![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Diannaa, you suppressed (revdel) my contribution, supposedly for a content violation (referencing https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-that-busted-unions.html). However, you obviously didn't check my contribution against this article, since various portions had citations from totally different sources. Even if somehow there had been copyrighted material, it still doesn't justify an entire suppression. Again, it looks as though you didn't actually check. This is all the more suspicious since no proof was given by you and I can't verify for myself. I would appreciate at least having access to the history to retrieve my work. Torvalu4 ( talk) 15:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, edits in Economy of Albania and Education in Albania by the same new editor have been clear copyright violations. So the recent edit in Taxation in Albania is very likely a copyright violation of its source too. However, I am not able to access the paywalled recent source to verify this. Could you double-check the article please and revdel the 2 recent edits if necessary? Thank you as always for your help with such issues. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much here. I am just gobsmacked. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 22:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa,
I was wondering what, in your opinion, is the best way to include and cite novel (or even film) synopses? This has been the main issue I've faced so far when created novel pages, and as I plan on ultimately trying my hand a film pages as well I know I will face a similar problem.
And thank you for the warm welcome to the community, even if it was followed by a necessary scolding, haha.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDROMITUS ( talk • contribs)
Good to know. Thank you! ANDROMITUS ( talk) 18:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa. Could you please check the section on my sandbox? It is from the IMDb. No one can c/e that. Is that a problem? Also, should I cite the same source for every single actor/actress? There should be an easy way to do that. Puduḫepa 19:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I see that you have a lot to do with copyright issues, but I have a different problem for you...if you are willing to look into it. I think it's an Original Research issue, so if you know of another editor with expertise in that field, I'd be happy if you were to forward it on. You recently reverted a copyright issue with Ellesmithfagan, so that's how your name came up.
She added a paragraph entitled "Insight" to the article about Joyce Kilmer. I would have just deleted it myself, but multiple edits have taken place since then, so others have seen it and left it in, but I was concerned about it. It was added in on 2019 March 3 at 11:01.
Thanks! WesT ( talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The photo belonged to Henry Anderson, who's deceased. I (his son) uploaded a scan of it. What sort of permission is needed? Rare4 ( talk) 08:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa - I hope you're keeping well. I'd appreciate some advice on the above. I picked it up as a Good Article Review but running it through Earwig's Detector has shown up a possible issue, [1]. You'll see there are large overlaps with Facebook, SlideShare and TripAdvisor. I seems to me more likely that those sites have picked up the content from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Is there any way to confirm this? And would it leave any copyvio issues it they had? Thanks in advance. KJP1 ( talk) 10:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, thank you for analyzing this at a constructive level...
How do I send you my e-mail address non-publicly so I can continue to work the descriptions of the View Types and Domains offline to a point where they are concise, correct and not perceived as copyvio? Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Dianna, Sorry to bring this back up. I haven't updated that e-mail address since 2008 and no longer have access to that one. I just updated my e-mail to a current one, can you resend? Thanks Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 01:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
![]()
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thanks Diannaa for the feedback and links. Very much appreciated :) Now I know what to do. First time on Wikipedia. AMENF ( talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi - sorry to bother you again, I came across Ed Edmondson United States Courthouse and noticed that the text looked suspicious, so checked with Earwig which says it's mostly a direct copy/paste from here. Is that public realm content though because it's a Government website? And does the article need to be tagged it in some way to indicate that? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, here in good faith so don't take this wrong way if I sound rude. When changing - to – or something similar (like in
this edit) please be careful because one of the templates (specifically
Template:Television ratings graph) on the page broke as it only accepts - but it got changed to – when you did the rest, thanks
TheDoctorWho
(talk)
03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diana, I take the point that my addition to Creative Destruction Lab had to be removed because there was too much copyrighted text. The problem is that your deletion included content that I think didn't violate copyright rules, and I don't seem to have the ability to undue your edit so that I can correct the text that is problematic. Can you advise on how I can efficiently correct the text you removed (as opposed to starting over again)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmathewm ( talk • contribs)
Could I ask a question concerning the copyright position on the song " Shave 'Em Dry". It was published in the United States in September 1924. As far as I can tell, and I have more work to do on this aspect, the song was composed by Ma Rainey and Papa Charlie Jackson. Rainey died in December 1939 and Jackson in May 1938. In the Wiki article about the song, which I recently wrote, I have quoted some of the song lyrics from various recordings over a 11 year period, primarily to illustrate the changes to the lyrics over that time. Does that violate any copyright as such ? I do not want to get into trouble !
I hope you are well. Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 15:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK Dianna. Listen here. I was not copying from iMDB.com. I used them as a reference when I went to edit the article again. What's your deal? The King Gemini ( talk) 00:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
User:92.29.151.145. Geolocation looks right. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Would you please take a look at Game of Thrones: Season 8 (soundtrack). I feel the section titled "Background" might contain material directly copied from the source, but since I wasn't sure I thought it would be better to ask someone more experienced to check it. Thank you. Keivan.f Talk 07:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Diannaa, Thank you kindly for your detailed explanation regarding my luther burbank edit. Forgive my posting here, ss I am new here snd wasnt quite sure how to respond to your post, this appeared to be a potentially appropriate place. While I can understand removing part or all of his quotations (if you are willing, maybe inform me as to how much, if any of that quote I am allowed to post), I am a bit confused as to why the rest of my post was removed? If you could please enlighten me, I would be most gratefully appreciative. Thank you most kindly. This is the very best user name of them all ( talk) 03:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a likely copyright violation for content added to Economic and monetary union on May 4, 2019. Regards. Woodlot ( talk) 12:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You removed 12 editions of this article as copyvio. The first good version (which you edited) contains the phrase
The laboratory materials and neuro-physiological nature and behavior of Prime Rglaim
Could you examine the deleted revisions to see if there is any indication of what "Prime Rglaim" may be? 2A00:23C3:C980:5100:D467:5266:A34C:4089 ( talk) 13:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Since I can recall that I have mistakenly made an article Malla Raji Reddy long ago which was deleted after serious discussion on copyright issues. After that I have made no wilful violation of copyright policy of Wikipedia. Considering my contributions in articles of English Wikipedia it is my earnest request to you to reconsider about the Autopatroller right, if possible. Thanking you. Pinakpani ( talk) 06:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Just added the "copied" templates to the talk pages of /info/en/?search=Talk:Hardware_random_number_generator and /info/en/?search=Draft:Comparison_of_hardware_random_number_generators , since a small part has been copied from it. Thank you very much for your suggestion, wish you a nice day and a great time on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecpus ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Wish you a nice day ;)
Lovecpus (
talk)
05:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Diannaa - at what point does it become WP:OVERKILL? Atsme Talk 📧 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, I was traveling off the grid and used my phone as a hot spot to attempt a trivial housekeeping edit at WP, unlogged. I was stopped by an overly broad block. If you look at this editing log for individuals impacted by that block, you will see edits of the Radha Stirling page on 3 July, and of the Paul Dolan (academic) page on 4 July—editing work inconsistent with (and so arguably are not associated with) the 4 July vandalism that led you to block this set of mobile users. (I did the Stirling editing, and some other bona fide WP editor did the Dolan editing.) Is there any way for you to refine that block—and future mobile blocks more generally—so you do not punish innocent editors along with vulgar, offensive, vandalising, guilty ones? With regard, I am... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:21B2:AA59:DE9D:B526 ( talk) 05:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
these 5 IPs are all him. None of them are in the 42 but they're all in the 41:
Sorted 5 IPv6 addresses:
Total affected |
Affected addresses |
Given addresses |
Range | Contribs |
---|---|---|---|---|
8M /64 | 8M /64 | 5 | 2600:1008:b100::/41 | contribs |
512K /64 | 1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b100:c62b::/64 | contribs |
512K /64 | 2 | 2600:1008:b120::/45 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b156:a9d1::/64 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b164:4339::/64 | contribs | |
5 /64 | 1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b100:c62b::/64 | contribs |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b123:2f14::/64 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b127:f5b0::/64 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b156:a9d1::/64 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b164:4339::/64 | contribs |
— Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 16:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
See Simonavicius, Erikas; McNeill, Ann; Shahab, Lion; Brose, Leonie S (2018). "Heat-not-burn tobacco products: a systematic literature review". Tobacco Control: tobaccocontrol–2018–054419.
doi:
10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054419.
ISSN
0964-4563.
PMID
30181382.
This article incorporates
text by Erikas Simonavicius, Ann McNeill1, Lion Shahab, and Leonie S Brose available under the
CC BY 4.0 license.
See here and here. CC BY 4.0 is a compatible license. Please review. QuackGuru ( talk) 11:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
—
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
23:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Recently my work on Therapy Dogs was deleted from my sandbox, and the wiki article. I thought Shalor had deleted it but now it says you. I realize I made some mistakes and believe I have now corrected them. Could you please review the material I have in my sandbox and let me know if it is appropriate for publication? Thank you. Lostinthemix18 ( talk) 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Lostinthemix18
Hello Diannaa, I added this sentence: Also in 2012, the BBC broadcast God's Own Architect, an arts documentary program on his achievements hosted by Richard Taylor.[48] I made the text myself and referred to the program website on the BBC for referral. Is the last part a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.67.119 ( talk) 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Although the material you removed for copyvio was taken from the site you cited, it was not copied, but edited (in particular to remove peacock terms, while keeping factual information) and cited to source. I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look just keeping in mind whether sufficient paraphrase exists to avoid copyvio. Interesting that the State of Washington chooses to copyright some (at least) of its web pages. I would estimate that the state's assertion of copyright to about 75% of the material on this page is invalid, but that's not an issue for Wikipedia. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Someone posted at WP:THQ#Requesting improvements for a few articles about a possible copvio. Do you think you could take a look at things and see if anything needs to be done? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. This edition removed a lot of copyvio from João Gilberto's article. Could you please check it out. Thanks in advance.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 05:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dianna, I am super new to editing wikipedia pages and I was unable to review the content to follow your point. How do I recover the text that you deleted.
Kindly tell me what to do next.
/info/en/?search=Madapati_Hanumantha_Rao
regards
can I go in and put a link back to that page. A reference i.e. Perhaps I can be careful to avoid copying text verbatim. (I don't recall what I did last time). But can I put in a link to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotamiputta ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diana, thank you for your correction of my copyright infringement on the materials I added to the Konstantinos V. Petrides. I would like to ask you if i can still use the source from which i retrieved the information if i paraphrase and cite the work as the original source. Thank you! OscarKoryagin ( talk) 14:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the copyright violations in my new page. However I copied it from another Wikipedia page. Odisha Sahitya Academy Award May be that page needs a rewrite too. Spbal ( talk) 16:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dianna,
My name is Dianne Folkerth, and I'm the environmental education coordinator at Wild Basin. I corrected a bunch of information as well as added some updated links to our Wikipedia page. You seem to have removed all the edits. Would you explain which parts violated Wikipedia copyright rules? I read through the section you pasted and I can't figure out what the error was.
None of what I wrote is protected by copyright. I updated the links to our current website and Facebook page. My text edits were to update the page to correct information that is important that we get right for visitors: the name of the place, our correct city, open hours, what is allowed or prohibited when visiting, and the co-management of the preserve and facilities with Travis County, Texas, and St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas.
I hope this message gets to you. I've literally no idea what to do here to get our correct information listed at Wikipedia. I apologize that I also don't know how to link directly to either our Wikipedia page or the edited versions.
Thanks,
Dianne Folkerth 216.16.202.242 ( talk) 18:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
This revision to this revision contain those song lyrics and probably need revdelling. Thanks (Edit: more on his talk page). Adam9007 ( talk) 02:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind you reverting my last edit. I added it because the ref says he carried out the commissar order directly. The notes below in the trial section discuss the matter in the context of denials and rebuffs etc. which make it look like he might not have. I don't really want to repeat info either. What do you suggest? Szzuk ( talk) 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa! Hope you're doing well :) Would you mind looking at
Ambala_district. A user asked me to revdel it, and the text looked a bit like reverse copyvio and linked as the source to FB, which I think likely means it comes from us at some point. I have to go offline in a few, so I'm passing it off to you if you don't mind. Thanks for all the great work you still do
TonyBallioni (
talk)
03:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Diannaa,
Yesterday I tagged one of Hayden Nelson's articles, Stewart M. Brandborg, for CSD G12. I visited his talk page to see if he had left any comments, and I saw there that you had previously revdel'd a different copyvio by this user, and other copyvio notices were there as well. I decided to check through the rest of their contributions and it appears that this is a regular thing. I noticed that this rev of Yellowstone National Park was reverted but needs a revdel, and this rev of Speculator Mine disaster, which I just reverted, needs a revdel as well. A few other contributions have already been revdel'd.
Aside from the copyvios, it seems that this user's only other editing activity is to add University of Montana archive pages to external links sections of relevant articles (for which they have declared they are being paid). I haven't touched any of these links as I have not yet investigated whether any of them violate WP:ELNO, but it is probably a worthwhile exercise. Just giving you a heads-up there. Thank you! CThomas3 ( talk) 16:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
I'm an employee at the University of Montana's Archives and Special Collections. We are trying to make wiki pages of people, organizations, or groups whose collections we hold in order to, hopefully, increase the amount of visitors to our archives. I have been using our finding aids on Archives West as a template for my additions, a few of which have been flagged for copyright or deleted. But, Archives West is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, and it was my understanding that I could use these already prepared finding aids as my template for the wiki page while doing minimal rewrites and adding citations. Is this correct or, if not, could you help me understand this so that more of my posts won't be deleted? Thank you. ( User talk: Hayden Nelson) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
PD-notice}}
along with your citation. However, the person who removed it states that even if it's in the public domain, it's not suitable for inclusion in that particular article, which has been vetted as a
Featured Article (representing some of Wikipedia's best work). The person who removed it commented "even if it was quoted, in a Featured Level article like this, we avoid even close paraphrasing".user:2600:1008:B15E:B83A:518D:5CAC:78F6:7C08 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent ( talk) 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:TAURO1919 User:TAURO1919 12:36 July 2019 (UTC) I have seen that you have deleted some of the editions about birds because of a supposed spam, I ask you to review the articles before deleting them and to verify that the information is relevant and true. Do not return to eliminate anything without your correct verification. Greetings.
Hi, this draft I had started working on was deleted. No complaints from me, I hadn't realised that drafts couldn't contain copyrighted work, and I won't do that again. However, is it possible to get the deleted text sent to me so I can work on it offline? (Not sure notability criteria are met yet either to be honest, I hadn't got that far with it.) Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 21:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I've got a question about an image that I would like to use in an article I'm writing. The image is the example of a tartan design found at this website - it's a government register of tartan designs. The copyright statement - found here - says "The image is subject to Crown copyright. You may re-use the Crown copyright protected image free of charge in any format for fair dealing purposes. The image must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the source as the Scottish Register of Tartans. If you wish to re-use images for purposes other than fair dealing you should contact Online Resources at National Records of Scotland, email: onlineresources@nrscotland.gov.uk"
Long and short - can I use this? Thanks for any guidance you can offer, and please feel free to point me at an explanatory page rather than reply personally if this is already covered somewhere. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Because I have basically only edited 3 articles (one of which was split—with the split-off containing most of my additions) over the last 4 years, I forgot about the capabilities of my Sandbox. I'm assuming nobody else except an administrator can edit it; please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
I was only using a section of the Talk page of that article to create and test out diffs. I originally thought I needed to use {{
URL to diff}}
to do that, but now realize I can simply copy a {{diff}}
and paste the new parameters into the copy. I can do that in a TextEdit document on my Mac, which I back up once a day.
I want to save separate {{diffs}}
of what I put into the ANI because I'm a bit paranoid about the particular other editor, especially since he confirmed my guess about his sub-culture with
this rather strange "acceptance of apology" and its follow-up. I firmly believe what he is doing is
C-DV, whether or not it qualifies as
WOV. Members of his sub-culture have a reputation for behaving in a less-than-G-dly manner toward people who are not members of that (religious) sub-culture, especially in landlord-tenant relationships with African-Americans. IMHO that's why there are increasing instances of violence in Brooklyn towards members of the sub-culture, although
The New York Times refuses to name the sub-culture in stories about the violence because of an over-a-century-long ambivalence about the membership of its owning family in the larger religious culture of which the sub-culture is a part. (I mention this ambivalence only because you are apparently Canadian; it's accepted knowledge among us regular New York Times readers who are members of that larger religious culture.) Now that I have admitted in
that same sub-section that I am not a member of the sub-culture, I want to protect my many {{diffs}}
against what the particular other editor might do to them in the ANI.
DovidBenAvraham (
talk)
16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, Hope all's well,
Just wondering does
this sound like it was pasted from somewhere?,
Thought I'd ask you as you're the only person I know who's extremely knowledgeable with this sort of stuff :),
Many thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the possible copyright problem on Richard Hoffmann (composer, 1925)!
The text is not from the website you cite, rather both my edit and that website take the information from a printed source, the CRI LP sleeve note which I cited. If the text is exactly the same, I was too literal in copying. I will take another look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmarbach ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
But where is the information you deleted? I can't get to it through the version list. And how come you also deleted stuff sourced from other sources than the one your bot pointed out? My refs 2 and 3 contained other information which has also been deleted, so there are now references which are redundant. I have lost a lot of work and it's now chaos... Please point me to the lost information so I can rewrite it. Mrmarbach ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, hope all is well. I was thinking of filing an RFPP and noticed you had protected this page years ago. What do you think? Did semi- help back then? – Leviv ich 15:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You removed some copyrighted text I had added to an article because my misunderstanding of the ins and outs of quoting sources. I’ve taught myself quite a bit about the rules and regulations regarding quotations since then, and I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up after me. I additionally learned about the Wikipedia Library Card program through a userbox on your personal page, and I have since been approved to access JSTOR as well. I had to let you know that your efforts are much appreciated! I hope this message reaches you in good heath and spirits.
(If you happen to be interested in the page in question, check out the comment you left on my talk page!) Neighborhood Nationalist ( talk) 04:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Would you mind checking this article for copyvios when you have a little time to spare? It was recently expanded quite a bit by an SPA (who might have a COI) and lots of the content and it's corresponding syntax has the feel of being copied-and-pasted from somewhere else. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can you take a look at this article. Earwig gives this result, and the carbon dating link you gave me says that the source page was created on 5/10/2019, so I think it's a mirror of WP. Thoughts? Also, I just reviewed 8 of this editor's new articles, and this was the only one with a whiff of copyvio issues. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
Backwards copy}}
to the article talk page. Check it out :) —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
15:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa,
A few of my pages have been deleted for copyright and I am wondering why. Since your last response in which you showed me how to appropriately use materials from Archives West, I have copied and pasted that method to every page I have created to appropriately cite it. I'm wondering why these pages were deleted when I did everything that you suggested? Thank you. Hayden Nelson ( talk) 19:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa. Is this wikitool good at detecting close paraphrasing or does it only work for data dump? Puduḫepa 10:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dianna.
I do apologize, but the text was merely a reversion of the text that was deleted by the Indian wikipedian on 8Oct2018. Which I disagree was fully non enciclopedian, so I revereted the text, and did a little bit of improvement, deletion and edition myself.
I still would like to include some information more or less along the lines you deleted. Would appreciate your input on that regard.
Sincerely, -- Uruk ( talk) 23:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Saw a list of articles triggering copyright vios from https://www.girlsnotbrides.org. A few pages already speedy deleted but many to look over...see pages/en.wikipedia.org/BrugesFR.. Plus many additions to articles I will start reviewing.-- Moxy 🍁 06:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I can't make head's nor tails of this and I'm hoping you or one of your stalkers might be able to! Merkava and this website show up as a significant copyvio but I can't make sense of whether it is a true copyvio or a backwards one. I think I'm probably just being a bit dim, but any thoughts? Cheers, Jack Frost ( talk) 10:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Another one. I get this earwig report, but the carbon dating tool couldn't give me a date of creation. The article's been around for quite some time, so I'm thinking it's a mirror. Onel5969 TT me 15:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Could you take a look at Draft:WinterWonderGrass_Music_&_Brew_Festival? I tagged it for copyvio-revdel but a user keeps adding copyrighted content. I think they are meat or sockpuppet of the page creator. Masum Reza 📞 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, when you have the time, could you look at this? I removed some apparent copyright violation content, and think there may be more. The usual rev/deletion, if necessary. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 01:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I was reviewing Benawa, and it all looked good until I noticed that the image, which looks professionally drawn, is an 'own work' from a user who you have warned a couple of times recently for COPYVIO. Their problematic edits have been revdelled so I can't see if this follows the same pattern - thought you might want to take a quick look. GirthSummit (blether) 12:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
for attempting to clear up the mess made by the activities of User:Renzo_espiritu - it's much appreciated! -- BushelCandle ( talk) 13:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand your reverting the Operation Finale movie. It was about the capture of Eichmann by the Mossad. Should the movie be mentioned at all in the Eichmann article? See also or maybe external links? Eschoryii ( talk) 08:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC) If you want me to discuss this on the talk page; check out the past discussion. It is an embarrassment. Eschoryii ( talk) 08:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Diannaa. Could you please take a look at the article Deep Murder? This part ("Deep Murder is a genre-bending horror comedy that takes place inside the world of a softcore porn shoot. It begins like any other porno, with a group of horny archetypes holed up in a poorly decorated house. But when they begin to be brutally murdered one by one, they're forced to evolve from clichés into real people in order to catch the killer in their midst and survive the night.") is present in several places around the internet. A COPYVIO maybe? Regards.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 22:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello you have recently flagged several pages on Ethiopian geology for copyright infringement. (sentences copy-pasted, however with source mentioned) While I was reworking those pages, a certain RHaworth took the initiative to bluntly delete it. How are Wikipedia procedures? I think reasonable time should be given to rework a page? What happened seemed overacting? or not? See below an example of one of the flagged pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Edaga_Arbi_Glacials&action=edit&redlink=1
See "The health harm to long-term users of e-cigarettes is likely to be marginally greater than for those who use conventional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) [112]." [2] [3]
See "The health harm to long-term users of e-cigarettes is therefore likely to be marginally greater than for those who use conventional NRT. " [4] on page 127. QuackGuru ( talk) 09:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
How dare you remove my work? And accuse me of plagiarism
I never copied a word from
https://www.elsmerecanyon.com/tunnelarea/passes/newhallcut/newhallcut.htm
I used it to support the facts I wrote. But I did not copy any of the words or sentence structure! Show me the sentences I copied?
Rhetorical question because I know you can't as I didn't.
Your lies have put me into a seething rage because I never copied a darn fu king word from that page not one!
You're just another low educated admin who acts within impunity
The biggest irony, you have the temerity to lecture me about plagiarism because I am an IP yet you've been on here less than 10 years and have become a self entitled admin
I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 but never, ever had an account (wherever I am in the world) because I am more interested in sharing what I know or some new facts that I discovered with a global audience (I'm like a chef who likes seeing people enjoying their food)
To be accused of plagiarism by someone like you is like being to told to smarten up by a beggar.
I never lifted a word from that website, so to be accused shows
People like you are the people who drive the WP:GF from this site.
So I'll repeat myself, I never copied a word from that website. Not one. To say that I did, questions my integrity which is infinitesimally better than yours which is why I hate stinking liars so much. 86.129.3.53 ( talk) 09:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa. Is this image copyrighted? Probably it is not (considering the date). I just wanted to be sure. Puduḫepa 07:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Hi Puduḫepa. Copyright has expired on that artwork. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 11:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and note on my talk page. I suspect that the source you gave for the Agnes Davies text is itself a copyright infringement of the Guardian article I cited. I'll re-read the policy. I appreciate you editing the offending articles rather than just deleting! BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 12:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice Diannaa, I'd like to improve this entry for Mary Raftery. As the source https://dib.cambridge.org/viewReadPage.do?articleId=a10084 is comprehensive would requesting copyright permission be the best way to go to improve the entry? I've also referred to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dictionary_of_National_Biography#Guidelines for further information. Killim ( talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, can you please undo the deletions you made to my additions from 24 July? I cited the authoritative document that I significantly paraphrased for the topics section at the beginning of that section. "Unified Architecture Framework - Appendix A" (PDF). Object Management Group. November 2017. Retrieved 2019-07-24. This document is in the public domain with the same copyrights as other OMG specifications such as UML and Data Distribution Service which are extremely well known specifications with large user groups and have alot more detail taken from the specifications and put in their wiki pages than I paraphrased from the UAF specification. I also additional information such as relationships to physical and logical architecture, structural and behavioral architecture, so as to make sure it was written in my own words, but still retained the proper alignment to the specification. I spent a few hours making sure I got those sentances well formed and critical analysis would show I did a better job than even the spec writers, as there was duplication of sentences and other awkward and redundant sentence formation in the original work. Since the UAF specification is a technical language, I must use most of the same words as they have a specific technical meaning, changing those key words does not do justice to the topic being covered. I have not utilized text from the https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00412.x document. OMG has also not done a copyright infringement either since the article cited for the deletion of my page additions as the article being infringed in fact references the same specification I did. So both the wiki article text and the copyrighted article are both referencing the same open specification. Also one of the authors of the INCOSE document, Matthew Hause, is an author of the specification, so he has waived all copyright entitlements per OMG copyright rules to anything he wrote in the spec. Lastly, the level of detail I wrote is equivalent to level of detail of alternate frameworks such as Zachman Framework, allowing users to make fair and informed decisions as to the differences between these similar specifications. Thanks!
Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Dianna, definitions are given for the view types and domains on pages 2 through 4. Also, the UML specification https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/PDF and the SysML specification have the same license, and UML has a whole category of pages dedicated to it. The detail of the BPMN wiki page is also very close to the specification, https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/PDF, that also has the same license. See their legal statement on their website. https://www.omg.org/legal/index.htm#copyright. You may want to request OMG permission to use their copyright on every OMG specification wiki page, which I'm sure they'll grant if they haven't already. I haven't seen the issue you raised on any other OMG specification wiki page that I looked into. Object_Management_Group#Ratified_ISO_Standards Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Diana, the point I was trying to make is not that the other pages are in copyright violation, but that the content they wrote and I wrote was not copyright violating plagarism Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing but is either the WP:LIMITED exception or in fact Written in my own words. Thus, the first point you made is not relevant about the copyright being enforceable and second point about not having a correct reference nearby also not relevant because the concepts are in the specification referenced as technical terms and non-plagarized descriptions using other technical terms, not the copyrighted work cited for the deletion. Can we at the very least remove the copyvio and treat this as addressing close paraphrasing to continue this conversation and address where we may better present this high level overview of the technology in an acceptably non-copyright infringing way? Also this lets others contribute to the close paraphrasing analysis? I want to do what is right, and I know you do too, so let's work together to get the right amount of information into wikipedia on this moderately important business government and engineering standard. If you search "Unified Architecture Framework" it's already referenced in the NATO AF page, so once this gets out of draft I already have another published wikipage to link to it. Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 17:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Metadata: Captures meta-data relevant to the entire architecture. Provides information pertinent to the entire architecture. Present supporting information rather than architectural models.
Strategic: Capability management process. Describes the capability taxonomy, composition, dependencies, and evolution.
Operational: Illustrates the Logical Architecture of the enterprise. Describes the requirements, operational behavior, structure, and exchanges required to support (exhibit) capabilities. Defines all operational elements in an implementation/solution independent manner.
Metadata: Captures meta-data relevant to the entire architecture. Present supporting information about the architectural model rather than the architecture of the enterprise.
Strategic: Enterprise management process. Describes the capabilities of an enterprise such as taxonomy, composition, dependencies and evolution.
Operational: Illustrates the logical architecture of the enterprise. Describes the operational behavior, logical structure, and information exchanges required to exhibit capabilities. Defines all operational elements in an implementation/solution independent manner.
Diannaa, thank you for analyzing this at a constructive level. And I agree that I used a lot of the existing terms from the description, but as you read further into the specification, you will agree most of the bolded terms are technical terms and covered under WP:LIMITED. These technical terms are part of the domain metamodel which is the bulk of that document and they are as follows (from the first 3 entries you cited): metadata, information, capability, taxonomy, composition, dependencies, evolution, logical architecture, enterprise, exchange, exhibit. Requirement, architecture model, architecture, behavior are technical terms referenced from other specifications, namely UML, SysML and ISO42010. Once you unbold these terms and the other technical terms present in the remaining descriptions the paraphrasing is well within addressing close paraphrasing guidelines. The Unified Architecture Framework is a formal language built on other formal languages, so not using these technical terms in their appropriate context is not a fair representation of the standard.
Found this interesting article while researching this https://www.blog.raredevs.com/programming-languages-copyrights/ where it's been a debated topic if you can copyright formal languages, but the jury is leaning towards the language itself can not be copyrighted. How do I send you my e-mail address non-publicly so I can continue to work the descriptions of the View Types and Domains offline to a point where they are concise, correct and not perceived as copyvio? Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Diannaa. The "premise" on Sugar Mountain seems to be copied from IMDb. Can you give it a look? Regards.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 00:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, this article was nominated for DYK, and the DYK reviewer tagged it for overly close paraphrasing based on this Earwig report. I'm wondering, though, whether it's more serious than that, and was hoping you could take a look, since the author says they're busy and will get back to it later, which doesn't seem to be very soon. If it is serious, then sooner is probably better than later. Thanks for taking a look when you can. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. I notice that on Ninthwave Records, an account connected with the subject introduced copyvio content here, which is copied from the subject's own web site here. I assume a revdel is in order here, and would appreciate your assistance in doing so. I'll be putting the article up for AfD shortly. Thank you. -- Finngall talk 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa,
I realize that Wikipedia has copyright concerns, and I don't intend to break the policy. However, I didn't copy the text from an external source. I copied it from the Wikipedia entry for the U of Saskatchewan GSA.
Hello D. I hope you are well. I bumped into this article tonight Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to CLOS. It is pretty bare bones. I am curious if there are any copy vio problems since it is basically a repeat of the chapters of the book. If everything is okay then no problem I just hadn't seen anything quite like it before. MarnetteD| Talk 03:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Kingsif:I ran into a situation I'm surprised I haven't run into before.
This draft: Draft:Aura Rivas
showed up in copy patrol, indicating a 66% match to
(As an aside, this is an example of one of my pet peeves, namely that the copypatrol tool, as good as it is, fails to identify if material matches an existing Wikipedia article. Instead it picks up what is probably mirrired content or content taken from Wikipedia, sometimes with but, often without attribution.)
I determined that the match was sufficiently closed and proposed it for G1, and it has been deleted.
The editor involved explained that it is a Spanish Wikipedia page which was copied into draft space "like a translated into English when I had more time".
As is so often the case, the editor may have presumed that because the Wikipedia content has a free license, that it can be used. That's technically correct, but the license requires attribution, and we set forth best practices at: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia
When an editor follows the best practices, it avoids the technical violation of failing to provide proper attribution, as well as making it clear to editors who review copypatrol entries to accpet it.
However, while I've dealt with hundreds of these issues, and typically point out the best practices and either ask them to make the appropriate dummy edit, or do it for them (as you often do). However, every situation I've dealt with in the past includes copying from an English Wikipedia article into another main space Wikipedia article. I've never dealt with a situation where someone is bringing material from another language into drafts based for the intention of translation at a later time. I see that the linked guideline indicates that cross wiki project copies are acceptable, but I think that's in the context of copying into a main space article.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether my usual advice is sufficient. Can I restore the deleted draft and simply add the attribution as required, or does the fact that this is going to reside in draft space for an indeterminate amount of time suggest different handling is appropriate? I have dealt with issues where someone has done a translation but in most of the situations I've been involved in, the translation was done off-line. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Diannaa. Sorry to bother you again, but it seems that the "plot" section in the article Madness in the Method contains COPYVIO [5]. Could you, please, check it out? Regards.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 09:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this article, please? I get this earwig report, but two of the three sources I can't get a carbon date on, while the third, truthseeker], does give me a date in 2017, clearly predating this article. But I am not sure if the Quora answer isn't a mirror of different WP articles. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry that you feel there was no value in the addition of information from one of very few (English-language) published sources available regarding the Uptown drug scandal and the group's false accusations being the only real basis for a case against Tiger JK, one of the most famous Korean rap artists, leading to his conviction, and, further, that you felt this addition to have been tantamount to reducing the article to the status of "tabloid"; nevertheless, given the prominence of this event in the career of this group- and in as much as it served as an impetus for the development of the career of former Uptown member Yoon Mi-rae, again one of the most famous Korean rap artists- its preservation on the talk page for the reference of any party in search of these facts is not unjustified. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.203 ( talk) 16:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the text was not a straight copy and paste - it was edited by me. Please check again. If you think the content needs editing further, then of course I will do so. (It would need to be reinstated for me to do that). — Flicky1984 ( talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Noted, thank you for guidance. ( Ereckkarja ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Although this article [6] is detailed and well backed by a lot of references, I think it still has some unsourced content. ( 103.228.159.108 ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank You Diannaa for the clean up on Sangeetha Sringeri wiki page. However, the edit access level is changed to only established users. The user DeltaQuad has reported it as sock puppetry. However, the effort was only to remove copyright material and clean up the article as directed but the edits were reverted back for no concrete reasons. Would request the edit access level be moved to registered users. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexterBud ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that you have been patrolling for copyright infringements. There has been bit of a revert war with an anon IP at West Coast Main Line (see attempts to engage at talk:West Coast Main Line#Bottlenecks). I wonder if I should be concerned that the material that the anon added is still in the history although others have reverted, does it need to be expunged? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, my apologies for the problem on Polygenic score. None of what I added was copied identically from that paper, but rather my intention was to reword it without losing any of the important phrasing and brevity from the original. I do understand that the problem was in keeping some phrases from the original too intact (largely because there are specific ways these topics are referred to). My understanding was that this is usually acceptable, but I’ve rewritten the paragraph under consideration to be more substantially different from the original. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I've tried to paraphrase the removed section differently. I hope it is better now. OttoJohn ( talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa -- You are correct, this content was repurposed from a federal agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, and is in the public domain. It appears the attribution was fixed here Draft:Mary Anne Carter. I was not intending to plagiarize and appreciate the flag (and fix.) Please let me know if there are any other issues. Thank you! Stacymannpearson ( talk) 18:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you please help me understand which image licence I should be using for a band's promo pic? I have permission to use the image. Thanks! Sampson20 ( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much for all the info! Sampson20 ( talk) 16:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I'm sorry to bother you but, while looking at
Powerage Tour, I saw your ES fix broken table
here and hoped that it might mean that you have some expertise in the field, which I sadly do not. Since you fixed it back then it has gone wrong again, I'm sad to say. If you felt so inclined, could you please have a quick look at
Talk:Powerage Tour for my harrowing, tragic, heartbreaking account of what seems to be wrong and, even worse, how I'm too useless to fix it! If you can't or don't want to have a look then please please don't worry – maybe someone else reading this will, or I guess I can try to track down Wikiproject Table Fixing Or Whatevs – either way no-one will die and it will get fixed sooner or later. Thanks and all good wishes
DBaK (
talk)
00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like you to return the parts that you deleted but were not coppied, and parts that cannot but to be coppied (for example names of legislative acts, names of integrations). Sredina ( talk) 07:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Brettmcfarland ( talk) 02:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Brett McFarland
Good morning and greetings. can you please provide a link where the supposed copyright violation was taken place and can be verified the similarities. I am confused since the head of the article is just a summary of her life. I wrote my self so I don't see how it was supposedly copied from somewhere else. Thanks -- Miguelemejia ( talk) 13:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Dianna (so?) - you deleted content for which I already have a letter of copyright release approval from Wikipedia. What? Why now? Peter Pcapell ( talk) 13:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Sock has returned as Ip on this page, is self explanatory based on the edits. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm new and still learning. Fullrabb ( talk) 00:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb
I think you should read and compare the two versions and judge for yourself. The other version seems to have an agenda to simply damn India, its society, its family culture, and above all, its religion. It is a page of apologetics for a bandit who murdered many people and looted many others. Poverty is pervasive in India and we all live in the same "dirty" country; how many of us become bandits? It surely cannot be right to blame all and sundry for crimes committed by one very damaged personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.20.116 ( talk) 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for your guidance on the copyright rules for Wikipedia. As a new editor to Wikipedia, this is helpful info. Cheers! FJ329 ( talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the information about the copyright rules for Wikipedia. The information I had added was from the official government release about the bill giving an overview of the provisions. I believe that does not infringe on copyright. Please correct me if I am wrong, I would like to know. Otherwise, would you revert the change you made removing the information? Is there a way to put it in as a quote citing the government site? If not, please let me know and I'll paraphrase it in my own words. IrreverentSquid ( talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC) IrreverentSquid 13:21, 19 August 2019 (PST)
Hi Diannnaa!
Writing your name like this feels like I am screaming at you :) In any case, thank you for the information about the copyright rules. It is a very complex article and I needed a lot of time and help to understand and strive to communicate in a short content. I have read the notes you send me a few times and took notice. I will improve as I go I guess. Again! Appreciated! Any future feedback is welcome!
Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbubblegum ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa
I did not steal the subject, but I benefited from the way to raise the subject, and the rest of the details are different.
I was hoping that you would modify his words instead of deleting a lot of them.
I think the Wikipedia project is a collaborative project, not a project to destroy efforts.
Thanks anyway
ميناء ( talk) 14:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa,
You removed some sections from a new text I wrote for the article Netherland-America Foundation, aka NAF, due to copy right issues.
Some parts of the text may indeed have been copied from the NAF website, which happens to be our own website.
I have asked the Executive Director of the NAF to formally release/license our web content to Wikipedia following your standard procedure/request format.
Because I no longer have access to my updates, including the ones you seem to have accepted, it is very difficult for me to determine exactly which copyrighted texts we need to release.
It would help if you could reinstate the edits that do not involve copyright issues.
President Boston Chapter of the NAF
Dutch-Bostonian ( talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think you made a fairly critical mistake. You deleted about 20 of my edits on schizoid personality disorder, collaterally taking out numerous ones that had nothing to do with copyright or followed the copyright rules. Please either restore them or send me them privately if you did actually somehow delete all of them on purpose. SUM1 ( talk) 04:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
who}}
. For these reasons, I prefer my version. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
12:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa - would you be willing to give an opinion on a couple of images that I'd like to use in an article on a non-free basis? If this isn't your area, please feel free to ignore the following.
The article is Margaret Macpherson Grant, which currently has a lot of text but no images. I'd like to be able to show a picture of her, and one of Aberlour House, her main residence, which is discussed at some length in the article. I have been able to find no free images of either, after quite a lot of searching both on Commons and on sites like geograph.co.uk. The images I'd like to include:
From my own reading of the criteria at WP:NFCP, I think I have a fair rationale to use these images - there are no alternatives, I don't think I'm affecting the owners' commercial opportunities, I'm only using one image of her and one of the house, they've both been published online, they will be used encyclopedically and our image policy, and they will be used in a mainspace article where there is contextual significance. However, I didn't want to go ahead and upload/insert them without getting an expert opinion on whether this is permissable or not. Any advice you can offer would, as always, be gratefully received. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 08:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Re this change to PhiloSOPHIA: I'm not going to edit-war with you over inclusion of the quote, but I think there actually is a "reason why original prose could not be prepared": because it is difficult or impossible to use plain English to convey the meaning of the literary jargon employed in the quote without both butchering the subtleties of the intended meaning and eliminating the subtext that submissions should be written in the same jargony style. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Early in my Wikipedia career, I took a photo of an historical marker, which I uploaded. It was deleted. I learned that while I had the right to take a photo of the sign, and I owned the copyright to that photo, the words on the marker were subject to copyright, and my copyright covered the image, but not the words. To use the photo, I needed the copyright holder of the words to license them (unless they were already in public domain, which they were not.)
I recently deleted a photo of an historical marker in Texas on the same basis, as I had seem nothing to tell me that the text of historical markers in Texas was considered to be in the public domain.
The editor @ Wiki name: contacted someone at the Texas Historical Commission (THC) who indicated that it was OK. However:
I did not accept the permission for these reasons. The editor declined to try to address these issues.
I decided to try myself. I tracked down the person at THC who seemed most likely to be the person who could clarify the issue. She responded:
Hi Stephen – I am the communications director for the Texas Historical Commission. We have no problems with folks sharing photos of our marker. I am not aware of any copyright or other limitation, unless someone was using the material to create the appearance of our endorsement of a person, product or service. In terms of our photos being on wikipedia, the practice is quite common – I am sure there are many photos of our markers on the website and we have no issue with this.
Please let me know if you have any questions – thanks!
This response addressed two of my issues – it was someone clearly identified on the staff list, and the communication used is the official email. However, the wording itself is rather informal. On the other hand, the intent is clear, so I wanted to get your opinion on whether this is acceptable. S Philbrick (Talk) 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dianaa, I notices and reverted some copyvio on the above page, and also noticed that you had done the same thing a little while ago. I thought I would pass this repeat copvio to you as you have the correct skills for the job. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Diannaa,
Thank you for taking care of the copyvio at Gregory S. Brown. I used the {{ copypaste}} tag in Twinkle; is that the most appropriate/expedient way to identify them? I see there is a noticeboard at WP:CP but the Twinkle tool didn't post there automatically, and I didn't want to raise multiple notifications if the copypaste tag is enough. Thank you for your help! CThomas3 ( talk) 14:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
Copyvio-revdel}}
; or alternatively if you find the template awkward or confusing, just ask me to do it. More complicated cases should be listed at
WP:CP.Using the Copypaste template places the article in
Category:All copied and pasted articles and sections which currently has nearly 500 items in it, which sounds dreadful but I've seen it as high as 800 so I guess we are doing ok. But following the above instructions is a better bet because it will for sure get a prompt result. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
14:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
stop bothering me. Rvls ( talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, I see that you are listed as an administrator willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Please check this single contribution by Devil_chan2456_angel, dated August 10, 2019. It appears to be a 'grossly improper entry' that should be redacted. Regards Woodlot ( talk) 20:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, I was the editor involved with the copyvio in MV Doulos Phos when the owner of the material didn't complete the release needed for the ORTS ticket. You mentioned at Talk:MV Doulos Phos that the re-write was unusable as there was still a huge overlap with the source material. Can you tell me what was your primary concern with that re-write? That there was still close paraphrasing or that the citations didn't credit nnapprentice.com as the source of that material?
After this experience, I'll certainly not use anything that requires explicit permission from an owner again. Either the request doesn't reach the person with the legal authority to release the material, or if they do they do have the authority they don't fulfill the ORTS requirements. A lot of work goes into expanding an article only to later find that it cannot legally be used. Blue Riband► 02:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dianna,
I request you to undo your removal of all my previous work, except for the pulse sequence. The pulse sequences section was liberal with how it was repeated verbaitm, but the rest is my work. I believe you were especially brash to remove the table and the non-proton MRS section. I will work on rewriting the pulse sequence section once these changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty ( talk • contribs)
Hi Dianna, if you restore it - I can make sure everything is properly cited by midnight this Sunday. Can you please do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Or can I at least have my previous edits sent to me so I can update them with sources accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
... for explaining about Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Paolo.dL ( talk) 17:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Diannaa. I was checking out your user page and noticed your JSTOR usebox, per the The Wikipedia Library. I'm a registered member of JSTOR, with a free-bee account, allowing me to read (only) six journal/articles a month, with no download privileges. Am curious about how one goes about accessing JSTOR via the WP Library. I tried, but can't seem to find the door to JSTOR, and have only come across a few references to it. I suspect it may be right under my nose, but in any event, I can't find it. I'll try not to unload a bunch of questions on you, but I do have a couple: Can one search for a given subject via WP access? and Can one download PDF journals via WP, or are they only viewable on line? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Best, -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you have a quick look at the plot section of
All About Eve? To me it just feels like some sort of copy/paste (and I couldn't find the close paraphrasing tool is there a better tool than
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ ?). If I had to guess, I'd probably go with some sort of "word for word" out of some book. I don't mind doing a rewrite on it, but want to make sure I'm not just hacking around some other wiki-editors work first. Maybe my 'Spidy senses' are failing - just wanted a quick 2nd look.
— Ched (
talk)
14:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
talk:Ched|talk]]) 14:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your notes! I am a marketing representative for Buellton Visitors Bureau and the content I added is directly from their public website/trip planning landing page. ( https://www.discoverbuellton.com/trip-planner.html) This same copy is also part of the bureau's press package, making it available to the general public for reuse.
Is there a better way to go through this process so that I can utilize the copy already developed by the bureau without having to reword/recreate it all? Thank in advance for your guidance. Mogdeci ( talk) 14:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I fear my timing was indeed bad, but we're already working on preparations for Tokyo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I noticed that you deleted revisions of that page. That action led to the page becoming a disambiguation instead.
Hi, Diannaa, trust this meets you well? The addition of the copyrighted material was done in good faith as the said material is in public space. Most importantly, it puts into perspective the issues relating to the proposed bill passage and its aftermath. With your kind permission, i will restructure the sentences using my own words. I will await your reply before I go on ahead to edit the page. Thanks a lot, Dianaa. 2dmaxo ( talk)
Hi Diannaa, it's me again. Thanks for the response. Will get on it asap. Regards!
Hi Diannaa! sorry I was only working on the source I didn't even catch that ~ Thanks ~ by the way nice to see you again. ~mitch~ ( talk) 20:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry again~ I just remembered, all I did was work in the info box ~ with the name of the president ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 20:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the feedback. (I wasn't aware that these drafts were visible unless directly referenced). The feedback is very helpful. I understand the concern. You'll have to excuse my fumbling around on Wikipedia, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly what you changed in the article. How do I see that? Roger Wood ( talk) 18:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Your deletion of the entire revision history of Draft:Charles Denis Mee makes it impossible for the article's editors to see what has been deleted so that it could be revised into an non-infringing version. Also, you are certainly entitled to you opinion as to what is a copyright infringement but it is possible that there maybe other different opinions and they may be more appropriate than yours. So can you restore the last version so we can see what you did? After a reasonable period for us to respond then it would be reasonable to delete the history but your preemptory action seems overly drastic. Tom94022 ( talk) 18:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I think I understand the problem. I have been pasting sections of others' text into the articles and sometimes 'publishing' before properly paraphrasing them. I understand why you have hidden some of the history. I didn't realize these draft articles were subject to scrutiny before they were submitted for approval. I'll be more careful in future. I should probably learn how to use my 'Sandbox'.
I assume the two articles as they currently stand are ok and it's just their history that's the problem?
Appreciate your help
Roger Wood (
talk)
20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Dual-Boot Barnstar | |
In recognition of the fact that you actually deserve more than one Barnstar for your recent work,
Ched in his typically lazy manner drops off your "Dual-Boot" Barnstar for:
|
I don't see barnstars around that much anymore - but I didn't know a better way acknowledge all your hard work on the project. From me to you, Thank you Diannaa — Ched ( talk) 00:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you please send me the things you removed from the Diana jewels page so I can edit it up? Thank you for all your work on the page Uncoveringcelebrityhistory ( talk) 02:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.artefacts.co.za/main/Buildings/bldgframes.php?bldgid=11620. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Diannaa. The source text in artefacts.co.za that you refer to was authored by me. The words are the exact text (in Afrikaans) of the inscription on a monument which needs to be recorded word for word otherwise it is not accurate.
Is the issue that I referenced the artefacts.co.za wording? Or is it against copyright rules to copy words from a monument? If so that is rather silly as the words provide further important information to the subject of this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
red admiral | |
---|---|
... with thanks from QAI |
see my talk page - his smile is still there, and his words quoted help me whenever I need perspective, and there are the rules in the background (a click away), - going to be the one thing in 2019 I won't change while DYK changes daily, music almost daily and picture monthly, - here's August. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. You assesed the non-free use of this file back in July 2013, and at that time the logo was probably be used in the main infobox for primary identification purposes. However, the league seems to have changed its branding sometime around 2015 and this file was replaced by File:NBL (Australia) logo.svg. Whomever replaced the older file probably just moved it to body of the article without even considering its "new" non-free use. Generally, non-free former logos require a stronger justification for their non-free use per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 so that the context required for non-free use by WP:NFCC#8 and on not seeing sourced critical commentary about the change in branding to justify keeping the former logo. I was going to PROD this for deletion, but decide to ask you about it since you did review the file before the branding change. If PROD is not appropriate, then I could FFD it instead. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, David Kohn Architects seems to be an undisclosed cut and paste from David Kohn (architect), including identical references, which is both pointless and a copyright violation. Please could you have a look at the articles? TSventon ( talk) 09:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dianna,
I apologize for my mistakes. I did tried using my own words editing this article the second time, but I understand some copyrighted material may have been included. I will try to better avoid copyright violations and as always, make sure to reference all the content. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEJCC ( talk • contribs) August 31 02:18 UTC
Hi. I got a zero result when I ran my earwig report on those articles. Even though on my Curation tool, it indicated there might be a copyvio issue. How did you catch it? Onel5969 TT me 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear user,
Your edit to Journal of Modern Dynamics that removed the link is a little unsuitable as you remove all the links to Professors homepage and we just recover it. The conflict part has already removed.
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathowenw ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Mathowenw
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Diannaa, you suppressed (revdel) my contribution, supposedly for a content violation (referencing https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-that-busted-unions.html). However, you obviously didn't check my contribution against this article, since various portions had citations from totally different sources. Even if somehow there had been copyrighted material, it still doesn't justify an entire suppression. Again, it looks as though you didn't actually check. This is all the more suspicious since no proof was given by you and I can't verify for myself. I would appreciate at least having access to the history to retrieve my work. Torvalu4 ( talk) 15:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, edits in Economy of Albania and Education in Albania by the same new editor have been clear copyright violations. So the recent edit in Taxation in Albania is very likely a copyright violation of its source too. However, I am not able to access the paywalled recent source to verify this. Could you double-check the article please and revdel the 2 recent edits if necessary? Thank you as always for your help with such issues. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much here. I am just gobsmacked. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 22:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa,
I was wondering what, in your opinion, is the best way to include and cite novel (or even film) synopses? This has been the main issue I've faced so far when created novel pages, and as I plan on ultimately trying my hand a film pages as well I know I will face a similar problem.
And thank you for the warm welcome to the community, even if it was followed by a necessary scolding, haha.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDROMITUS ( talk • contribs)
Good to know. Thank you! ANDROMITUS ( talk) 18:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa. Could you please check the section on my sandbox? It is from the IMDb. No one can c/e that. Is that a problem? Also, should I cite the same source for every single actor/actress? There should be an easy way to do that. Puduḫepa 19:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I see that you have a lot to do with copyright issues, but I have a different problem for you...if you are willing to look into it. I think it's an Original Research issue, so if you know of another editor with expertise in that field, I'd be happy if you were to forward it on. You recently reverted a copyright issue with Ellesmithfagan, so that's how your name came up.
She added a paragraph entitled "Insight" to the article about Joyce Kilmer. I would have just deleted it myself, but multiple edits have taken place since then, so others have seen it and left it in, but I was concerned about it. It was added in on 2019 March 3 at 11:01.
Thanks! WesT ( talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The photo belonged to Henry Anderson, who's deceased. I (his son) uploaded a scan of it. What sort of permission is needed? Rare4 ( talk) 08:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa - I hope you're keeping well. I'd appreciate some advice on the above. I picked it up as a Good Article Review but running it through Earwig's Detector has shown up a possible issue, [1]. You'll see there are large overlaps with Facebook, SlideShare and TripAdvisor. I seems to me more likely that those sites have picked up the content from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Is there any way to confirm this? And would it leave any copyvio issues it they had? Thanks in advance. KJP1 ( talk) 10:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, thank you for analyzing this at a constructive level...
How do I send you my e-mail address non-publicly so I can continue to work the descriptions of the View Types and Domains offline to a point where they are concise, correct and not perceived as copyvio? Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Dianna, Sorry to bring this back up. I haven't updated that e-mail address since 2008 and no longer have access to that one. I just updated my e-mail to a current one, can you resend? Thanks Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 01:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
![]()
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thanks Diannaa for the feedback and links. Very much appreciated :) Now I know what to do. First time on Wikipedia. AMENF ( talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi - sorry to bother you again, I came across Ed Edmondson United States Courthouse and noticed that the text looked suspicious, so checked with Earwig which says it's mostly a direct copy/paste from here. Is that public realm content though because it's a Government website? And does the article need to be tagged it in some way to indicate that? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, here in good faith so don't take this wrong way if I sound rude. When changing - to – or something similar (like in
this edit) please be careful because one of the templates (specifically
Template:Television ratings graph) on the page broke as it only accepts - but it got changed to – when you did the rest, thanks
TheDoctorWho
(talk)
03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diana, I take the point that my addition to Creative Destruction Lab had to be removed because there was too much copyrighted text. The problem is that your deletion included content that I think didn't violate copyright rules, and I don't seem to have the ability to undue your edit so that I can correct the text that is problematic. Can you advise on how I can efficiently correct the text you removed (as opposed to starting over again)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmathewm ( talk • contribs)
Could I ask a question concerning the copyright position on the song " Shave 'Em Dry". It was published in the United States in September 1924. As far as I can tell, and I have more work to do on this aspect, the song was composed by Ma Rainey and Papa Charlie Jackson. Rainey died in December 1939 and Jackson in May 1938. In the Wiki article about the song, which I recently wrote, I have quoted some of the song lyrics from various recordings over a 11 year period, primarily to illustrate the changes to the lyrics over that time. Does that violate any copyright as such ? I do not want to get into trouble !
I hope you are well. Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 15:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK Dianna. Listen here. I was not copying from iMDB.com. I used them as a reference when I went to edit the article again. What's your deal? The King Gemini ( talk) 00:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
User:92.29.151.145. Geolocation looks right. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Would you please take a look at Game of Thrones: Season 8 (soundtrack). I feel the section titled "Background" might contain material directly copied from the source, but since I wasn't sure I thought it would be better to ask someone more experienced to check it. Thank you. Keivan.f Talk 07:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Diannaa, Thank you kindly for your detailed explanation regarding my luther burbank edit. Forgive my posting here, ss I am new here snd wasnt quite sure how to respond to your post, this appeared to be a potentially appropriate place. While I can understand removing part or all of his quotations (if you are willing, maybe inform me as to how much, if any of that quote I am allowed to post), I am a bit confused as to why the rest of my post was removed? If you could please enlighten me, I would be most gratefully appreciative. Thank you most kindly. This is the very best user name of them all ( talk) 03:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a likely copyright violation for content added to Economic and monetary union on May 4, 2019. Regards. Woodlot ( talk) 12:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You removed 12 editions of this article as copyvio. The first good version (which you edited) contains the phrase
The laboratory materials and neuro-physiological nature and behavior of Prime Rglaim
Could you examine the deleted revisions to see if there is any indication of what "Prime Rglaim" may be? 2A00:23C3:C980:5100:D467:5266:A34C:4089 ( talk) 13:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Since I can recall that I have mistakenly made an article Malla Raji Reddy long ago which was deleted after serious discussion on copyright issues. After that I have made no wilful violation of copyright policy of Wikipedia. Considering my contributions in articles of English Wikipedia it is my earnest request to you to reconsider about the Autopatroller right, if possible. Thanking you. Pinakpani ( talk) 06:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Just added the "copied" templates to the talk pages of /info/en/?search=Talk:Hardware_random_number_generator and /info/en/?search=Draft:Comparison_of_hardware_random_number_generators , since a small part has been copied from it. Thank you very much for your suggestion, wish you a nice day and a great time on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecpus ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Wish you a nice day ;)
Lovecpus (
talk)
05:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Diannaa - at what point does it become WP:OVERKILL? Atsme Talk 📧 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, I was traveling off the grid and used my phone as a hot spot to attempt a trivial housekeeping edit at WP, unlogged. I was stopped by an overly broad block. If you look at this editing log for individuals impacted by that block, you will see edits of the Radha Stirling page on 3 July, and of the Paul Dolan (academic) page on 4 July—editing work inconsistent with (and so arguably are not associated with) the 4 July vandalism that led you to block this set of mobile users. (I did the Stirling editing, and some other bona fide WP editor did the Dolan editing.) Is there any way for you to refine that block—and future mobile blocks more generally—so you do not punish innocent editors along with vulgar, offensive, vandalising, guilty ones? With regard, I am... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:21B2:AA59:DE9D:B526 ( talk) 05:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
these 5 IPs are all him. None of them are in the 42 but they're all in the 41:
Sorted 5 IPv6 addresses:
Total affected |
Affected addresses |
Given addresses |
Range | Contribs |
---|---|---|---|---|
8M /64 | 8M /64 | 5 | 2600:1008:b100::/41 | contribs |
512K /64 | 1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b100:c62b::/64 | contribs |
512K /64 | 2 | 2600:1008:b120::/45 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b156:a9d1::/64 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b164:4339::/64 | contribs | |
5 /64 | 1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b100:c62b::/64 | contribs |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b123:2f14::/64 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b127:f5b0::/64 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b156:a9d1::/64 | contribs | |
1 /64 | 1 | 2600:1008:b164:4339::/64 | contribs |
— Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 16:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
See Simonavicius, Erikas; McNeill, Ann; Shahab, Lion; Brose, Leonie S (2018). "Heat-not-burn tobacco products: a systematic literature review". Tobacco Control: tobaccocontrol–2018–054419.
doi:
10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054419.
ISSN
0964-4563.
PMID
30181382.
This article incorporates
text by Erikas Simonavicius, Ann McNeill1, Lion Shahab, and Leonie S Brose available under the
CC BY 4.0 license.
See here and here. CC BY 4.0 is a compatible license. Please review. QuackGuru ( talk) 11:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
—
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
23:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Recently my work on Therapy Dogs was deleted from my sandbox, and the wiki article. I thought Shalor had deleted it but now it says you. I realize I made some mistakes and believe I have now corrected them. Could you please review the material I have in my sandbox and let me know if it is appropriate for publication? Thank you. Lostinthemix18 ( talk) 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Lostinthemix18
Hello Diannaa, I added this sentence: Also in 2012, the BBC broadcast God's Own Architect, an arts documentary program on his achievements hosted by Richard Taylor.[48] I made the text myself and referred to the program website on the BBC for referral. Is the last part a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.67.119 ( talk) 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Although the material you removed for copyvio was taken from the site you cited, it was not copied, but edited (in particular to remove peacock terms, while keeping factual information) and cited to source. I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look just keeping in mind whether sufficient paraphrase exists to avoid copyvio. Interesting that the State of Washington chooses to copyright some (at least) of its web pages. I would estimate that the state's assertion of copyright to about 75% of the material on this page is invalid, but that's not an issue for Wikipedia. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Someone posted at WP:THQ#Requesting improvements for a few articles about a possible copvio. Do you think you could take a look at things and see if anything needs to be done? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. This edition removed a lot of copyvio from João Gilberto's article. Could you please check it out. Thanks in advance.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 05:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dianna, I am super new to editing wikipedia pages and I was unable to review the content to follow your point. How do I recover the text that you deleted.
Kindly tell me what to do next.
/info/en/?search=Madapati_Hanumantha_Rao
regards
can I go in and put a link back to that page. A reference i.e. Perhaps I can be careful to avoid copying text verbatim. (I don't recall what I did last time). But can I put in a link to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotamiputta ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diana, thank you for your correction of my copyright infringement on the materials I added to the Konstantinos V. Petrides. I would like to ask you if i can still use the source from which i retrieved the information if i paraphrase and cite the work as the original source. Thank you! OscarKoryagin ( talk) 14:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the copyright violations in my new page. However I copied it from another Wikipedia page. Odisha Sahitya Academy Award May be that page needs a rewrite too. Spbal ( talk) 16:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dianna,
My name is Dianne Folkerth, and I'm the environmental education coordinator at Wild Basin. I corrected a bunch of information as well as added some updated links to our Wikipedia page. You seem to have removed all the edits. Would you explain which parts violated Wikipedia copyright rules? I read through the section you pasted and I can't figure out what the error was.
None of what I wrote is protected by copyright. I updated the links to our current website and Facebook page. My text edits were to update the page to correct information that is important that we get right for visitors: the name of the place, our correct city, open hours, what is allowed or prohibited when visiting, and the co-management of the preserve and facilities with Travis County, Texas, and St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas.
I hope this message gets to you. I've literally no idea what to do here to get our correct information listed at Wikipedia. I apologize that I also don't know how to link directly to either our Wikipedia page or the edited versions.
Thanks,
Dianne Folkerth 216.16.202.242 ( talk) 18:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
This revision to this revision contain those song lyrics and probably need revdelling. Thanks (Edit: more on his talk page). Adam9007 ( talk) 02:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind you reverting my last edit. I added it because the ref says he carried out the commissar order directly. The notes below in the trial section discuss the matter in the context of denials and rebuffs etc. which make it look like he might not have. I don't really want to repeat info either. What do you suggest? Szzuk ( talk) 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa! Hope you're doing well :) Would you mind looking at
Ambala_district. A user asked me to revdel it, and the text looked a bit like reverse copyvio and linked as the source to FB, which I think likely means it comes from us at some point. I have to go offline in a few, so I'm passing it off to you if you don't mind. Thanks for all the great work you still do
TonyBallioni (
talk)
03:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Diannaa,
Yesterday I tagged one of Hayden Nelson's articles, Stewart M. Brandborg, for CSD G12. I visited his talk page to see if he had left any comments, and I saw there that you had previously revdel'd a different copyvio by this user, and other copyvio notices were there as well. I decided to check through the rest of their contributions and it appears that this is a regular thing. I noticed that this rev of Yellowstone National Park was reverted but needs a revdel, and this rev of Speculator Mine disaster, which I just reverted, needs a revdel as well. A few other contributions have already been revdel'd.
Aside from the copyvios, it seems that this user's only other editing activity is to add University of Montana archive pages to external links sections of relevant articles (for which they have declared they are being paid). I haven't touched any of these links as I have not yet investigated whether any of them violate WP:ELNO, but it is probably a worthwhile exercise. Just giving you a heads-up there. Thank you! CThomas3 ( talk) 16:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
I'm an employee at the University of Montana's Archives and Special Collections. We are trying to make wiki pages of people, organizations, or groups whose collections we hold in order to, hopefully, increase the amount of visitors to our archives. I have been using our finding aids on Archives West as a template for my additions, a few of which have been flagged for copyright or deleted. But, Archives West is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, and it was my understanding that I could use these already prepared finding aids as my template for the wiki page while doing minimal rewrites and adding citations. Is this correct or, if not, could you help me understand this so that more of my posts won't be deleted? Thank you. ( User talk: Hayden Nelson) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
PD-notice}}
along with your citation. However, the person who removed it states that even if it's in the public domain, it's not suitable for inclusion in that particular article, which has been vetted as a
Featured Article (representing some of Wikipedia's best work). The person who removed it commented "even if it was quoted, in a Featured Level article like this, we avoid even close paraphrasing".user:2600:1008:B15E:B83A:518D:5CAC:78F6:7C08 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent ( talk) 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:TAURO1919 User:TAURO1919 12:36 July 2019 (UTC) I have seen that you have deleted some of the editions about birds because of a supposed spam, I ask you to review the articles before deleting them and to verify that the information is relevant and true. Do not return to eliminate anything without your correct verification. Greetings.
Hi, this draft I had started working on was deleted. No complaints from me, I hadn't realised that drafts couldn't contain copyrighted work, and I won't do that again. However, is it possible to get the deleted text sent to me so I can work on it offline? (Not sure notability criteria are met yet either to be honest, I hadn't got that far with it.) Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 21:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I've got a question about an image that I would like to use in an article I'm writing. The image is the example of a tartan design found at this website - it's a government register of tartan designs. The copyright statement - found here - says "The image is subject to Crown copyright. You may re-use the Crown copyright protected image free of charge in any format for fair dealing purposes. The image must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the source as the Scottish Register of Tartans. If you wish to re-use images for purposes other than fair dealing you should contact Online Resources at National Records of Scotland, email: onlineresources@nrscotland.gov.uk"
Long and short - can I use this? Thanks for any guidance you can offer, and please feel free to point me at an explanatory page rather than reply personally if this is already covered somewhere. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Because I have basically only edited 3 articles (one of which was split—with the split-off containing most of my additions) over the last 4 years, I forgot about the capabilities of my Sandbox. I'm assuming nobody else except an administrator can edit it; please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
I was only using a section of the Talk page of that article to create and test out diffs. I originally thought I needed to use {{
URL to diff}}
to do that, but now realize I can simply copy a {{diff}}
and paste the new parameters into the copy. I can do that in a TextEdit document on my Mac, which I back up once a day.
I want to save separate {{diffs}}
of what I put into the ANI because I'm a bit paranoid about the particular other editor, especially since he confirmed my guess about his sub-culture with
this rather strange "acceptance of apology" and its follow-up. I firmly believe what he is doing is
C-DV, whether or not it qualifies as
WOV. Members of his sub-culture have a reputation for behaving in a less-than-G-dly manner toward people who are not members of that (religious) sub-culture, especially in landlord-tenant relationships with African-Americans. IMHO that's why there are increasing instances of violence in Brooklyn towards members of the sub-culture, although
The New York Times refuses to name the sub-culture in stories about the violence because of an over-a-century-long ambivalence about the membership of its owning family in the larger religious culture of which the sub-culture is a part. (I mention this ambivalence only because you are apparently Canadian; it's accepted knowledge among us regular New York Times readers who are members of that larger religious culture.) Now that I have admitted in
that same sub-section that I am not a member of the sub-culture, I want to protect my many {{diffs}}
against what the particular other editor might do to them in the ANI.
DovidBenAvraham (
talk)
16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, Hope all's well,
Just wondering does
this sound like it was pasted from somewhere?,
Thought I'd ask you as you're the only person I know who's extremely knowledgeable with this sort of stuff :),
Many thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the possible copyright problem on Richard Hoffmann (composer, 1925)!
The text is not from the website you cite, rather both my edit and that website take the information from a printed source, the CRI LP sleeve note which I cited. If the text is exactly the same, I was too literal in copying. I will take another look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmarbach ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
But where is the information you deleted? I can't get to it through the version list. And how come you also deleted stuff sourced from other sources than the one your bot pointed out? My refs 2 and 3 contained other information which has also been deleted, so there are now references which are redundant. I have lost a lot of work and it's now chaos... Please point me to the lost information so I can rewrite it. Mrmarbach ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, hope all is well. I was thinking of filing an RFPP and noticed you had protected this page years ago. What do you think? Did semi- help back then? – Leviv ich 15:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You removed some copyrighted text I had added to an article because my misunderstanding of the ins and outs of quoting sources. I’ve taught myself quite a bit about the rules and regulations regarding quotations since then, and I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up after me. I additionally learned about the Wikipedia Library Card program through a userbox on your personal page, and I have since been approved to access JSTOR as well. I had to let you know that your efforts are much appreciated! I hope this message reaches you in good heath and spirits.
(If you happen to be interested in the page in question, check out the comment you left on my talk page!) Neighborhood Nationalist ( talk) 04:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Would you mind checking this article for copyvios when you have a little time to spare? It was recently expanded quite a bit by an SPA (who might have a COI) and lots of the content and it's corresponding syntax has the feel of being copied-and-pasted from somewhere else. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can you take a look at this article. Earwig gives this result, and the carbon dating link you gave me says that the source page was created on 5/10/2019, so I think it's a mirror of WP. Thoughts? Also, I just reviewed 8 of this editor's new articles, and this was the only one with a whiff of copyvio issues. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
Backwards copy}}
to the article talk page. Check it out :) —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
15:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa,
A few of my pages have been deleted for copyright and I am wondering why. Since your last response in which you showed me how to appropriately use materials from Archives West, I have copied and pasted that method to every page I have created to appropriately cite it. I'm wondering why these pages were deleted when I did everything that you suggested? Thank you. Hayden Nelson ( talk) 19:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa. Is this wikitool good at detecting close paraphrasing or does it only work for data dump? Puduḫepa 10:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dianna.
I do apologize, but the text was merely a reversion of the text that was deleted by the Indian wikipedian on 8Oct2018. Which I disagree was fully non enciclopedian, so I revereted the text, and did a little bit of improvement, deletion and edition myself.
I still would like to include some information more or less along the lines you deleted. Would appreciate your input on that regard.
Sincerely, -- Uruk ( talk) 23:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Saw a list of articles triggering copyright vios from https://www.girlsnotbrides.org. A few pages already speedy deleted but many to look over...see pages/en.wikipedia.org/BrugesFR.. Plus many additions to articles I will start reviewing.-- Moxy 🍁 06:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I can't make head's nor tails of this and I'm hoping you or one of your stalkers might be able to! Merkava and this website show up as a significant copyvio but I can't make sense of whether it is a true copyvio or a backwards one. I think I'm probably just being a bit dim, but any thoughts? Cheers, Jack Frost ( talk) 10:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Another one. I get this earwig report, but the carbon dating tool couldn't give me a date of creation. The article's been around for quite some time, so I'm thinking it's a mirror. Onel5969 TT me 15:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Could you take a look at Draft:WinterWonderGrass_Music_&_Brew_Festival? I tagged it for copyvio-revdel but a user keeps adding copyrighted content. I think they are meat or sockpuppet of the page creator. Masum Reza 📞 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, when you have the time, could you look at this? I removed some apparent copyright violation content, and think there may be more. The usual rev/deletion, if necessary. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 01:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I was reviewing Benawa, and it all looked good until I noticed that the image, which looks professionally drawn, is an 'own work' from a user who you have warned a couple of times recently for COPYVIO. Their problematic edits have been revdelled so I can't see if this follows the same pattern - thought you might want to take a quick look. GirthSummit (blether) 12:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
for attempting to clear up the mess made by the activities of User:Renzo_espiritu - it's much appreciated! -- BushelCandle ( talk) 13:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand your reverting the Operation Finale movie. It was about the capture of Eichmann by the Mossad. Should the movie be mentioned at all in the Eichmann article? See also or maybe external links? Eschoryii ( talk) 08:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC) If you want me to discuss this on the talk page; check out the past discussion. It is an embarrassment. Eschoryii ( talk) 08:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Diannaa. Could you please take a look at the article Deep Murder? This part ("Deep Murder is a genre-bending horror comedy that takes place inside the world of a softcore porn shoot. It begins like any other porno, with a group of horny archetypes holed up in a poorly decorated house. But when they begin to be brutally murdered one by one, they're forced to evolve from clichés into real people in order to catch the killer in their midst and survive the night.") is present in several places around the internet. A COPYVIO maybe? Regards.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 22:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello you have recently flagged several pages on Ethiopian geology for copyright infringement. (sentences copy-pasted, however with source mentioned) While I was reworking those pages, a certain RHaworth took the initiative to bluntly delete it. How are Wikipedia procedures? I think reasonable time should be given to rework a page? What happened seemed overacting? or not? See below an example of one of the flagged pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Edaga_Arbi_Glacials&action=edit&redlink=1
See "The health harm to long-term users of e-cigarettes is likely to be marginally greater than for those who use conventional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) [112]." [2] [3]
See "The health harm to long-term users of e-cigarettes is therefore likely to be marginally greater than for those who use conventional NRT. " [4] on page 127. QuackGuru ( talk) 09:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
How dare you remove my work? And accuse me of plagiarism
I never copied a word from
https://www.elsmerecanyon.com/tunnelarea/passes/newhallcut/newhallcut.htm
I used it to support the facts I wrote. But I did not copy any of the words or sentence structure! Show me the sentences I copied?
Rhetorical question because I know you can't as I didn't.
Your lies have put me into a seething rage because I never copied a darn fu king word from that page not one!
You're just another low educated admin who acts within impunity
The biggest irony, you have the temerity to lecture me about plagiarism because I am an IP yet you've been on here less than 10 years and have become a self entitled admin
I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 but never, ever had an account (wherever I am in the world) because I am more interested in sharing what I know or some new facts that I discovered with a global audience (I'm like a chef who likes seeing people enjoying their food)
To be accused of plagiarism by someone like you is like being to told to smarten up by a beggar.
I never lifted a word from that website, so to be accused shows
People like you are the people who drive the WP:GF from this site.
So I'll repeat myself, I never copied a word from that website. Not one. To say that I did, questions my integrity which is infinitesimally better than yours which is why I hate stinking liars so much. 86.129.3.53 ( talk) 09:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa. Is this image copyrighted? Probably it is not (considering the date). I just wanted to be sure. Puduḫepa 07:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Hi Puduḫepa. Copyright has expired on that artwork. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 11:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and note on my talk page. I suspect that the source you gave for the Agnes Davies text is itself a copyright infringement of the Guardian article I cited. I'll re-read the policy. I appreciate you editing the offending articles rather than just deleting! BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 12:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice Diannaa, I'd like to improve this entry for Mary Raftery. As the source https://dib.cambridge.org/viewReadPage.do?articleId=a10084 is comprehensive would requesting copyright permission be the best way to go to improve the entry? I've also referred to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dictionary_of_National_Biography#Guidelines for further information. Killim ( talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, can you please undo the deletions you made to my additions from 24 July? I cited the authoritative document that I significantly paraphrased for the topics section at the beginning of that section. "Unified Architecture Framework - Appendix A" (PDF). Object Management Group. November 2017. Retrieved 2019-07-24. This document is in the public domain with the same copyrights as other OMG specifications such as UML and Data Distribution Service which are extremely well known specifications with large user groups and have alot more detail taken from the specifications and put in their wiki pages than I paraphrased from the UAF specification. I also additional information such as relationships to physical and logical architecture, structural and behavioral architecture, so as to make sure it was written in my own words, but still retained the proper alignment to the specification. I spent a few hours making sure I got those sentances well formed and critical analysis would show I did a better job than even the spec writers, as there was duplication of sentences and other awkward and redundant sentence formation in the original work. Since the UAF specification is a technical language, I must use most of the same words as they have a specific technical meaning, changing those key words does not do justice to the topic being covered. I have not utilized text from the https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00412.x document. OMG has also not done a copyright infringement either since the article cited for the deletion of my page additions as the article being infringed in fact references the same specification I did. So both the wiki article text and the copyrighted article are both referencing the same open specification. Also one of the authors of the INCOSE document, Matthew Hause, is an author of the specification, so he has waived all copyright entitlements per OMG copyright rules to anything he wrote in the spec. Lastly, the level of detail I wrote is equivalent to level of detail of alternate frameworks such as Zachman Framework, allowing users to make fair and informed decisions as to the differences between these similar specifications. Thanks!
Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Dianna, definitions are given for the view types and domains on pages 2 through 4. Also, the UML specification https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/PDF and the SysML specification have the same license, and UML has a whole category of pages dedicated to it. The detail of the BPMN wiki page is also very close to the specification, https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/PDF, that also has the same license. See their legal statement on their website. https://www.omg.org/legal/index.htm#copyright. You may want to request OMG permission to use their copyright on every OMG specification wiki page, which I'm sure they'll grant if they haven't already. I haven't seen the issue you raised on any other OMG specification wiki page that I looked into. Object_Management_Group#Ratified_ISO_Standards Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Diana, the point I was trying to make is not that the other pages are in copyright violation, but that the content they wrote and I wrote was not copyright violating plagarism Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing but is either the WP:LIMITED exception or in fact Written in my own words. Thus, the first point you made is not relevant about the copyright being enforceable and second point about not having a correct reference nearby also not relevant because the concepts are in the specification referenced as technical terms and non-plagarized descriptions using other technical terms, not the copyrighted work cited for the deletion. Can we at the very least remove the copyvio and treat this as addressing close paraphrasing to continue this conversation and address where we may better present this high level overview of the technology in an acceptably non-copyright infringing way? Also this lets others contribute to the close paraphrasing analysis? I want to do what is right, and I know you do too, so let's work together to get the right amount of information into wikipedia on this moderately important business government and engineering standard. If you search "Unified Architecture Framework" it's already referenced in the NATO AF page, so once this gets out of draft I already have another published wikipage to link to it. Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 17:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Metadata: Captures meta-data relevant to the entire architecture. Provides information pertinent to the entire architecture. Present supporting information rather than architectural models.
Strategic: Capability management process. Describes the capability taxonomy, composition, dependencies, and evolution.
Operational: Illustrates the Logical Architecture of the enterprise. Describes the requirements, operational behavior, structure, and exchanges required to support (exhibit) capabilities. Defines all operational elements in an implementation/solution independent manner.
Metadata: Captures meta-data relevant to the entire architecture. Present supporting information about the architectural model rather than the architecture of the enterprise.
Strategic: Enterprise management process. Describes the capabilities of an enterprise such as taxonomy, composition, dependencies and evolution.
Operational: Illustrates the logical architecture of the enterprise. Describes the operational behavior, logical structure, and information exchanges required to exhibit capabilities. Defines all operational elements in an implementation/solution independent manner.
Diannaa, thank you for analyzing this at a constructive level. And I agree that I used a lot of the existing terms from the description, but as you read further into the specification, you will agree most of the bolded terms are technical terms and covered under WP:LIMITED. These technical terms are part of the domain metamodel which is the bulk of that document and they are as follows (from the first 3 entries you cited): metadata, information, capability, taxonomy, composition, dependencies, evolution, logical architecture, enterprise, exchange, exhibit. Requirement, architecture model, architecture, behavior are technical terms referenced from other specifications, namely UML, SysML and ISO42010. Once you unbold these terms and the other technical terms present in the remaining descriptions the paraphrasing is well within addressing close paraphrasing guidelines. The Unified Architecture Framework is a formal language built on other formal languages, so not using these technical terms in their appropriate context is not a fair representation of the standard.
Found this interesting article while researching this https://www.blog.raredevs.com/programming-languages-copyrights/ where it's been a debated topic if you can copyright formal languages, but the jury is leaning towards the language itself can not be copyrighted. How do I send you my e-mail address non-publicly so I can continue to work the descriptions of the View Types and Domains offline to a point where they are concise, correct and not perceived as copyvio? Pnkflyd831 ( talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Diannaa. The "premise" on Sugar Mountain seems to be copied from IMDb. Can you give it a look? Regards.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 00:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, this article was nominated for DYK, and the DYK reviewer tagged it for overly close paraphrasing based on this Earwig report. I'm wondering, though, whether it's more serious than that, and was hoping you could take a look, since the author says they're busy and will get back to it later, which doesn't seem to be very soon. If it is serious, then sooner is probably better than later. Thanks for taking a look when you can. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. I notice that on Ninthwave Records, an account connected with the subject introduced copyvio content here, which is copied from the subject's own web site here. I assume a revdel is in order here, and would appreciate your assistance in doing so. I'll be putting the article up for AfD shortly. Thank you. -- Finngall talk 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa,
I realize that Wikipedia has copyright concerns, and I don't intend to break the policy. However, I didn't copy the text from an external source. I copied it from the Wikipedia entry for the U of Saskatchewan GSA.
Hello D. I hope you are well. I bumped into this article tonight Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to CLOS. It is pretty bare bones. I am curious if there are any copy vio problems since it is basically a repeat of the chapters of the book. If everything is okay then no problem I just hadn't seen anything quite like it before. MarnetteD| Talk 03:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Kingsif:I ran into a situation I'm surprised I haven't run into before.
This draft: Draft:Aura Rivas
showed up in copy patrol, indicating a 66% match to
(As an aside, this is an example of one of my pet peeves, namely that the copypatrol tool, as good as it is, fails to identify if material matches an existing Wikipedia article. Instead it picks up what is probably mirrired content or content taken from Wikipedia, sometimes with but, often without attribution.)
I determined that the match was sufficiently closed and proposed it for G1, and it has been deleted.
The editor involved explained that it is a Spanish Wikipedia page which was copied into draft space "like a translated into English when I had more time".
As is so often the case, the editor may have presumed that because the Wikipedia content has a free license, that it can be used. That's technically correct, but the license requires attribution, and we set forth best practices at: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia
When an editor follows the best practices, it avoids the technical violation of failing to provide proper attribution, as well as making it clear to editors who review copypatrol entries to accpet it.
However, while I've dealt with hundreds of these issues, and typically point out the best practices and either ask them to make the appropriate dummy edit, or do it for them (as you often do). However, every situation I've dealt with in the past includes copying from an English Wikipedia article into another main space Wikipedia article. I've never dealt with a situation where someone is bringing material from another language into drafts based for the intention of translation at a later time. I see that the linked guideline indicates that cross wiki project copies are acceptable, but I think that's in the context of copying into a main space article.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether my usual advice is sufficient. Can I restore the deleted draft and simply add the attribution as required, or does the fact that this is going to reside in draft space for an indeterminate amount of time suggest different handling is appropriate? I have dealt with issues where someone has done a translation but in most of the situations I've been involved in, the translation was done off-line. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Diannaa. Sorry to bother you again, but it seems that the "plot" section in the article Madness in the Method contains COPYVIO [5]. Could you, please, check it out? Regards.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 09:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this article, please? I get this earwig report, but two of the three sources I can't get a carbon date on, while the third, truthseeker], does give me a date in 2017, clearly predating this article. But I am not sure if the Quora answer isn't a mirror of different WP articles. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry that you feel there was no value in the addition of information from one of very few (English-language) published sources available regarding the Uptown drug scandal and the group's false accusations being the only real basis for a case against Tiger JK, one of the most famous Korean rap artists, leading to his conviction, and, further, that you felt this addition to have been tantamount to reducing the article to the status of "tabloid"; nevertheless, given the prominence of this event in the career of this group- and in as much as it served as an impetus for the development of the career of former Uptown member Yoon Mi-rae, again one of the most famous Korean rap artists- its preservation on the talk page for the reference of any party in search of these facts is not unjustified. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.203 ( talk) 16:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the text was not a straight copy and paste - it was edited by me. Please check again. If you think the content needs editing further, then of course I will do so. (It would need to be reinstated for me to do that). — Flicky1984 ( talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Noted, thank you for guidance. ( Ereckkarja ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Although this article [6] is detailed and well backed by a lot of references, I think it still has some unsourced content. ( 103.228.159.108 ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank You Diannaa for the clean up on Sangeetha Sringeri wiki page. However, the edit access level is changed to only established users. The user DeltaQuad has reported it as sock puppetry. However, the effort was only to remove copyright material and clean up the article as directed but the edits were reverted back for no concrete reasons. Would request the edit access level be moved to registered users. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexterBud ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that you have been patrolling for copyright infringements. There has been bit of a revert war with an anon IP at West Coast Main Line (see attempts to engage at talk:West Coast Main Line#Bottlenecks). I wonder if I should be concerned that the material that the anon added is still in the history although others have reverted, does it need to be expunged? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, my apologies for the problem on Polygenic score. None of what I added was copied identically from that paper, but rather my intention was to reword it without losing any of the important phrasing and brevity from the original. I do understand that the problem was in keeping some phrases from the original too intact (largely because there are specific ways these topics are referred to). My understanding was that this is usually acceptable, but I’ve rewritten the paragraph under consideration to be more substantially different from the original. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I've tried to paraphrase the removed section differently. I hope it is better now. OttoJohn ( talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa -- You are correct, this content was repurposed from a federal agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, and is in the public domain. It appears the attribution was fixed here Draft:Mary Anne Carter. I was not intending to plagiarize and appreciate the flag (and fix.) Please let me know if there are any other issues. Thank you! Stacymannpearson ( talk) 18:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you please help me understand which image licence I should be using for a band's promo pic? I have permission to use the image. Thanks! Sampson20 ( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much for all the info! Sampson20 ( talk) 16:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I'm sorry to bother you but, while looking at
Powerage Tour, I saw your ES fix broken table
here and hoped that it might mean that you have some expertise in the field, which I sadly do not. Since you fixed it back then it has gone wrong again, I'm sad to say. If you felt so inclined, could you please have a quick look at
Talk:Powerage Tour for my harrowing, tragic, heartbreaking account of what seems to be wrong and, even worse, how I'm too useless to fix it! If you can't or don't want to have a look then please please don't worry – maybe someone else reading this will, or I guess I can try to track down Wikiproject Table Fixing Or Whatevs – either way no-one will die and it will get fixed sooner or later. Thanks and all good wishes
DBaK (
talk)
00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like you to return the parts that you deleted but were not coppied, and parts that cannot but to be coppied (for example names of legislative acts, names of integrations). Sredina ( talk) 07:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Brettmcfarland ( talk) 02:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Brett McFarland
Good morning and greetings. can you please provide a link where the supposed copyright violation was taken place and can be verified the similarities. I am confused since the head of the article is just a summary of her life. I wrote my self so I don't see how it was supposedly copied from somewhere else. Thanks -- Miguelemejia ( talk) 13:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Dianna (so?) - you deleted content for which I already have a letter of copyright release approval from Wikipedia. What? Why now? Peter Pcapell ( talk) 13:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Sock has returned as Ip on this page, is self explanatory based on the edits. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm new and still learning. Fullrabb ( talk) 00:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb
I think you should read and compare the two versions and judge for yourself. The other version seems to have an agenda to simply damn India, its society, its family culture, and above all, its religion. It is a page of apologetics for a bandit who murdered many people and looted many others. Poverty is pervasive in India and we all live in the same "dirty" country; how many of us become bandits? It surely cannot be right to blame all and sundry for crimes committed by one very damaged personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.20.116 ( talk) 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for your guidance on the copyright rules for Wikipedia. As a new editor to Wikipedia, this is helpful info. Cheers! FJ329 ( talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the information about the copyright rules for Wikipedia. The information I had added was from the official government release about the bill giving an overview of the provisions. I believe that does not infringe on copyright. Please correct me if I am wrong, I would like to know. Otherwise, would you revert the change you made removing the information? Is there a way to put it in as a quote citing the government site? If not, please let me know and I'll paraphrase it in my own words. IrreverentSquid ( talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC) IrreverentSquid 13:21, 19 August 2019 (PST)
Hi Diannnaa!
Writing your name like this feels like I am screaming at you :) In any case, thank you for the information about the copyright rules. It is a very complex article and I needed a lot of time and help to understand and strive to communicate in a short content. I have read the notes you send me a few times and took notice. I will improve as I go I guess. Again! Appreciated! Any future feedback is welcome!
Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbubblegum ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa
I did not steal the subject, but I benefited from the way to raise the subject, and the rest of the details are different.
I was hoping that you would modify his words instead of deleting a lot of them.
I think the Wikipedia project is a collaborative project, not a project to destroy efforts.
Thanks anyway
ميناء ( talk) 14:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa,
You removed some sections from a new text I wrote for the article Netherland-America Foundation, aka NAF, due to copy right issues.
Some parts of the text may indeed have been copied from the NAF website, which happens to be our own website.
I have asked the Executive Director of the NAF to formally release/license our web content to Wikipedia following your standard procedure/request format.
Because I no longer have access to my updates, including the ones you seem to have accepted, it is very difficult for me to determine exactly which copyrighted texts we need to release.
It would help if you could reinstate the edits that do not involve copyright issues.
President Boston Chapter of the NAF
Dutch-Bostonian ( talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think you made a fairly critical mistake. You deleted about 20 of my edits on schizoid personality disorder, collaterally taking out numerous ones that had nothing to do with copyright or followed the copyright rules. Please either restore them or send me them privately if you did actually somehow delete all of them on purpose. SUM1 ( talk) 04:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
who}}
. For these reasons, I prefer my version. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
12:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa - would you be willing to give an opinion on a couple of images that I'd like to use in an article on a non-free basis? If this isn't your area, please feel free to ignore the following.
The article is Margaret Macpherson Grant, which currently has a lot of text but no images. I'd like to be able to show a picture of her, and one of Aberlour House, her main residence, which is discussed at some length in the article. I have been able to find no free images of either, after quite a lot of searching both on Commons and on sites like geograph.co.uk. The images I'd like to include:
From my own reading of the criteria at WP:NFCP, I think I have a fair rationale to use these images - there are no alternatives, I don't think I'm affecting the owners' commercial opportunities, I'm only using one image of her and one of the house, they've both been published online, they will be used encyclopedically and our image policy, and they will be used in a mainspace article where there is contextual significance. However, I didn't want to go ahead and upload/insert them without getting an expert opinion on whether this is permissable or not. Any advice you can offer would, as always, be gratefully received. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 08:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Re this change to PhiloSOPHIA: I'm not going to edit-war with you over inclusion of the quote, but I think there actually is a "reason why original prose could not be prepared": because it is difficult or impossible to use plain English to convey the meaning of the literary jargon employed in the quote without both butchering the subtleties of the intended meaning and eliminating the subtext that submissions should be written in the same jargony style. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Early in my Wikipedia career, I took a photo of an historical marker, which I uploaded. It was deleted. I learned that while I had the right to take a photo of the sign, and I owned the copyright to that photo, the words on the marker were subject to copyright, and my copyright covered the image, but not the words. To use the photo, I needed the copyright holder of the words to license them (unless they were already in public domain, which they were not.)
I recently deleted a photo of an historical marker in Texas on the same basis, as I had seem nothing to tell me that the text of historical markers in Texas was considered to be in the public domain.
The editor @ Wiki name: contacted someone at the Texas Historical Commission (THC) who indicated that it was OK. However:
I did not accept the permission for these reasons. The editor declined to try to address these issues.
I decided to try myself. I tracked down the person at THC who seemed most likely to be the person who could clarify the issue. She responded:
Hi Stephen – I am the communications director for the Texas Historical Commission. We have no problems with folks sharing photos of our marker. I am not aware of any copyright or other limitation, unless someone was using the material to create the appearance of our endorsement of a person, product or service. In terms of our photos being on wikipedia, the practice is quite common – I am sure there are many photos of our markers on the website and we have no issue with this.
Please let me know if you have any questions – thanks!
This response addressed two of my issues – it was someone clearly identified on the staff list, and the communication used is the official email. However, the wording itself is rather informal. On the other hand, the intent is clear, so I wanted to get your opinion on whether this is acceptable. S Philbrick (Talk) 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dianaa, I notices and reverted some copyvio on the above page, and also noticed that you had done the same thing a little while ago. I thought I would pass this repeat copvio to you as you have the correct skills for the job. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Diannaa,
Thank you for taking care of the copyvio at Gregory S. Brown. I used the {{ copypaste}} tag in Twinkle; is that the most appropriate/expedient way to identify them? I see there is a noticeboard at WP:CP but the Twinkle tool didn't post there automatically, and I didn't want to raise multiple notifications if the copypaste tag is enough. Thank you for your help! CThomas3 ( talk) 14:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
Copyvio-revdel}}
; or alternatively if you find the template awkward or confusing, just ask me to do it. More complicated cases should be listed at
WP:CP.Using the Copypaste template places the article in
Category:All copied and pasted articles and sections which currently has nearly 500 items in it, which sounds dreadful but I've seen it as high as 800 so I guess we are doing ok. But following the above instructions is a better bet because it will for sure get a prompt result. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
14:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
stop bothering me. Rvls ( talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, I see that you are listed as an administrator willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Please check this single contribution by Devil_chan2456_angel, dated August 10, 2019. It appears to be a 'grossly improper entry' that should be redacted. Regards Woodlot ( talk) 20:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, I was the editor involved with the copyvio in MV Doulos Phos when the owner of the material didn't complete the release needed for the ORTS ticket. You mentioned at Talk:MV Doulos Phos that the re-write was unusable as there was still a huge overlap with the source material. Can you tell me what was your primary concern with that re-write? That there was still close paraphrasing or that the citations didn't credit nnapprentice.com as the source of that material?
After this experience, I'll certainly not use anything that requires explicit permission from an owner again. Either the request doesn't reach the person with the legal authority to release the material, or if they do they do have the authority they don't fulfill the ORTS requirements. A lot of work goes into expanding an article only to later find that it cannot legally be used. Blue Riband► 02:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dianna,
I request you to undo your removal of all my previous work, except for the pulse sequence. The pulse sequences section was liberal with how it was repeated verbaitm, but the rest is my work. I believe you were especially brash to remove the table and the non-proton MRS section. I will work on rewriting the pulse sequence section once these changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty ( talk • contribs)
Hi Dianna, if you restore it - I can make sure everything is properly cited by midnight this Sunday. Can you please do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Or can I at least have my previous edits sent to me so I can update them with sources accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheKitty ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
... for explaining about Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Paolo.dL ( talk) 17:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Diannaa. I was checking out your user page and noticed your JSTOR usebox, per the The Wikipedia Library. I'm a registered member of JSTOR, with a free-bee account, allowing me to read (only) six journal/articles a month, with no download privileges. Am curious about how one goes about accessing JSTOR via the WP Library. I tried, but can't seem to find the door to JSTOR, and have only come across a few references to it. I suspect it may be right under my nose, but in any event, I can't find it. I'll try not to unload a bunch of questions on you, but I do have a couple: Can one search for a given subject via WP access? and Can one download PDF journals via WP, or are they only viewable on line? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Best, -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you have a quick look at the plot section of
All About Eve? To me it just feels like some sort of copy/paste (and I couldn't find the close paraphrasing tool is there a better tool than
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ ?). If I had to guess, I'd probably go with some sort of "word for word" out of some book. I don't mind doing a rewrite on it, but want to make sure I'm not just hacking around some other wiki-editors work first. Maybe my 'Spidy senses' are failing - just wanted a quick 2nd look.
— Ched (
talk)
14:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
talk:Ched|talk]]) 14:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your notes! I am a marketing representative for Buellton Visitors Bureau and the content I added is directly from their public website/trip planning landing page. ( https://www.discoverbuellton.com/trip-planner.html) This same copy is also part of the bureau's press package, making it available to the general public for reuse.
Is there a better way to go through this process so that I can utilize the copy already developed by the bureau without having to reword/recreate it all? Thank in advance for your guidance. Mogdeci ( talk) 14:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I fear my timing was indeed bad, but we're already working on preparations for Tokyo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I noticed that you deleted revisions of that page. That action led to the page becoming a disambiguation instead.
Hi, Diannaa, trust this meets you well? The addition of the copyrighted material was done in good faith as the said material is in public space. Most importantly, it puts into perspective the issues relating to the proposed bill passage and its aftermath. With your kind permission, i will restructure the sentences using my own words. I will await your reply before I go on ahead to edit the page. Thanks a lot, Dianaa. 2dmaxo ( talk)
Hi Diannaa, it's me again. Thanks for the response. Will get on it asap. Regards!
Hi Diannaa! sorry I was only working on the source I didn't even catch that ~ Thanks ~ by the way nice to see you again. ~mitch~ ( talk) 20:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry again~ I just remembered, all I did was work in the info box ~ with the name of the president ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 20:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the feedback. (I wasn't aware that these drafts were visible unless directly referenced). The feedback is very helpful. I understand the concern. You'll have to excuse my fumbling around on Wikipedia, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly what you changed in the article. How do I see that? Roger Wood ( talk) 18:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Your deletion of the entire revision history of Draft:Charles Denis Mee makes it impossible for the article's editors to see what has been deleted so that it could be revised into an non-infringing version. Also, you are certainly entitled to you opinion as to what is a copyright infringement but it is possible that there maybe other different opinions and they may be more appropriate than yours. So can you restore the last version so we can see what you did? After a reasonable period for us to respond then it would be reasonable to delete the history but your preemptory action seems overly drastic. Tom94022 ( talk) 18:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I think I understand the problem. I have been pasting sections of others' text into the articles and sometimes 'publishing' before properly paraphrasing them. I understand why you have hidden some of the history. I didn't realize these draft articles were subject to scrutiny before they were submitted for approval. I'll be more careful in future. I should probably learn how to use my 'Sandbox'.
I assume the two articles as they currently stand are ok and it's just their history that's the problem?
Appreciate your help
Roger Wood (
talk)
20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Dual-Boot Barnstar | |
In recognition of the fact that you actually deserve more than one Barnstar for your recent work,
Ched in his typically lazy manner drops off your "Dual-Boot" Barnstar for:
|
I don't see barnstars around that much anymore - but I didn't know a better way acknowledge all your hard work on the project. From me to you, Thank you Diannaa — Ched ( talk) 00:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you please send me the things you removed from the Diana jewels page so I can edit it up? Thank you for all your work on the page Uncoveringcelebrityhistory ( talk) 02:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.artefacts.co.za/main/Buildings/bldgframes.php?bldgid=11620. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Diannaa. The source text in artefacts.co.za that you refer to was authored by me. The words are the exact text (in Afrikaans) of the inscription on a monument which needs to be recorded word for word otherwise it is not accurate.
Is the issue that I referenced the artefacts.co.za wording? Or is it against copyright rules to copy words from a monument? If so that is rather silly as the words provide further important information to the subject of this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
red admiral | |
---|---|
... with thanks from QAI |
see my talk page - his smile is still there, and his words quoted help me whenever I need perspective, and there are the rules in the background (a click away), - going to be the one thing in 2019 I won't change while DYK changes daily, music almost daily and picture monthly, - here's August. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. You assesed the non-free use of this file back in July 2013, and at that time the logo was probably be used in the main infobox for primary identification purposes. However, the league seems to have changed its branding sometime around 2015 and this file was replaced by File:NBL (Australia) logo.svg. Whomever replaced the older file probably just moved it to body of the article without even considering its "new" non-free use. Generally, non-free former logos require a stronger justification for their non-free use per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 so that the context required for non-free use by WP:NFCC#8 and on not seeing sourced critical commentary about the change in branding to justify keeping the former logo. I was going to PROD this for deletion, but decide to ask you about it since you did review the file before the branding change. If PROD is not appropriate, then I could FFD it instead. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, David Kohn Architects seems to be an undisclosed cut and paste from David Kohn (architect), including identical references, which is both pointless and a copyright violation. Please could you have a look at the articles? TSventon ( talk) 09:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dianna,
I apologize for my mistakes. I did tried using my own words editing this article the second time, but I understand some copyrighted material may have been included. I will try to better avoid copyright violations and as always, make sure to reference all the content. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEJCC ( talk • contribs) August 31 02:18 UTC
Hi. I got a zero result when I ran my earwig report on those articles. Even though on my Curation tool, it indicated there might be a copyvio issue. How did you catch it? Onel5969 TT me 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear user,
Your edit to Journal of Modern Dynamics that removed the link is a little unsuitable as you remove all the links to Professors homepage and we just recover it. The conflict part has already removed.
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathowenw ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Mathowenw