Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

"‪Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution‬". ---- hi thank you for your reply...i however have NO CLUE ON EARTH how to use this tool , i stopped trying to figure it out, it's highly confusing and fustrating, cause everything has a link.. i gave up, you may delete the article or remove it...its okay... Mrkeego (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sup! In November you reverted my text from the article Sierra Leone Colony and Protectorate. According to you it was too close to the text used in the source (http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/sierraleone.htm). If you as a native English speaker could help me translate the valuable text from there and add it to the article, it would be more than appreciated! Not only by me, but by Wikipedia as a whole. What do you think? Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 02:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to help with this project. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, thanks so much for your feedback on 7 February 2018 regarding the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) page. Kindly note the following: "This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of Southern African Development Community for their contributions to Wikipedia. I am not a GIZ employee but in a contractual relationship with GIZ as a consultant until end of March 2018."

I have since revised my content so that it does not closely reflect source material. I have also requested SADC to release rights of all their web content, which they have done on February 20, 2018. Please see below. We are now waiting for a response from permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

SADC has also requested permission from tralac.org to reference their website which they have done. Please see below:

Dianna, as I was preparing content for the website I noticed that there were extremely few public domain sources (most sources are copyrighted, can't reach out to ask for permission), and hence I anticipate that I will be referencing a few sites including the SADC website one. Is this ok? Do you have any advice of how I can work around this?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Thobo~enwiki (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thobo~enwiki. Rather than focusing on copying material from other websites, you should write articles in your own words. In other words, sources should be used as a source of information, not prose. If you need help learning how to to this, there's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Dianna with regards to using my own words, but I still need to provide verification re citations for the content, right? From my understanding, Wikipedia requires multiple sources/references to give legitimacy to statements made on pages. I stand to be corrected. Was merely asking for your guidance on the challenge of limited references. Thanks again for your advice.

Thobo~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

All content you add to Wikipedia should be sourced. Sources independent of the subject of the article are preferred. Multiple sources are preferred. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, this has a recent history of copyright violations, and may require further rev/deletion. Also a flagrant COI account. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

All done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Are you interested in checking out this page with the earwig thingie? Yours, Quis separabit? 03:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone else has dealt with this. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, there is another case of WP:COPYVIO here Lawrence Pereira from this link ([1]). Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I know we have talked about this before but should there be a reporting place created, similar to ARV, for CV. It might make the process more streamlined. Not important but just curious. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There's an outline of potential procedures to follow at Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 when you discover copyvio. The central place to post about copyvio is WP:CP, which is a fairly complex procedure, so I have absolutely no problem with people posting issues for immediate attention here on my talk page. Thank you for your interest in helping with copyvio clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, there are still some problems with Robert Jelinek (artist). All the copyright problems seem to be solved, the captions and remarks look good now ... but still the page cant be found with google (then again a detailed search with duck duck go works - but only a detailed one aka Robert Jeklinek Artist Wiki). Could you be so kind and help me out here? Thanx a lot! --Gantenbrink (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gantenbrink. The article is in the queue to be reviewed, but they have quite a backlog. Please be patient. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Diannaa! --Gantenbrink (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Good morning, Diannaa; here's another fun piece, filled with patchwork copyright violations so far as I can tell. I'm thinking it may need to be reverted back to last version prior to the new account's additions. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Working on this one right now, will be done in a minute here. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Thank you for letting me know. I was unaware that I was there were some copyright problems. I was just following some of the previous editors on the page.Lbtocth (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's true there were some copyright violations present on the page when you arrived, but that doesn't make it okay to add more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI copyright_violator.--Moxy (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I started a requested GOCE copy-edit on the above article when I checked a reference and found identical text, which was added by an IPV6 editor here, apparently from a study guide here. The source claims copyright with all rights reserved, and gives no acknowledgement to Wikipedia. There's a possibility of it being a back-copy; the first Wayback snapshot is 2nd April 2015], twelve days after the IPv6 added the text to Wikipedia. It's a short article and I'm happy to continue with the c/e to remove the suspected violating text (already started) but the versions before my completion, which I'll mark in my edit summary, will probably need to be revdel'd. Thanks for your help, as always. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This version should be free of suspect text; I'm done there now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion is done. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa

Please would you explain why the edits you removed contain copyrighted materials rather than "fair use" content, like countless WP articles do? Thank you.

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

soibangla (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I already answered at Talk:Andrew McCabe. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please would you provide a prompt response to my subsequent comments on that page? I am confident that my edit was improperly removed and I welcome the opportunity to prove it if you would make it available. Frankly, I take this matter very seriously, as it constitutes an egregious challenge to my personal integrity. Cheers.soibangla (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"The material was copied in its entirety from the sources" is a flatly false statement. "Short quotations are permitted"

Approximate statistics:

WSJ article: 2134 words, 46 paragraphs

My WP edit: 138 words, 6 passages, from 7 paragraphs

Passage word lengths: 36, 26, 24, 20, 20, 20

The NYT edit was completely my paraphrasing. soibangla (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am posting results of my double check at Talk:Andrew McCabe. Just a note that quotations, if used, must be in quotation marks. Copying excerpts of articles and not putting in quotation marks is a copyright violation. Using quotations when prose you write yourself could easily be prepared is a violation of our fair use policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You egregiously misrepresented what I did here, and topped it off by posting the WSJ content alongside mine to make it appear that I simply copied an entire WSJ paragraph verbatim and pasted it straight into WP. I did nothing of the kind. Shame on you, and that's the most polite way I can say what I think of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Stringing together sentences from various points in the source article is still a copyright violation, so sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:Mikmaq223. I was about to do that, but was still trying to AGF by explaining on the talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

He's also been performing similarly bad edits under various IPs since February 26th so it's time for a block in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. I saw your name on the list of administrators willing to do revision deletions. I believe that this one here qualifies for deletion. Thank you for your attention to this matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does, and I am going to report it for oversighting as well. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. Since my posting here, the same editor posted this at the same article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely. There's also eighteen attempts at edits similar to the first one, which were caught by the edit filter. Thanks again for your alertness. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at your page and i like it✌☮<------ pice

Above is sock of Nicky jam el cangri. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that you are an administrator that investigates copyright matters. I just made a userbox with a non-free fair use image (File:International_Baccalaureate_logo.jpg), but quickly reverted it when I discovered that it was against policy. However, where the image previously was (my user page and subpages) still shows up in the file usage. I just want to let you know that I did not intentionally violate policy, and am actively trying to do the right thing. Thanks. – Iúile (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iúile. Thanks for your awareness of copyright issues, good stuff. :) I've performed a null edit on each page involved and that's cleared up the problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I want to bring an interesting copyright situation to your attention. An article about a professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bhargav Gajjar, was created several weeks ago and deleted for infringing on copyrighted material from an MIT-affiliated website [2] (Per the creator's talk page [3]). However, enough time existed between the creation and deletion of Bhargav Gajjar that various mirrors of Wikipedia copied the article. Yesterday I came across Gajjar Bhargav and found the writing style to be suspicious. Sure enough, the article is a direct copy paste of Bhargav Gajjar under a different name. Gujwonwoman (talk), the creator of Bhargav Gajjar article then contested my G12 tag several times at Talk:Gajjar Bhargav, notably stating ... Please check bhargav.mit.edu/about the common text has been deleted to prevent copy right infringement. Please allow republishing of the original wikipedia article Bhargav Gajjar or Gajjar Bhargav. There was no intention to do copy right infringement. This was echoed on their talk page. To me, it seems the editor has blanked the original source of the information used by the article. From my understanding of copyright, this is still an unattributed usage of another's work. What are your thoughts? SamHolt6 (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What the person says is that someone copied the Wikipedia page onto the MIT website without attribution, not realizing this would cause issues. In other words, it looks to me like the content originated with Wikipedia, not the other way around. Unfortunately the Wayback Machine does not have adequate copies of http://bhargav.mit.edu/about to prove this one way or the other, so it looks like we will have to take their word for it. The page needs to be moved to "Bhargav Gajjar" as that's his actual name and then the history restored for full attribution. I will do that now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa,

Upon the short notice for the concerns of "(Japanese TV series)," thank you for informing me the mistake I have done and the rules carried on copyrights issue and plagiarism. Clearly, I have trespassed and commit to the rules n ways such as but not limited to the Wikipedia: Non-free content and Wikipedia: Plagiarism: For not meeting the criteria of Free Content:

"Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created. As a quick test, before adding non-free content, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?"

and for the acts of plagiarism:

Copyrighted sources only Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes from a copyrighted source—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text."

I will rewrite and paraphrase the two synopsis of the content above as soon as possible. The mistake is mine and I apologise for not meeting the requirement of Wikipedia. Thank you for listening to this message, I will send you a revised copy after the revision is made on your talk page.

Regards, Timmy78722

Timmy78722 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa,

I have reviewed my new page, Legal High (Japanese TV series) I would like you to help me look at the revised version. I have added rewritten the two new synopses apart from the sourced previously have. I have deleted the previous source since it is considered as a violation of the Wikipedia Free content and Plagiarism rules. I will distain myself from plagiarism since I am still quite new at contributing in writing for Wikipedia. Thank you very much, and I will continue to write in Wikipedia with my own word. Thank You Very Much

Regards,

Timmy78722

Timmy78722 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you translated the plot descriptions from the Japanese wiki. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for you by adding a template to the article talk page and mentioning in an edit summary what the source was. This will show up in the article history and is required for attribution. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic. I've also added the page to the copy edit queue, and someone will be along shortly to polish up the prose for you. Thank you for taking the time to do this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you but it appears that a previous copyright violation that you remedied was done again. I restored the redirect and added a note to the article page warning against doing it again, but wanted to alert you, in case you feel the copied material should be hidden again, as you did previously. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rockypedia and thanks for stopping by. The new version is not the same as the one I revision deleted, and does not appear to be copyvio, so revision deletion is not needed. Correction, found some copyvio, for example from here. Fixing now — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no copyright problem. The original Kapral page has been intentionally removed and the content was transferred to Wikipedia so that it is available somewhere. Just see for yourself: http://www.kapralova.org/KAPRAL.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karel dragoun (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that a website has been taken down does not change its copyright status. Besides, it's been archived by the Wayback Machine, so it's not even actually removed from the Internet. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'd appreciate help with this one. Thus far I've only found a small amount that would constitute a copyright violation, but the promotional and unsourced blitz compels me to request a user block or page protection. Will travel to AIV first. Thanks in advance, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done some revision deletion. In the future if you know what the source urls were it would be handy to have them to speed up the process of selecting which diffs need to be hidden. I will watch-list this article. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, All the edits I made to the Cathedraltown article on March 5 are validly sourced, are accurate and up-to-date, and I therefore ask that they remain. The page, with my edits deleted, is out-of-date, inaccurate and incomplete.

It seems that the only problem you have with my edits are bits taken from www.cathedraltown.com, which you consider a copyright violation. Would this problem be resolved if the copyright holder of that website were to grant a licence?

Thanks and regards, Ezwider (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Diannaa. I will supply diffs in the future. Ezwider, I've asked that your account be blocked, and will do so again if you add any promotional or unsourced content. Your sole purpose for editing here has been promotional; in that vein you've persistently reverted other editors' attempts to remove said content in order to add unencyclopedic--my wording here--garbage. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I have added no unsourced or promotional material in my edits. If my recent edits appear to be a "blitz" it is only because the original article is out-dated (last updated in 2012), contains inaccuracies and is woefully incomplete. All the material I've added is sourced. It would be helpful if you could identify specific edits that you regard as promotional so that we can discuss. All my edits are factually correct (with sources), and balanced (presenting both sides of contentious issues, such as the statue of Charity), which is not the case with the original article. I therefore ask that you reconsider your decision to block my edited version. I am a retired journalist with international experience, and in editing the article, I have applied long-standing principles and practices. Thanks. [[User:Ezwider|Ezwider]Ezwider (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Should Diannaa wish to make available any of the currently removed content, I'd be delighted to list the many diffs of unsourced and unacceptable content. In the meantime, we can look at some of the diffs from the only other article to which you've contributed: [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; and , finally, my restoration of the last non-promotional version: [11]. It bears saying that the cathedral article prose pales next to the advertisement that passed as the Cathedraltown piece. Very little of this resembles journalism as I've practiced it, but it does have the earmarks of WP:COI and paid public relations work. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ezwider: Replied on your talk page. Short answer: Regardless of the copyright issue, we don't accept promotional or unsourced material. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a venue for advertising. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Hi Diannaa, apparently we've traded promotional edits and copyright violations for WP:OR. Unable to get a block on the basis of previous edits, I'll soon open a thread at ANI. Can administrators read the content you rev/deleted? Shovels full of promotional edits are contained therein. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, admins can see revision-deleted content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, Thank you for your time in making me understand Wikipedia in a better way. I want to request that the Draft Copy of African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research be deleted, it was submitted yesterday. I am doing a study and getting sources for a better article. I kindly request that the review process be stopped while l do a better article. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Samson at AcademicJournals 11:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa! I think this edit summary could do with some of your magic Tippex. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have created a new article entitled Dedication at Memorial Hall USNA, I have now decided that I would rather title it Memorial Hall Dedication, USNA. I am not able to change the title myself. Can you please assist? ThanksEaward24 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa,

Thank you for your assistance. --Samson at AcademicJournals 08:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson at AcademicJournals (talk • contribs)

Diannaa, I received the message that my addition(s) to Kathleen Mazzarella have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. I work directly for Kathy and was the original author of the content that was included in the update, so there should be no copyright issue. I also cited all of the external sources for items added regarding board memberships, awards and recognitions. Would you please either provide specific details with the areas of concern or reinstate the content that was uploaded yesterday? Thanks, johnscl1 Johnscl1 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there! May I know where my content violated copyright from this company? SaanTeeh (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of the content was copied form this press release. However, I see that only some the material was copyvio, so I am going to restore what I can. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, could you please check on my Article here, and see if it violates Wikipedia copyrights policy or not. I just want to make sure that I have understood Wikipedia rules properly before I publish it. Frasfras17 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Frasfras17. I am unable to see inside the book but what I am able to review looks okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I found a lot of material but English is not my language and his Thai Version was blocked while I try to put the school name on .I was writing what I found for a year without account.Because it was log I came to his version. His English version doesn't show in his Thai version can you help? https://th.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%8A_%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A5

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafeby633 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry what I bring here seem very long .Do you have time to rewrite it .Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafeby633 (talk • contribs) 02:04, March 10, 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the text of a speech from Thita Manitkul because it's not an appropriate addition to a biography. The Office of the Ombudsman appears to be a government department, which in the Philippines makes the content of their website public domain, but it's not a good addition to Thita Manitkul's biography. It would not be a good addition even if she was the person who gave the speech. If your English is not good, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! An editor has copied and glued large passages of text from here onto here without proper attribution. Most of the text also appears to be offtopic, and some possibly is too closely paraphrased. Could you please monitor this? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Another admin has protected the page because of edit warring. If you and the other editor can't agree on the content of the article, you need to sort it out on the talk page. If you still can't develop a consensus, you might start an RFC or try one of the dispute resolution venues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will redo with paraphrased content. P1127 (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diana, I am George Styler (Dorde Tamburic) in person. I just tried to make some edits in my profile but it looks like that im not so skilled. Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorde tamburic (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. As seen here, where I pinged you, I have some WP:Copyvio concerns. Mind taking a look? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging only works if you ping and sign in the same edit. Looks like the people involved are working to correct the problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"People involved" are really ask you to join us there. :) M.Karelin (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No i am not going to copyright material from any where but its depands on my study and i am a research schollaer as wel as i am a police officer . My subject is "rethinking on oral epic and fall of Mahoba" Durgesh.uppolice (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the rule about transferring copy within Wiki. I had not been aware of this rule. Re previous cases, I have performed the same action once or twice in the past, but would not be able to pinpoint these among my many hundreds of contributions. I can only apologise for this, and will take care to observe the rule in future. Valetude (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that copyright violation at Oshun! I really appreciate it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. Please, if you have time, make a review of this proposed section - Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals#Isolation from females - before it will be added to the article. Thanks in advance. M.Karelin (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Plenary_Highlights_APPAN.pdf https://th.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%A9:%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%A1&type=delete&page=%3A%E0%B8%90%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%8F%E0%B8%B2_%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%A5

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/805876910

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sudarat_at_Batman_V_Superman_Dawn_of_Justice_Midnight_Run_Bangkok.jpg

He even upload her Political Rival photo.Moreover The article Thita Manitkul would not be approved in the first place if the link is dead. I have just been working on both articles and someone trying to change URL and the one who reported was the same person as the one in her Thai version and when I looked in to it he upload her political rival photo it was there .But now not any link you could find from the her political rival page is link to the photo .I save the link that is why I have it. That is why I try to copy something from sources that is not manipulated yet.So in the future unsourced would not be the good reason. It is hard to find something on someone who had not been working in politic for more than 10 years. But what she did for our countrymen still effective until today.They still using the same policy nothing improved .Thailand is not a democracy country anymore. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafeby633 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The family wrote his obituary, word for word, that appeared in two different FL newspapers, and they asked me to copy it over to the Wikipedia page. They said it was okay, since they had written it and given permission. It was edited, of course, slightly for appropriate Wikipedia use, and broken into organized sections as well. If I have permission from the "author" to use it, why is it a copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxmcp (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

... for this. I keep telling myself to be more careful about proof-reading my posts, but I still manage to keep doing stupid things like that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa, thanks for your revdel the other day on Transport for Victoria... but the same content was added again. Would you mind helping out again? Triptothecottage (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your vigilance in following WP copyright rules. Your edit reverting copyright from Subtelny book "Ukraine: A history" also hid/removed all edits thought to contain copyright material. However, I fundamentally believe I could've paraphrased/removed the copyright sentences myself - yet I can't even see what my last version was. Is there a process I could request an admin to lift the hidden edits on the page that you've hidden (even if just for a few hours) so I could remove/paraphrase/ copyrighted materials so that the quoted passages could abide by the rules of WP? I am just now afraid that I've added vital information to the article (that I do agree needs to be paraphrase/changed in order to follow copyright rules), but is now totally lost. Thanks for understanding.--Piznajko (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I can send you a copy by email, but you will have to enable your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

How do I enable Wikipedia email? Never even heard that existed (sorry if it's a noob question).--Piznajko (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've enabled Wikipedia email now.--Piznajko (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Email sent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. So just to confirm - those 20 edits that I did (which I can no longer see in version history in Symon Petliura's article) were just 1 paragraph? I'm just trying to make sure I recovered all key information. Thanks.--Piznajko (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

23 edits were hidden; a few other things were in those edits as you can see by this diff, but the paragraph I sent you was all that I removed. I am checking your new version right now and will work it some to make it more copyright compliant. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay it's done; please have a look at my amendments so you can improve your skills. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Apparently this page is a "copy-paste" version of its organization's official website and has been tagged since February 2014. I just wanted to report it to you so that you could decide which parts of the article need to be removed. Keivan.f^Talk 04:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done There's 780 articles tagged in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections, the oldest from January 2014. Any help appreciated. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know what your message was about but now I got it... my bad! I translated from the German Wikipedia-Page and apparently the text got very close to the English page of the museum which I did not check. (Usually there are not so many Englisch sources from Austrian organizations). It was not my intention to copy-paste and I spent quite some time with the translation... anyways I will continue with the article Jewish Museum of Hohenems if you like and this time try to paraphrase or summarize. Is that ok for you?

--MichaelPedro (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's okay to improve the article assuming you write new prose in your own words. Secondary sources are preferable, rather than the German wiki or the museum's website. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a clear copyvio of the source I mention in my revert. Can you please do the honours? - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the Director of Communications for Plaza College. I am permitted to cite information from our website for these purposes. Please revert your edit of the Plaza College page (History section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plazacollege (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Getalifeb. I have blocked the "Plazacollege" account as it's an unacceptable username per our username policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! You helped me out with some copyright violating content at Edward Rubin. I've got another one for you at Andy Kennedy (basketball). Beginning with this edit from December 2011, a great deal of copyrighted content has been introduced into the article (Earwig report for that revision), and later one more content was added as well (Earwig). I've reverted the article back to this version, and cleaned it up some. However, I also took free license material from the version just prior to my revert [12]. All versions of the article in this range have copyright violating content. I am uncertain as to how you want to handle the oversight of the versions with the copyright violating content while preserving attribution (WP:CWW) for the now current version that includes material from just before I reverted. Your expertise in this area to handle this is most welcome! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think re-adding material from the same article to a current version requires attribution, but regardless, the user names remain in the article history and your edit summary helps clarify things as well. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of that! Question, when you're doing such visibility changes, can you do it in all one fell swoop or did you have to perform 297 actions? I hope the former! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the size / number of diffs. This one took two batches. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.portisan.com/cassette-slab-formwork.html and https://speedspace.org/equipment-pump-enclosures/. 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) 20:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa sorry about that. I have fixed the edits. :)

Hi Diannaa, how have you been? I invite you to read the discussion about the article Untermensch. Link to the talk page: Talk:Untermensch#From Slavs it's mainly ethnic Poles, Serbs and Russians that were called subhuman. Hope you will examine the content and see if my edit was correct way to reach a consensus. Thanks. Yatzhek (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yatzhek! I've been following the discussion but haven't had time to participate. As you know, the racial heirarchy had many layers. We'll see if your edit resolves the disagreement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I saw that my version was reverted, so I corrected the language. You can take a look, and see if it's OK: [13] Thanks. Yatzhek (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The user reverted my version once again, accusing me of edit waring. Here is my latest edit [14]

I've added his source. I think his will to point out everything right at the beginning of the article is really pointless. What do you think? Yatzhek (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. So that I understand correctly, I need to put information entered in my own words although I am citing the resource? And I need to make limit the content that I copy and paste by how many characters/words? In order to avoid all my work being deleted would it be better to make small edits?MsSandiF (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)MsSandiF

It isn't necessary to make small edits, but the rest of what you say is correct. There's no set limit on word count or character count for quotations, but in general, don't use quotations unless absolutely necessary. Write it yourself and cite your sources. You might have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students for more information on how to avoid copyvio in your writing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Just a head's up, I declined your G11 tag on this as I could trim the draft down to a basic stub. The original castle dates from the 16th century, so it might be possible to write a genuinely encyclopedic article on it. I've got a sinking feeling though that the creator is only here to promote the hotel and doesn't get our copyvio policies, so it's something of a Pyrrhic victory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for helping answer questions here on my talk while I was at the optometrist. :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Afternoon,

I'm a librarian who is working with students (and new to Wikipedia) on the Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. One of my students Kfeuerstein edited the Keri Hulme bio for a class assignment. It looks like from the View History that her contributions have been deleted and I see that you removed some copyright information. I need to look at her edits to give her credit for her attempted contributions. Any chance you can clarify the copyright violations you indicated in your note? She quoted from an online Gale resource. Is it that the students' contributions don't fall under 'fair use'? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much.Punkassbookjockey (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Punkassbookjockey: It had to be removed because it directly copied text on another website. All text added in Wikipedia has to confirm to a very specific license, which most websites don't have, and hence we have to remove the content for legal reasons. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios may help explain things further. You may also find it helpful to contact User:Megalibrarygirl who is a professional librarian and researcher and is always amenable to help expand and improve biographies in particular. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I will definitely contact your suggested librarian reference! And to clarify, I don't know whether she copied directly word for word because I can't see her edits. However, because she used a subscription source provided by our library I can't see how anyone else could verify her contribution as a violation of copyright because she included a link on WP to the resource in the reference list that is proxied by our library's IP range. Here is the link: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&u=ohlnk20&id=GALE%7CH1000048141&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&authCount=1#. As you can see, you won't be able to access the resource. How can you verify that she directly copied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkassbookjockey (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I have access to some Gale News archives via my library card; however according to the logs in this instance, the text added to the article was copied from the website http://www.bookcouncil.org.nz/writer/hulme-keri/. Administrators (such as me, Diannaa and Megalibrarygirl) can see deleted content (but can't share it for the reasons explained above), and in this case I can confirm the text added to the article appears verbatim on that website, such as the last paragraph in the main body (immediately above the one starting "Correction note:"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks again for the clarification. I think I misunderstood because I just received an email from the student and she didn't use the website http://www.bookcouncil.org.nz/writer/hulme-keri/. She added citations from Oxford Reference and the aforementioned Gale Literature Resource Center, and those sources are still listed under the Reference List. I guess my question now is whether her contributions were deleted at all? I can't verify because all of the contributions under her username, Kfeuerstein, are crossed out in the View History. But if you look at the two previous contributors to hers, they don't include the Oxford and Gale citations she added. Thanks again for your patience. Punkassbookjockey (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Punkassbookjockey: I checked, and the content I removed was cited to http://www.bookcouncil.org.nz/writer/hulme-keri and that citation was added by Spekowsk, not Kfeuerstein. user:Spekowsk's addition was removed, and they were warned about copyvio. None of Kfeuerstein's edits were removed. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can see for yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I must have been using the administrator tools wrongly and looking at the wrong revision, I guess - I've checked the history now it's been undeleted, and Kfeuerstein's edits are fine. They had to be revision-deleted because there was a copyright violation in the article, but it was nothing to do with them, so the deletion was simply colateral damage. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's really difficult to tell what's going on without undoing the revision deletion, because we lose access to the "pretty diff" (i.e., the wikEdDiff) and have to use a old-school diffs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

Thank you for your note, and I'm sorry if changes to David's page were against copyright; that certainly was not my intention. I was alerted to information on his page that was no longer accurate, which I already updated, and then was trying to expand the biographical information available, because the text there was so sparse/skeletal. I don't see how sentences that are a simple statement of publicly-available fact (such as cities he's lived in, or the fact that he is a National Geographic photographer, or the topics his work focuses on), which are then cited, can possibly fall under the umbrella of removal due to copyright concerns. Perhaps you can help me update this page in a way that both adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines (I'm admittedly new to editing articles here), and provides an actual short biography/summary of his work? Wikipedia even states the article is a "stub" and is requesting expansion of it.. Thanks again!

Hazardpeters (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)hazardpeters

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself and another user. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. In addition to the overlap shown on the iThenticate report, pretty much everything you added was copied from the subject's own website. It's pretty promotional in tone, not what we're going for in an encyclopedia. Another editor has added the awards. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you unprotect this please? I can easily create a neutral stub. He's one of the richest men in India and clearly notable. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your interest in getting a proper page started. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it will probably fill with rubbish but I will keep it on my watch list. We can't really omit him. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I will watch-list as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dianna. I see you deleted the redirect User talk:RafaelRL1905. The user, who is not a native speaker of English, told me he had created the new account Rafaelzis, and would I please disappear the old one? I'd had quite a bit of e-mail convo with the user before, and indeed originally I blocked him, but he is trying to edit constructively and fit in. I asked first if he wouldn't rather change his username formally, to keep his contributions history, but no, he wanted the old one blocked. I suppose because the early part of its history was troubled. Anyway, that's why I redirected User talk:RafaelRL1905 to User talk:Rafaelzis. I know the latter didn't yet exist, but Rafael is editing with it, so a redirect seems convenient, in case somebody comes to the old page, maybe to discuss some article he created earlier. Anyway. I see you have welcomed Rafaelzis, so now his talkpage does exist. I've restored the redirect. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. The reason I got involved was because the user page and user talk page were both listed at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects/Userspace as being broken redirects. Adding a Welcome template to the user talk is one way to get rid of the broken redirect. I didn't delete anything, I just made the brokenness go away. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Really? It was deleted, and the log says you deleted it.[15] Perhaps something automated perpetrated by Twinkle or whatever, then. Bishonen | talk 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC).

Yes, you are right. I did not intend to delete it. Sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Diannaa, a user has been repeatedly adding copyrighted content to Transport for Victoria from the Public Transport Victoria website, as I've asked for your help with recently. His most recent edit summary now contains an assertion that permission has been granted for use of this content. I've reverted anyway, since the content simply doesn't belong on this page, but if you could revdel, again, and explain to the user that his word won't cut it, that would be great. (I would do it myself, but I would rather it be someone with a good understanding of copyright on Wikipedia.) Thanks in advance for your help. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying this up. I left the text there since the article was in draft space and it was just my working notes, but fully accept it's publicly available still. Need to get on the case and get this article finished - she turned out to be a very interesting lady and needs more time to do her justice! Ammienoot (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa - see this edit - it appears User:Soibangla is a SPA, and doesn't quite understand potocol where DS are concerned. Would you be so kind as to give it a quick review? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, actually Soibangla did nothing wrong here. They added well sourced content. On the other hand, you reverted them without any explanation, and with rollback, which is actually an abuse of rollback privileges. Are you asking to have your rollback privileges revoked?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I will probably !vote to leave out this material at the (I presume will be started) talk page discussion, but I agree this was a misuse of rollback. Also, Atsme, I’m familiar with your habit of tossing around Wikipedia acronyms, but I really can’t imagine what you mean in calling Soibangla a WP:SPA. Soibangla has been here since 2013 and has made more than 500 edits on a variety of subjects. Sure, at this time he mainly edits political articles, but that doesn't make them a "single purpose account" by any means. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You consider 524 edits more than 500? Ok. The activity on that user's TP is ok with you? C'mon MelanieN... ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing Soibangla or their activity here. I was talking about YOU - and your application of a completely wrong acronym. I know you are very fond of Wikipedia acronyms. But whatever else Soibangla may be, they are not a single purpose account (you should probably read that before applying the term to anyone else). And yes, when I went to school, 524 was more than 500. Maybe things have changed in education; actually wouldn't surprise me. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) “… It’s so simple, so very simple / That only a child can do it!” – Tom Lehrer, “New Math” from That Was the Year That Was, 1965.—Odysseus1479 01:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW Soibangla has started that talk page discussion. I presume you are going to answer their question? --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Diana, I think you can ignore this discussion. It has moved to the article's talk page. Sorry for cluttering up your page. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Thank you very much for your welcome message. I have started getting up to Wiki speed with the intention of developing a biography article about a remarkable British historian, geologist and china painter who lived from 1810 to 1910. Inexplicably, this notable renaissance man does not yet have a Wikipedia entry. I am excited about this but the Wiki learning curve does seem formidable! Viroco (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I hope you find Wikipedia to be a rewarding and enjoyable pastime. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I've removed much promotional and apparent copyright violation content, and would appreciate it if you can check for anything I may have missed. Also rev/delete, of course. Hello and thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello to you also. I have checked as best I could and found nothing further. but since the school is in Spain it's possible that there's Spanish-language sources that were closely paraphrased. Rev-del is done also. Thanks as always for your help with copyvio cleanup. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You're terrific. Thanks as always, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, with reference to the following:

"Account creation from IP addresses in the range 92.29.144.0/20, which includes your IP address (92.29.150.125), has been blocked by Diannaa."

Unfortunately, this blocks users accessing Wikipedia to edit entries via an entire UK Internet provider, TalkTalk. Is this fair to penalize what theoretically adds up to several thousand users to penalize one person?

Regards,

Mackem_Beefy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackem Beefy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mackem Beefy. Looking at edits from that range in November and December 2017, the only person editing from that range was the user I intended to block. So there's definitely not thousands of people editing or attempting to edit from that range. You are the first person to have taken issue with the block. Therefore I think the block is doing its job and is not excessive. The block does not prevent people with accounts from logging in and editing. The block expires on April 7. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your welcome message, I'm indeed new here and can do with some help. Concerning your other message, I did not copy from the Gödöllő wiki page, but adapt (removing outdated information) from the webpage which I have also cited (now third source on the World Peace Gong wiki page). I guess someone else used that same info for the Gödöllő wiki page. Either way, I believe that particular info is more relevant on the World Peace Gong wiki page. What do you think ?Valamivan IGB (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If the source you used was the same as content in a Wikipedia article, it's likely your source copied from Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Could you do me a big favour, please? I'm assisting an expert geophysicist, User:BrucePL, under the Adopter-a-User scheme. He's come to appreciate the reasons why pages containing copyvios get speedily deleted. Could I ask you to email him a copy of the deleted text for Propagating Rifts, please? It was CSD-ed on 30th Jan, but now he'd like to have another shot at it, with me offering support (here) where I can.

We would also like to retrieve similarly deleted text for French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study which Primefac CSD-ed around the same time. Can you send this too, or is it best to ask each deleting admin directly? Many thanks. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have sent them both. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. Thank you for your edit regarding the article about Rohm. Back in 2014 I was a rookie in Wikipedia editing and I made a few mistakes. I try my best to write according to the Wikipedia rules when I add information to an article. But I think that when you deleted the information that I added to the aforementioned article, you inadvertently deleted information by other users too and their efforts should not be nullified just because I made a mistake, for which I apologize. Thank you for your vigilance and effort in keeping Wikipedia tidy. Silver_gasman (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That's what brought me to the page, was recently added copyvio, added by another user. While investingating, I discovered the older copyvio added by yourself from the same source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, came across Roland Muldoon while doing some DAB patrolling. The article's been around since 2013, but is a huge copyvio (see here. Was going to request deletion, but the subject appears to be notable. Should I have simply tagged it? If so, which tag: "copypaste" or "non-free"? If I remove the copyvio content, it leaves almost no content. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi onel5969. Thanks for your interest in helping with copyvio cleanup. The potential source webpage https://publicdomainblog.wordpress.com/patrons/ appears to have copied from us rather than the other way around. It was never archived by the Wayback Machine, but hover over the blue links in the section on Roland Muldoon and you will see that they are all wikilinks to Wikipedia pages, a pretty sure sign of a Wikipedia mirror. The article has problems, but I'm pretty sure it's not copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa, this again. I've removed a lot of what appears to be copyright violation, which may require rev/deletion. This despite assurances from the COI account two weeks ago that they 'got it.' Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Rev-del complete. I have added a final warning to the user talk page. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Even without the copyright issues, the detailed descriptions don't belong when they're mostly sourced to the subject's website. But I'm past wasting my time to explain the finer points to that account. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, Regards raising the copyright issue about the content of Example based machine translation I'll try to rephrase those content to be copyright friendly.

Thanks

Mehdi.moh (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have checked the new version and it looks okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. Section titled Worth County High School Search shows up as copyright violation on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. In November 2017, you admonished the unregistered editor here for another violation, but the Worth County edit was in June 2017. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

This is regarding page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80dityah%E1%B9%9Bdayam Can you show me proof of copy right violation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.193.141 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The translation was copied from http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/hymns-and-stotras/aditya-hridayam-stotram-heart-aditya-sun/. This article is dated December 2014 and is therefore still under copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this okay if I add my own translation ?

Yes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.193.141 (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

... thank you |p Not sure when I'll finally learn to run things through the detector before doing anything else with them... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

We alway check for copyvio cuz we're chill like dat — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

Aseem Malhotra asked that I edit his bio (I maintain his website - Ginger and Moon). This information came from him and so it is from a creditable source. Could you possibly be more specific as to what needed to be changed? Which was to your belief a copyright infringement?

I dont want to be blocked due to helping him correct his page as the current content written is non-factual and he believes it is a sabotage and discrimination to his character.

Thank you! Holzdj (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holzdj (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. Regardless of its copyright status, the material is not suited for an encyclopedia, as it's worded like an advertisement. It's not the sort of content you would find in a paper encyclopedia, and we don't want it here. In fact the person who removed it did so with a comment "terribly non-encyclopedic, brochure-like content".

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dianna, I read your feedback and am grateful for the plain English and directness in which it is written. I would like to clarify that I am not getting paid to edit Aseems content. I understand what is meant and why these rules are in place but am also curious to know how ones name is not tarnished on Wikipedia as the person who originally wrote his profile is not correct in his views either. And so how does one go about getting both views? — Holzdj  (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What you did is add copyright material to Wikipedia from the subject's own website. That's not okay, because to do so is a violation of copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. Regardless of the copyright status of the material, what the subject has to say about himself is not of interest from a Wikipedia point of view; what we are looking for is original prose that our editors write themselves using reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. Reliable sources include things like reputable websites, newspapers, magazines, and books. If you are not able to source your additions to such sources, we can't accept the content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa! This photo is posted at the article Shooting of Stephon Clark and is described as having been taken from his Facebook account. Is that a legitimate use? Thanks for any information. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We do have such; see for example Shooting of Michael Brown#Backgrounds, Shooting of Trayvon Martin#Public response, Shooting of Oscar Grant#Oscar Grant III, and a number of similar examples. I think it's probably okay. If you wish further input, consider nominating at WP:FFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I've just uploaded some files (File:GearheadsCollisionBoxSize.png and File:GearheadsToyStats.png), which I assume are non-free (I'm no expert). Do you know if I'm right? It seems to me that anyone can create a dialogue box of these sorts (anyone can load an IDE and just slap some buttons and drop-down menus around), so I'm wondering if you know if these pass the threshold of originality? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that these are correctly tagged as non-free, judging by the examples at History of the graphical user interface. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you SURE that tirerack was the original of the section you deleted rather than them copying wiki? Your obfuscation of the deletion record prevents other editors from checking it out. Greglocock (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Here the Wayback Machine shows that the Tirerack.com website has had this content since 2005; the edit that added the material occurred on March 25, 2018. I can't find this prose in any other location on Wikipedia. So yeah, pretty sure — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Assuming the red bits are common, OK, thanks Greglocock (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've just found that you have blocked my article 'HarryBigButton' from editing. I think I haven't used any copyrighted material without permission. Can you let me know which part could be wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoutaway (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Shoutaway, I assume you're talking about Draft:HarryBigButton, which you are still able to edit. You did copy directly from this website, which is not allowed. You must write all of the content in your own words. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Yes I am the copyright holder of all HarryBigButton photos and all other materials related to HarryBigButton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoutaway (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Shoutaway, the content on Global Rockstar is copyrighted to them, with all rights reserved. You cannot use their text on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

Thank you for taking the time to leave me a message and let me know why the content was removed. I was wondering why it wasn't removed prior to my edits? It seems as though all content was removed, and not just some of it, a lot of it was not added by me. Do they need to cite the original history of the company, but then write original content about it on the wiki?

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjak.techy (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's true that some of the content had been on Wikipedia for a while, but it was all copied from the corporate website, and was therefore a copyright violation. I discovered the long-standing copyvio when a bot alerted me that your edit was a potential copyright violation. Everything you add here needs to be written in your own words please. Independent sourcing is best, as opposed to the corporate website. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the response! I'll work on that. Thank you for clarifying and being super professional :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjak.techy (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that page I had been on working for the last week. Did you have any idea how long that took me to do? You just delete it in the space of a few seconds. If I was violating some copyright could you just not have told me to change that first without deleting the whole thing? I wasn't even finished editing the whole page I could have changed the CAIN violation when I was finished editing. Tdv123 02:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tdv123. I considered doing it that way but when I saw you have a history of copyright violations I decided not to. I will block you if I see any further copyright violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dianaa,

You left a copyvio warning on my talk page about the article Edmund O'Doran, and suggestested that I had added content from the pdf file you noted on the warning. I can assure you that I added no content whatsoever to the article. I made a few edits there including adding some categories and re-formating and updating two of the references in the article. I did also see there a reference that listed the pdf you mention, but did not even reformat that reference since it was a pdf. I never even looked at the pdf file itself, so it is impossible that I added any content from it to the article and committed a copyvio offense. Please adjust your message on my talk page accordingly. Thank you. Z359q (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. So yeah, it does look like the material you added was copied from that thesis. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for double checking the report and linking it here. I can understand that there were copyright violations in the article. I did not create the article, nor did I add any content from anywhere to it. Like I explained above I only added categories and re-formatted two references. There was not any addition of content or material by me. Please help me to understand what I added that is a copyright violation. Thank you. Z359q (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The diff quoted in the report about the violation is here: [16] and [17] is done by an editor named ABQ2017 @ 7:05 on 2018-03-28. Not me, but editor ABQ2017. Am I reading the report and diff correctly? Thanks for your help. Z359q (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I finally see what the problem is: I posted the warning on the wrong person's talk page. I am sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your quick attention to this matter. Thank you for removing the misplaced warning from my talk page. With all the fine work you do here, it is understandable that there might be a slight mishap now and again. No worries and again thank you. Z359q (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your edit on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chow_Tai_Fook_Jewellery_Group Kindly note this is mainly a translation article from Chinese wiki based on here. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%91%A8%E5%A4%A7%E7%A6%8F%E7%8F%A0%E5%AF%B6%E9%9B%86%E5%9C%98 For the part of "The story of Chow Tai Fook", it is mainly translated from a printed book called 《周大福八十年發展之旅》(The history and development of Chow Tai Fook) (currently only Chinese version is available) which I have cited in the reference.

As there is a "draft" in the article headline, please kindly advise how to remove the draft. Thanks for your help. Kittychan1132 (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The material is now a draft. To submit the draft for publication, follow the steps at Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. This will get the draft in the queue for review. This could take a while as they have a large backlog right now. I have removed some copyright material from the draft. Please see your talk page for information on copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Im sorry I copyrighted that :( HyperionExodus (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, I think I've found some copyrighted sources that have been used on Thai Chinese and Chinese Cambodian. I noticed earlier this year you removed a whole lot of copyrighted information from Hoa people and I think the same source has been used again on "Thai Chinese" and "Chinese Cambodian". Just wanted to let you know so you can have a look if there's any problem with the use of that source. Thanks. (121.219.118.94 (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC))

I was unable to find any copyvio from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1340&context=fss_papers in either of these articles. I found copyvio from two different books in Chinese Filipino. If you have other source documents you wish me to check please let me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa and if I do find anything I will let you know. (121.219.118.94 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC))

92.12.169.60

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I've rolled back or undone his edits, and hatted his comments on Talk:Untermensch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Also most probably 88.109.73.81 Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked each IP for one week. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And thank you for blocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I've removed copyright violation and promotional content that was re-added after your cleaning. More rev/deletion is in order, and perhaps page protection or action against sock/meat puppets. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done the revision deletion and another admin has protected for a coupla weeks. Thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Terrific. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the info. noted with a sense of urgency. i would love to get the draft to my sandbox for edit. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSwift (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright content anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Understand better now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSwift (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

thank you for the many guidance tools you provided with good explanation for edits relating to, in this case, Heritage of Pride wiki page. The list at the end was specifically taken from the "about team" page of their website. I was not aware how such needed to be referenced since the site is listed as outside link. You might find it ironic that I made a few specific changes earlier to address lines on wiki I found to be direct lifts from hop's press releases. Those were deleted by another user until I pointed my logic for rewriting the passage. They were undeleted. I will work from the current page as I feel it's getting better with each set of eyes reviewing it. Thank you.

ONE QUESTION. THE CITATION OF THE EMMY NOMINATION IS ON THE LINK I ADDED BUT IT MUST BE DOWNLOADED, IT VAN NOT BE READ ONLINE. HOW DO YOU ADD SUCH A PDF?PhilEdits (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC) PhilEdits (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I found a citation and will add it for you. It was tricky to find cuz it was the 2018 Emmys, not 2017. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Dianna If I read the copyright use section correctly, it is okay to use basic facts from a non-for profit website but definitely not any images they might have a trademark on or "creative writing" included on their page without properly using "quotation marks" around that text and citing in line where it came from. If I copied the simple text only list of organizations that HERITAGE OF PRIDE, INC, a 501c3, is affiliated with from the 'About Team' page of their website does that merit immediate deletion? I've tried to find the answer but decided my time was better spent reaching out to you for advice. Thank you PhilEdits (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. It doesn't matter whether the source web page is from a non-profit or a for-profit. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. In other words, use your sources as a source of information, not of prose. Simple lists that do not contain any creative content are not considered copyrightable - for example a list of organizations or a chronological list of guests on a TV show. Short quotations are okay, but don't use quotations where it's possible to avoid them by writing your own prose. If you have time there's some reading material at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at Purdue or this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DIannaa You chastised me (politely) for using a blogspot reference, I was not the person who added that. I did use some Huffington Post reference, do we try to stay away from her work as well?

What is incorrect about the following which you removed "became part of the mechanism which triggered a Human Rights struggle yet to be resolved" Is Stonewall not the kindling that ignited many people to unify (EHCO) and formally propose a March be held in NY and other US cities at the Nov 1969 meeting in Philadelphia... and had the March not been overlooked for the most part until that event a year later. Haven't all these marches/parades/festivals not been part of the mechanism which has helped bring ths topic to the light of day. Do the Grand Marshall each year not serve as role models chosen for their civic achievements the org wanted to ensure its audience was informed about. Not to call it a mechanism for the modern LGBT rights movement is to disassociate Edith Windsor from Marriage Equality finally being passed. I also think the attempt to properly explain why Heritage is part of their name offers incite which is valid and informative, their audience looking at the page should be aware of the heritage they sought to maintain, as so much had been underground and not chronicled for decades. George Chauncey is finally in seclusion working on the sequel to his 1994 volume on Gay NY 1893-1940 (?) and it will bring us to modern day when it is released summer of 2019. While I was personally honored to have the chance to take his last course, he in my opinion, not that captivating of a speaker compared to most of the CU Prof's I've studied with. Rosalyn Deutsche and Robert O'Meely are much more engaging, as is Richard Parker. This is all just IMHO... and please know while I am emphatic here, I am content with your decision. Best PhilEdits (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your own musings or for you to draw conclusions about events. What we're looking for is neutrally written content sourced to independent reliable sources. If you've got some general information about the efficacy of marches in raising awareness of issues or about march leaders being role models and can source it to independent reliable sources, it might be appropriate to add a condensed it to Heritage of Pride or it might be considered as off-topic for that particular article. Checking the reliable sources noticeboard, it appears that the Huffington Post is considered as a not-so-good source and is getting worse, due to their political bias. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; honestly, I was unsure as to how much should be in my own words (supported by cite). I hewed far too closely to the source. I'm grateful for your comment because I now feel confident writing/editing it appropraitely and then the editors can look it over.Chidino (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I see my note about attribution. I'm willing to do that and understand why, but the page for using the attribution template has no instructions, and I'm not sure how to proceed technically to get it in the page. I used the National Archives NRHP source and then improved the base text and corrected some mistakes with my own research while on site. How do I add this attribution? One of the citations DOES link to the Village application, but I think it's not sufficient per your note. Melaniemccalmont (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The instructions are as follows: add the this code: {{PD-notice}} after your citation. Here is a straightforward example from a few days ago. The template expands to add the message " This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain" immediately after the citation. It's still the correct attribution template to use, even if you have modified the copied text a bit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, just wondering why you removed Gogo Dodo from the admin newsletter subscription. Did they ask you to be removed? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed them because they've not edited for over a year :( — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I just wanted to reach out and say thank you for assisting me with my edits on the United Purpose/Concern Universal page. I am a new editor to Wikipedia and I will be continuing to research and add to this page throughout the rest of my semester at school. Also, thank you for the information regarding copyright and citations. I will be looking into the resources you put into my talk page. Thanks again. Mcoidakis (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Mcoidakis

Hi.
I recently came across a user (probably a UPE), who had deceptive userpage. I removed the content where user claimed to have "major contributions in articles which they didnt edit even once. I think it had been copied from someone else's userpage. Also, User:Er. Avinash Singh/Books/Science & Technology in Israel seems to be copied from somewhere, as the user in discussion hasnt signed their comments even once. Could you please tell me from where did they copy that stuff? I didnt know who else to ask. Thanks a lot, —usernamekiran(talk) 15:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The user just got blocked as a sock-master, but would you please tell me the origin of userpage, and the subpage? —usernamekiran(talk) 15:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry usernamekiran but I was unable to locate the copied userpage. He copied the material back in 2013, so it's possible the copied userpage no longer exists or has been modified a lot since then. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

wow. I didnt realise it was done in 2013, i should have looked at that. Thanks a lot for your attempt though, it is appreciated a lot. See you around :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 03:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

hello Diannaa!

I am writing because a photo I've uploaded for the draft of page Draft:Henry Hey (called "Henry Hey on stage on tour with George Michael") originally was deleted due to lack of permission from the creator. Since its deletion, I have submitted an email forwarded by the photographer, but haven't heard back from the wiki address, other than a confirmation that the case was created. I reuploaded the photo recently, and I would appreciate any advice for preventing it from being deleted again.

Thanks, tgale34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgale34 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tgale34. The photo has been deleted, because it was tagged as being for use on Wikipedia only, which is not a liberal enough license for our purposes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In Tsarist officers in the Red Army, you deleted two edits of mine. I have no problem in deleting the latest one (the one containing copyrighted material from marxists.org) but you also deleted my edit of 03:03, 4 April 2018 (613 bytes), in the section "Generals", which does not contain anything copyrighted. I cannot undo the edit myself, so I have to ask you to undo your edit and then delete only the 1,831-byte part from the "Overview" section (the copyrighted part) while keeping the 613-byte part from the "Generals" section. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.214.11 (talk)

Fixed, and alphabetized. Sorry about the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, can you take a look at 331comma (talk · contribs). Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Too late; already blocked. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

Thanks for your tips in order to avoid copyright infringement. However I noticed that on the history page of Ken Khouri I am not able to click on the prev link of your edits nor the edits I did which have also been line crossed. Is there a reason I am unable to do so? I would like to take a look at my edits so I can write things with my own words this time around. Please let me know. ThanksMarc Frier (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The revisions containing the copyright violation were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. I can send you the removed material via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added an email to my account although I have not received a confirmation code from wikipedia yet. You can send it to my email (Redacted). ThanksMarc Frier (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Email sent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the revisions you sent me I actually do not think that all of those written sentences were a copyright infringement. All of those sentences had their respective sources too. Can you please send me the cited sources on those senteces too? I did not get them.

Your decision to hide the revision was pretty harsh in my opinion and giving me the opportunity to look at the edits on a clear manner in order to make the necessary changes would have been nice. Eventhough you have sent me the removed material I cant make an honest review of my previous edits since the information is all scattered out. Is there a way you could send me the whole article I had written before your first reversal so I can make a better assessment with the sources included? ThanksMarc Frier (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Instead of sending a second email I am temporarily undoing the revision deletion so that you can see more readily what I removed and use the copyvio detector to compare the source page with the condition the article was in immediately before I started clean-up. The parts highlighted in pink are the sections that are the same.

• this report compares http://www.ipsnews.net/2003/09/arts-weekly-music-producer-pioneered-reggae-forerunner-rocksteady/
• this report compares with https://www.discogs.com/artist/505242-Ken-Khouri
• this report compares with https://www.reggaerecord.com/en/content/federal/
• this report compares with http://www.savagejaw.co.uk/pressuresounds/pscd51.htm
• this report compares with https://www.discogs.com/label/247896-Merritone. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,
This article has been tagged for speedy deletion as a WP:COPVIO since 23:09, April 5, 2018. The Earwig tool report was "Violation Unlikely 39.8% confidence". It may well be that the source cited as being copied from uses the same or similar sources as the article currently in articlespace.
Having done some due diligence checks, in my opinion the article should not be deleted as a manifest copyvio, but must be subject to scrutiny for Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.
What do you think about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't look at the percentage - it's only a rough guide. After cleaning, the overlap is still 32%, but this is just names of organizations and the references at the bottom. I can see why nobody deleted the article - it needed some paraphrasing and trimming is all. Anybody could have done this; it doesn't have to be done by an admin. There's still a bit in common with the source material as the article is more or less a chronological telling of events and positions served, but I think it's ok now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been creating articles like Dora E. Thompson, largely drawing on U.S. Government pages like this one. However, it occurred to me that I don't really understand the copyright status of such pages. If I just created ten odd pages with copyvio, please tell me, and then I'll start praying for a miracle. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

US Government webpages are public domain. I see you've included the template {{PD-notice}} so all is chill. Note publications by other governments, including material published by the various US states, individual members of congress, senators, and material published by the governments of other countries, are not typically public domain and cannot be copied here — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Phew. Am I correct in assuming that the images would also be public domain? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually yes, if they're on a PD web page. But looking at http://history.amedd.army.mil/ancwebsite/superintendents/thompson4.html for example, I would not upload that photo, as we don't have author information or creation date so we are unable to determine its copyright status. Compare for example https://www.army.mil/article/202993 (click on caption to view copyright info : "U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Neysa Canfield") which is definitely okay. To sum up, if it's not clear that it's public domain, we have to assume that it is not. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

a) File:Pinki Rani Jangra.png: It was first posted online by a Hindi newspaper. So its latest revision needs to be revdeled.

b) Is this book copyrighted? If so, then Achalpur has some copy-pasted text from it – [18]. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a new edition of an old book; the book was originally published in 1910 but was revised in 1976. So my feeling is that since we don't know what all re-writes were done we can't copy it verbatim. I will take it out as a presumed copyvio. Regardless of the copyright issue, User:Sitush has pointed out that these old gazetteers contain many inaccuracies and are not a terrific source for data on India.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. They have been discussed somewhere, probably at WP:RSN or WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough explanation on the rules and guidelines regarding Wikipedia. Since you are clearly more knowledgeable regarding updating Wikipedia what's the easiest and acceptable way to have his page updated? The information I previously added is important information that we would like added. Especially his accomplishments. Would you be willing to make the updates we would like do I coukd avoid the COI concern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lstevenson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, You flagged a possible copyright violation in the Draft page I have just begun working on at Draft:International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ISCCL). I am just beginning the page, and am learning the code and syntax. It is slow going, but interesting to delve behind the scenes of Wikipedia.

Since the current draft (still in its infancy with a long way to go before it is finished) is my own writing and is thoroughly cited, I assume the potential copyright violation you are looking at is the list of Annual Committee meetings and Symposia. While the majority of this list is available on the Committee's website, the list of meetings and their locations is also available from a series of documents that I am in the process of citing. While it is not absolutely necessary to list all of the meetings in the Wiki text, it is useful as a running narrative (with the links to meeting documents and websites) of how and when international heritage agreements, frameworks and decisions are made. This is all important information in an Encyclopedia. The list is not that different from similar lists included in the parent organization wiki page (ICOMOS) sections on the "International Committees" and "ICOMOS charters and doctrinal texts." Both of these lists have single-source citations. The list I have created has new information - adding countries to each entry, and an additional entry for 2017 - in addition to multiple citations to be added for entries in the list.

All of that said, if the editors still find a copyright issue with the list once I have completed its citations, I can either remove it or obtain a Creative Commons designation for it from the Committee.

I hope that responds to your concerns, Landhistory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landhistory (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Chronological lists without any creative content are okay to copy. The part that was a copyright violation, and which I removed, was the list of objectives, which was copied from here. Regardless of the copyright issue, we don't normally include vision statements, mission statements, or corporate goals. And to maximize the chances of your draft getting accepted, what you need to do is use sources independent of the organization: coverage in newspapers, magazines, reliable independent websites, or books. You might like to review the notability guideline for organizations Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for further information on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, In an attempt to render effectiveness of the Wikipedia page, I wanted to include information from various sources by citing them. I understand now, that I need to paraphrase or include them in . I had a difficulty in including the date of retrieval in the sources. Can you please help me in this regard? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbhu23 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a referencing toolbar at the top of the edit window. Click on the word "Cite" to open the toolbar. Then click on the word "Templates" to get access to some automated citation tools. Test this out in your sandbox before using in in article space. There's a starter guide to citations at Help:Referencing for beginners — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input in my editorial process. I would like to request that you contact my professor user:MOsterbur or my Wiki Educational Foundation expert User:Ian (Wiki Ed) before blocking me. I realize I am not sufficiently paraphrasing but it is confusing when you post that it is copyright violation when my understanding it that this close paraphrasing that may be an example of plagiarism rather than copyright. Mcoidakis (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Mcoidakis

Please have a look at this copyvio report, which shows the level of copying that I removed. Sone sections are identical to the source webpage. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. The level of paraphrasing you did was not adequate and did not meet the level of paraphrasing that is required for this website. You will only be blocked if the problem is persistent - if you continue to add copyright material you risk being blocked. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dianaaa. You know there are some conflicts about the article on the term Untermensch. Therefore I'm sending you my last contribution, so you could check it. I want all of the information to be exposed clearly and so I also kept the source given by some other user who has some different views and objections about the first column of the article. Here is my edit: [19], and here is the discussion thread: Untermensch#From_Slavs_it's_mainly_ethnic_Poles,_Serbs_and_Russians_that_were_called_subhuman. Could you verify it and keep an eye on the article? Now I've noticed that even the sockpuppet of User:English Patriot Man reactivated and posts some fake information. Thanks in advance. Yatzhek (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Yatzhek but I am unable to get involved in the content dispute at Untermensch as I don't have time to perform the needed research to make a sensible contribution. I do of course know that English Patriot Man visited the page since I blocked that IP for a week at the end of March. The article is on my watch-list for that reason. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how Charles Shoppee was "a direct copy" from HRAS, but nevertheless I have changed it so that I don't think it could now be considered to be. Could I bother you to look at User:Pdfpdf/Charles Shoppee and tell me if you still think there is a problem? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW: I feel it would be more useful if the template said something like "fragments of the article are identical to fragments of xxxx". I found the statement that the article was a direct copy very confusing. (Because quite clearly, the whole article is not a direct copy.) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There's still some copyvio; I've made some further amendments to the draft to reduce the overlap, particularly in the final paragraph. I look at several factors when deciding how to handle each violation. In your case, since you have already been warned twice for copyright violations, I thought nominating the article for deletion was the best course, since I could not remove the copyvio without destroying the article, and a deletion nomination might serve as a wake-up call that copyright violations are not tolerated. You are reaching the point where you will be blocked from editing if the copyvio continues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making further amendments to the draft. Is it now fit to be moved into the main space? Pdfpdf (talk)

Obviously I don't want to be blocked, and given that I've created dozens of articles that haven't had any problems, I don't see how wikipedia would benefit from me being blocked. You are strong on being dictatorial, and rather weak on explaining yourself. If you continue to harass me without explaining what I'm doing wrong, I'm likely to just go away and wikipedia will lose another editor with 11 years experience who has performed over 50,000 edits and created dozens of articles, and you appear to be doing this on the basis that three of the articles I've created upset you. Bullying me with unexplained threats is not a wake-up call. Explaining what I'm doing that upsets you, and how I can avoid doing what upsets you, is much more likely to achieve the desired result for both of us.

I repeat, I don't understand how Charles Shoppee was "a direct copy" from HRAS. Please explain. Is the problem that fragments of the article are identical to fragments of HRAS? Is the problem that I'm too closely paraphrasing the source? (If so, I can address that, and in fact you have already seen that having been told that by another editor, I made changes which made the article more acceptable to you.) Or is/are there (an)other different problem(s)? As I've said, I really don't understand just what it is that I'm doing that is causing you problems.

BTW: I draw to your attention that one of the admins at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Charles Shoppee said: It was claimed to be a copy of HRAS and thus a copyright infringement. However I can't see a violation there. A second comment was that Earwig's Copyvio Detector, it came back with (I think) about 50% matching data. When you consider that the names of the positions, the universities, the awards and the molecules are going to be identical to the source, it's hardly surprising that there's going to be a high degree of matching.

You say: "I look at several factors". What are these factors?

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of each editor's length of service or number of valuable contributions, copyright violations are never okay. It's a violation of the copyright policy of this website and copyright law. Factors I look at when deciding on a course of action include the experience level of the editor and the number of copyvio warnings they have already received. Are they a long-term editor or are they an employee of a corporation or school visiting our site at the behest of their employer? It's true that in biographies there's going to be a certain amount of overlap such as the names of schools attended or lists of books written, and even for a violation-free article the copyvio detector can give a deceptively high percentage. Your draft at User:Pdfpdf/Charles Shoppee still shows a 33% overlap for example, though it is now clean. But there's no reason to include unique phraseology such as "moved to Melbourne to be closer to family" like you did in your original version. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any such unique or creative wording from the source material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the draft now fit to be moved into the main space? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but you have answered very few of the questions I asked you. Again I repeat, I don't understand how Charles Shoppee was "a direct copy" from HRAS. Please explain. Is the problem that fragments of the article are identical to fragments of HRAS? Is the problem that I'm too closely paraphrasing the source? Or are there other problems? It appears to me that your sole criterion is the percentage returned by the copyvio detector tool. If so, it would appear to me that a simple solution to our problems is for me to test my drafts with the copyvio tool. Or are there other criteria? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

By-the-way: I've never said or implied that copyright violations are okay. In fact, I've gone to considerable effort to avoid them. My major problem appears to be not understanding what your problems are. Henceforth, rather than bullying and harassing me, should anything cause you a problem, can you please WP:AGF, bring the problem to my attention, and explain to me what your problem is? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I already explained myself pretty fully. Here's some more details. The wording "direct copy" comes from Template:Db-copyvio-notice and there was some direct copying from the source webpage. Whether or not there's enough overlap to warrant G12 deletion is a judgement call. For this particular article I felt there was enough overlap to warrant the speedy deletion nomination. My sole criterion is not the percentage shown by Earwig's tool. Each case needs to be manually assessed, as list material, names of schools attended, and titles of books written will give an artificially high reading. Testing your drafts with the tool is not the best approach, because copyright material is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes and drafts. The problem is that not only are you too closely paraphrasing your source documents, but also in some instances you are copying unique phrases that could easily be re-written such as "moved to Melbourne to be closer to family". Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. The draft is now clean and can be moved to article space. I have to go to work and will later be taking my mother shopping so I will not be available again until circa 20:00 UTC (3 pm MDT). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I now have a much better understanding. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'm not sure why you removed the copy I added to the books section of our page for MaryJane Butters. I only added descriptive copy about the books that weren't listed yet on the Wiki page - copy we wrote that doesn't include any quotations from anywhere else. Please tell me how I can include the descriptive copy about our newest books. Thanks! Carol CarolSHill (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you please let me know how we could get the descriptive copy (no copyrighted material involved - just short book descriptions) about MaryJane's newer books on the Wikipedia page? No conflict of interest - we merely want the content to be current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSHill (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You are obviously affiliated with the MaryJane Butters organization, otherwise you would not refer to yourself as "we". Therefore you have a conflict of interest. Regardless of whether or not you can get the book descriptions I removed released under a compatible license, such advert-like material is not what we are looking for in an encyclopedia article on the topic. Please have another look at the material I posted on your talk page about copyright and conflict of interest for a more detailed answer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This version is copy-pasted from here, although copyvio detector isn't useful in this case. BTW, the aforementioned page is licensed under GFDL Version 1.3. So it might not be a copyvio, but I am not sure. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. I have gone ahead with revision deletion, as GNU Free Documentation License alone is not enough. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

HI, I've just reverted this as it appears to be an assembled copy/paste. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sitush and thank your for your interest in helping with copyvio cleanup. I've done the rev-deletion for this edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa, could you look at the Gateway Seminary article? Much of it is a verbatim copy of the seminary's copyrighted website, especially this page and this one. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Article cleaned. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And thank you for the prompt actions. Your hard work on copyright issues is much appreciated. You handle such touchy issues with professionalism. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, so kind of you to say. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, when you have a chance, can you check this for copyright violations? If nothing else, it's become a virtual website/resume. Thanks from 2601, 99, or whatever. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

[20] Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked. Actually was blocked before you posted, but the work you did is still worthwhile because it gets the details recorded on the SPI case page for future reference. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this edit is unwarranted.--Vinayaraj (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,
As an administrator, what do you recommend I should do when an active Wikipedian continuously personal attack directed at me? This person can become an administrator and abuse their rights. — Lbtocth^talk 23:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The place to start is to have a look at the advice at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Responding to personal attacks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I read that before I messaged you. — Lbtocth^talk 00:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If you've already followed the advice in the first two paragraphs, please proceed to WP:ANI. Make sure you notify the person you are reporting that they have been reported to an administrators notice board. You can use the template {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. I probably had this user's talk page on my watchlist because of User talk:Diannaa/Archive 55#Harrison Stewart Photos which is why I noticed this post. I'm not sure this editor quite gets WP:COPY because many of their recent uploads seem a bit questionable. For example, File:Luis Perez TAMUC2017.jpg is claimed to have been taken with a camera phone, which is possible but there's no EXIF data, etc. to aid in verification. The same photo (or a blown up version of it) can be seen here well before being uploaded to Wikipedia. I've posted about this on their user talk, assuming as much good faith as possible, but this might be a case of WP:CIR with respect of image uploads. Any suggestions on how to proceed here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I have examined and deleted his uploads and given a final warning. Thanks for letting me know. I will watch his contribs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I was hoping you could give me guidance on a small matter as an admin.

I found this article on Blake Luttrell, which is a unambiguous copyright infringement of its only source [21] (copy-paste, really). I tried to follow the speedy deletion process but alas, I found it a bit confusing. Could you please look into this matter? Regards, RetiredDuke (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi RetiredDuke and thanks for the report. The source web page is a publication of the US military, and is therefore in the public domain. I have added the required attribution. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources for more information on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa! I just wanted to thank you for dealing with Ouyang Xiu, a pretty major and heroic undertaking – I don't think there are many editors who'd actually get hold of the book to do a copyright check! So it seems a little churlish to say this: I'm still seeing overlap with this book from 2009, and of course can't now check whether, say, "his literate mother was responsible for much of his early education" was in our article before that was published. Could I ask you to take one more look (unless, of course, you've already checked and discounted that, as is likely)? Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jlan you meticulous ol' copyvio hunter you! I did look online at that book, and discovered the material in question was copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The phrase was added to our article at 05:06, May 31, 2007 along with the bulk of the copyvio. (The source book Mote says on page 122 "...yet his mother was literate and is credited with having taught him to write when he was a small boy...".)

On page 4 of Han Yu: Remembered you will see where the author states that some of the content is "found poetry": material that comes from elsewhere that is presented in a poem-like form, mainly by using spacing. Attribution for one Wikipedia excerpt is given on page 21. Material on page 20 is a copy of this old revision of Han Yu. So I'm pretty sure we're okay regarding that particular potential source book. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

He-hee, I thought you would have, but ... you know, belt AND braces (or do people call those something else where you live?). Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Braces=suspenders; car park=parkade; United States=Canada :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa,

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft titled above. I noticed you have claimed that I have copied from other sources available on the Internet, which is a blogspot post at (http://everettjenkinswhoswhoinislam.blogspot.ca/2013/07/akbari-ustad-muhammad-ali-muhammad.html), and put them into the mentioned draft article, but I found this to be a largely unsubstantiated claim.

The blogspot post you mentioned was published on 8 July 2013, and my source of content for the draft article is actually from another Wikipedia article Ali Iskandar of Johor#Early_years, which were created back in 2009. Hence, it is evident that the post on blogspot is copied directly from Wikipedia instead, and I'm merely moving some related contents from other Wikipedia articles to my draft to provide continuity to the section I'm trying to contribute. I request that you should have the deleted content on the draft reviewed again, and then restore the deleted contents on the draft accordingly if there are no copyright infringement found. Thank you. CalebYJ (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello CalebYJ. I found you are correct, the content I removed was from within Wikipedia. I have restored it to your draft and added the required attribution. Attribution is required so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It is also required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement in the future. There's more information on this topic at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

[[22]]

Would you please explain what you did on 21 Feb. 2018, or if you didn't do it, what happened? There is an undefined reference ("Hendrix") that I was going through history trying to find. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Some revisions were revision-deleted to completely remove the copyright violation from the page history. Sorry for not noticing I had broken a citation. I have now fixed the problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Juicy Oranges (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Michael_Johnson_British_graphic_designer_2017.jpg Hi, I uploaded an image and have sent multiple copies of the copyright permissions email template to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but the file was deleted anyway. I have since asked this question at Media copyright questions but have also received no answer. Am I doing something wrong? How can I get the image re-instated? Thank you (Sorry if I've asked this in the wrong place) Katheaton (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the image and added the required template that shows the permission email has already been sent. The OTRS team that reviews these emails has some huge backlogs right now, so it may still take a while for the image and the email to get matched up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - that's appreciated. Katheaton (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa, The article about by great, great grand uncles seems to have been deleted due to some copyright infringement. I don't know who wrote the original article and therefore have no access to the wealth of information that it held. It is of great value to our family. See info below

17:22, 2 April 2015 Diannaa (talk | contribs) deleted page McDonald brothers (priests) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: from http://web.archive.org/web/20130705010141/http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1m3/mcdonald-james)

Can you let me know the following please: 1. How do I retrieve the information form the deleted article or indeed find out who wrote it 2. Can it be pointed out where the infringement occurred 3. Can I edit the document and resubmit minus the infringement as I would hate for the information to be lost.

Regards,

Cathal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathal McDonald (talk • contribs) 13:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cathal McDonald. The article was a copy of the source web page; it was pretty much identical. You can view the material here, so please be assured that no information has been lost. You are welcome to attempt writing an article on this topic of you like. For information as to how to get started, please see Wikipedia:Your first article or visit the Teahouse. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Last month, you warned Jthompson0513 about his or her copyright violation at Central Piedmont Community College. He or she has been warned several times and still doesn't seem to understand as he or she has continued to make similar edits to that article. He or she has been completely unresponsive to warnings so I am afraid that only a block may be sufficient to get his or her attention and stop the behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo and thanks for your interest in helping with copyvio clean-up. The most recent warning was not last month, it was last year. Regardless, they've had plenty of warnings. I have blocked the account. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa

Regarding the Builder Pattern, I did not copy and paste from any book. Twice, I've had people who don't know what the Builder Pattern is, delete my example that I came up with, and replace it with a far inferior example. Because of this, I referenced the book from which I read about the *structure* of the Builder Pattern, namely, Effective Java, 2nd Edition, example 2. But if you look at that book, you will see that the examples it provides are not the same as the example I provided except in the fundamental structure. Thus, my example is no more a copyright violation of the book, "Effective Java 2nd Edition", than that book is a copyright violation of the original design patterns book published in 1995. I ask that you restore my example.

Regards

Lyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lylez (talk • contribs) 08:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lylez. Sorry for the mistake. I have re-added the content. But since it has been twice removed by different people as being an inappropriate or incorrect example please don't be surprised if someone takes it out again for that reason. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello Diana, thank you so much for your guidance on how to attribute for copied content. I made the necessary changes. I am quite new to Wikipedia and I am also learning from amazing experienced Wikipedians like you who are always ready to offer guidance. Feel free to give me feedback after viewing the updated article. MbithemwikaliPrime (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'd be interested to know why you have struck-out all the edits between 2018-04-20T02:20:29 and 2018-04-21T12:06:56 in the Jaguar I-Pace article, especially since most of them were mine, which were mostly copy edits, unit conversions and genaeral tidy-ups. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto. Revision deletion was done to completely remove copyvio added at 02:20, April 20, 2018‎ from the page history. To do this, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This sometimes means that harmless edits such as yours have to be hidden. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clear explanation - I'm relieved that you weren't blaming me. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw that I had ran afoul of copyright violations at the Political Correctness page. My apologies. One question though - it appears you redacted not only the diffs containing the violating material, but also the newer edits I made after you warned me on my talk page. I was very careful not to cross any lines with the most recent edit you had redacted. Would it be possible to double check for me? I may be wrong, but I thought I had fixed the problem. Thank You so much in advance! Starcader (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the quote from Obama you also copied some of the wording from the article. It wasn't a lot but it was there. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello D. When you have a moment would you please check the edits by Enoska13 (talk · contribs). They are adding the same text to more than one article. I would add that, as far as I can tell, I don't think they are doing anything untoward - I just think they are not aware of the copyright issues involved. I apologize for not looking into it further - it is late here and my eyes are drooping. Thanks for your time and enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 09:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph was copied from The Beatles without proper attribution. I will look after it. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa thank you for your help concerning copyright issues.However i wonder how can i add information without referencing a book or official site.Thank you in advance!!!  :) AlbusTheWhite (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What you need to do is use your sources as a source of information, not as a source of prose. Everything you add here needs to be written in your own words please. There's some reading material on how to do it at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I will just watch-list for the time being — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, could you revdel the copyvio in these two diffs [23] [24] The text was lifted wholesale from this link. Reading through the website's editorial policy, I note that by publishing the text on the site, the authors granted permission for that site to use the material. However, based on my reading of the wording, I do not believe that is extended to Wikipedia (I'm happy to be corrected on this). Thanks Blackmane (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. Looks like a copyright violation in the History section, where text was copied from this website. Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you look at Jaki Graham? Copy Patrol dentified a problem which was reverted by cluebot. However, a brand-new editor reinstated essentially the same text I believe and noted in the edit summary: (Biography updated from Jaki Graham's official biography reference https://www.jaki-graham.com/). I poked around that site but haven't found the text. I did a little general looking around and see that YouTube is taken down some material due to copyright violations and some other site seem to have disappeared so concerned that there is something inappropriate going on, but I failed to find evidence that the text is problematic even though it almost certainly is.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I found it at https://www.pledgemusic.com/artists/jakigraham by googling a sample of likely copyvio prose. I have blocked user:John Waller Management for the promotional username. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried Googling a sample, and came up with some hits, but all had been taken down. We must have chosen different samples. That's actually somethign I think I am decent at (choosing the right selection to use in a search) but my search-fu failed me today.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Whenever you have a chance. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t actually add information to Wikipedia. I took the link straight from Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ. Take it up with them. That list was specific for the second coming, but all content should also be applicable for apocalyptic events since that would be the umbrella term. Janet1983 01:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. Please note though that while you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dianna for your comment on the Nkonya-Alavanyo conflict, Ghana. I will review it altogether to make sure there is no such thing as bridge of copyright laws. I will reach out for help when i am not sure of something. Avoka Ayebilla (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Ayebilla Avoka

Hello diannaa. You placed an indefinte block for Books Nash on 12-26-2017 for repeated copyright violations. This editor seemed absolutely determined to copy information regarding military service from (most frequently) the site, veterantributes.org. This is a private, non official website run by one man. Each page honors a particular soldier with a history of service and a mock up of that person's award ribbons as determined by the webmaster’s personal research. Here is an example. Not only was Books Nash copying the prose, he was also copying the content derived from the ribbon images. He often made single edits adding huge lists of medals with very few edit summaries or sourcing. I don’t know if this would be considered a copyvio or not. He was not copying images, just information derived from them.

I am quite sure that Bookish Worm is the same person. The account was opened on 12-28-2017 and has continued right on adding large medal lists and other information in exactly the same manner. He has already been reverted and cautioned on his talk page by several editors including yourself. As you will see, this new editor is also adding huge blocks of ribbons to various pages such as this. He also uses the term ”accouterment spacing”, which is an unusual phrase also used by Books Nash. Compare the use of the terms in these two large edits. Books Nash vs Bookish Worm.

I have seen that Bookish Worm has recently been adding to Welborn Dolvin. This is a page you previously had to correct by deleting all edits made by Books Nash. It appears he/ she has decided to just add them in again. Bookish Worm has been making hundreds and hundreds of edits over the past few months. I don't doubt that some of the contributions by this editor are probably fine, but many more may not be. Can you take a look at this? I think it would be a good idea for an Admin to double check. Thanks. Roam41 (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Roam41 and thanks for the report. The above evidence plus the similarity in the user pages has convinced me that you are correct. I have blocked Bookish Worm as an obvious sock. Please feel free to revert any inappropriate edits made by this sock, as they were made in violation of the block, and need not be retained. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I’m sure this editor believes they are doing a good thing by contributing to the pages of all these military service members. Their intent certainly couldn't be construed as vandalism. They are just going about it the wrong way and don’t seem open to altering any of their methods. Roam41 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I too saw them in CopyPatrol, and was here to see if anyone had checked all their recent edits for CVs? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not been done yet so I got it started: I've put a contribution surveyor up in my sandbox User:Diannaa/sandbox. The majority of edits are addition of infoboxes and medals tables, as well as quotations of military citations. However pretty much all of his prose additions are copyvio. I've done a few checks to get things started and marked the results. Items at the top of the list are more likely to have copyvio and at the bottom less likely. Red x (created with {{n}}) means no violations found; green check mark (created with {{y}}) means a violation was found. Please feel free to check some and mark the results; and let me know if you want any revision-deletion done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa, you are amazing! I just saw all the cleanup you’ve managed to do on these edits. The thought of checking it all seemed overwhelming to me. I don’t want to add any more to your plate, but when you have time could you recheck James B. Linder? You have it crossed off as having no violations, but since this was a page Bookish Worm actually created, it seemed surpising there weren't any issues. I’m not very experienced using Earwig, but I tried two searches. The first used the search engine option for the current page. This came up fine. Then I ran an url comparison with the Linder page at veterantributes.org and came up with a 91.9% match. The citation quote is included in this, which I know is OK to use, but the rest? I’m curious. Why wouldn’t this finding come up on both searches? There may be some reason why it should be left alone, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. Roam41 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, you are correct. I think what I did was a general Earwig search which is for some reason not detecting the veterantributes.org page. I will fix it now. The citation quote can stay for sure. Diannaa 19:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Same problem on Jeffrey Feinstein, now fixed. Diannaa 20:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

L3X1, Roam41: I have discovered and blocked a new sockpuppet: Lukey78. All edits (one of which was copyvio) have been removed. I am watch-listing a selection of articles in hopes of keeping on top of this issue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

So glad you caught this. I will keep an eye out, too. Roam41 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My changes were not directly copied from any website, they were taken from a previous version of the said article (on Wikipedia) which was copied by the website quoted, i.e. there was no copyright violation. The Kachwaha and Kushwaha article were re-written based on the POV of one (questionable) source, Pinch William R. (1996): Peasants and monks in British India. It is just plain misleading. It does not provide the majority view held in India or by members of the Kachwaha/Rajput community. What bothers me is that this is a article about a social group that still exists today, and many people in India find such caste-based assertions hurtful. Humblewikicontributor (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I finally found the material, which was removed back in 2011 because it had no sources. The material should not be re-added unless accompanied by supporting citations. Diannaa 20:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you removed a lot more than the information copied from the site you quoted as posing a sopyright problem. Wanna restore what is not problematial because of copyright? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lineagegeek. I'm not sure what you mean. All I removed was one sentence, copied from here, the sentence that starts with "In the end..." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. When I visited the article yesterday, essentially all content was gone. I don't know if it was a browser problem or what. So it looked like you'd removed a lot more. A visit a few minutes ago shows the article still exists. I've seen entire articles deleted in the past because of copyvio problems and was afraid it might have happened again. So, never mind -- sorry.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

The Diava Dasakam page was very incomplete, so I did additions to the page. But, now the added texts are removed. Can it be restored?

Thanks,

Shaj Kumar Bangalore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getshaj (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No it can't, because you copied it from another website, and that's not allowed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

we were wrking on offshore trust at the same time. Not sure whether my edit messaed thngs up - I think not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No messes detected :). I have protected the page for a week as copyvio is rampant at the moment, from a coupla editors, perhaps a school project. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa,

I appreciate the edits with the citations and wording to my new material. It's great to have someone more experienced with Wikipedia and especially this article in particular to help me along. Feel free to let me know if you have any specific concerns regarding the new material I added. — Tbmiller3 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

HiTbmiller3. There's some notes on your talk page. Sorry for the massive notes; you actually did a really good job for a new editor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi can you please remove your changes to the St Norbert College page? That text you removed is owned by the school and belongs on the Wikipedia page. I myself wrote it for those parts of the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjvbiddle86 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I think you've previously removed some history form the Vegaphobia page, I reverted it again because the same copyvio edit came back (I think) - would you mind having a look to see if more history should be removed? (also - I have zero idea if I reverted properly, so feedback welcome Joe (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Some similar but not identical to before, and some copied from another source. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Quick Google search got "Chinese nobility | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks ... www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/Chinese_nobility Elevation and degradation of rank might occur posthumously, and posthumous elevation was sometimes a consideration; Guan Yu, was styled, during his lifetime, Marquis of Han Shou (漢壽亭侯) in the Han dynasty then posthumously in the later Song dynasty elevated to Duke Zhonghui (忠惠公) then in the Yuan dynasty ..."

which is an exact match of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aristocracy_(class)&diff=prev&oldid=838951495

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kintetsubuffalo. This Project Gutenberg is a Wikipedia mirror. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)