page Saturday Live links to Friday Live for that reason. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Typically we only have one logo/screenshot on a TV show article, unless there's a compelling reason for more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I'd argue this is a special case given the article details a spin-off program which doesn't have its own article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you still have issue? -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We need to let the reviewing admin decide. I have left a link to this conversation at the file talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I do see your points of view on this issue. Thanks for your civility and engaging discussion of the matter. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Charles Schwertner

Please kindly undo the deletions you recently made to the Charles Schwertner page. These are not copyright violations as all the information is open-source and maintained on a public, government website. (www.senate.texas.gov). I own the rights to the photo you removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txhousecat (talk • contribs) 00:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You still need to paraphrase the material to avoid plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Works of the Government of Texas are not in the public domain, so sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hellenic Olympic Committee

Hello Dianna, thanks you for information :)) Greetings :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipid011 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Farrer & Co

Hi Dianaa My section on Farrer & Co was removed for copyright reasons - is the new section I added sufficiently different? Would appreciate your assistance on this as I will be adding info about the historic offices in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHicks93 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @EHicks93: I have done some further amendments to the prose and the current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Normal solvability is not copyright infringement since the text is colicensed under CC 3.0

Terms here: https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Encyclopedia_of_Mathematics:Copyrights LucasOne (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The copyright page you reference states that "newly contributed texts" are compatibly licensed. The doi, however, points to a version from 1995, and shows Springer as the copyright holder. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The page itself was updated recently and should mean that it is now licensed. Either way, by that defintion when people worked on it in 2012 it was converted over to CC 3.0 LucasOne (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's released under license, why is it hidden behind a paywall? Why are they asking $69.99 for the ebook? Please reply on the article talk page; there's no need for a parallel conversation here. Thanks — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)