Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Talk page archive
Send me no flowers
2009–2010 Archive 1 Nov 2009–June 2010 Archive 2 July–October 2010 Archive 3 October–Nov 2010 Archive 4 November 2010 Archive 5 December 2010
2011 Archive 6 January–Feb 2011 Archive 7 Feb–March 2011 Archive 8 March–April 2011 Archive 9 April–May 2011 Archive 10 May–June 2011 Archive 11 June–July 2011 Archive 12 July–August 2011 Archive 13 August–Oct 2011 Archive 14 October–Dec 2011
2012 Archive 15 Jan–Feb 2012 Archive 16 Feb–March 2012 Archive 17 April 2012 Archive 18 May–June 2012 Archive 19 June–July 2012 Archive 20 July 2012 Archive 21 August–September 2012 Archive 22 September–October 2012 Archive 23 November 2012 Archive 24 December 2012
2013 Archive 25 January 2013 Archive 26 February–March 2013 Archive 27 April–May 2013 Archive 28 June–July 2013 Archive 29 August–September 2013 Archive 30 October–December 2013
2014 Archive 31 January–February 2014 Archive 32 March–April 2014 Archive 33 May–June 2014 Archive 34 July–August 2014 Archive 35 September–October 2014 Archive 36 November–December 2014
2015 Archive 37 January–February 2015 Archive 38 March 2015 Archive 39 April–May 2015 Archive 40 June–July 2015 Archive 41 August–September 2015 Archive 42 October–November 2015 Archive 43 December 2015
2016 Archive 44 January–February 2016 Archive 45 March–April 2016 Archive 46 May–June 2016 Archive 47 July–August 2016 Archive 48 September–October 2016 Archive 49 November–December 2016
2017 Archive 50 January–February 2017

Hi Diannaa. I’m an editor who has been contributing to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. I saw that at 22:32, 31 December 2016 you changed visibility of 22 revisions on the page with content hidden (RD1: Copyright violations) included in your summary. As one of my edits was included in the list, I looked into the situation and noticed that you sent Annestorm a message on their talk page concerning this.

It is the first time that this editor has contributed to the article which requires WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. I checked the user’s contributions and discovered that the edit you deleted was, interestingly enough, their 501st – the first edit allowed to them for this article.

Digging a little deeper I found that prior to this, on December 30th, over a period of less than 90 minutes the same user made at least 326 individual edits containing not more than 1 or 2 characters to their sandbox. There were many more slightly longer edits that seemed to be only deletions.

The following is a sample of one such edit , ‘fd f fdfddf15 fdsdsds5a25621256 dfasd4556256 sa5562451 25’. The rest of the edits are more or less the same, namely random keystrokes.

It seems evident that this user is abusing the extended confirmed right by having added nonsense edits to reach the 500 edit total required.

I, myself, am not looking to escalate this further as I have already spent too much time on the findings I have just laid out to you. However, I wanted to bring it to your attention. I will leave it with you to do as you see fit. Happy New Year! Veritycheck (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message from "Diannaa", whoever that is, saying my additions to the Leonora Piper wikipedia page were copied from another website. That is NOT true. They are quotes from the book I cited, by Michael Tymn. I also have no interest in re-typing it, if I could, as I type slow, and it took a while to put it into the article. So, buy the book, don't buy the book, it is of no consequence to me : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaeatetus (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thaeatetus: The material was removed by a bot. Placing material in quotation marks does not let us off the hook from a copyright point of view. We don't construct our articles using a series of quotations from copyright material; pretty much everything you add here should be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Learn from our mistakes, learn by doing : ) I do note that it is likely no coincidence that the article on Leonora Piper is skewed to the skeptical perspective. It is due to the subjective and spontaneous nature of consciousness, and clairvoyance. That is, they can't be measured. Not good for the scientific/academic agenda wikipedia and their editors are pursuing. "The rational approach works quite well in certain kinds of situations, such as the mass production of goods, or in certain kinds of scientific measurements -but all in all the rational method, as it is understood and used, does not work as an overall approach to life, or in the solving of problems that involve subjective rather than objective measurements and calculations." ( 'The Magical Approach', Jane Roberts/Seth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaeatetus (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your task is, no doubt, as important as I guess not enough appreciated by good faith editors like me. Having said that, I believe that blank reverts of all my edits in that article, nevermind if they infringed or not any copyright policy whatsoever, is not what the project needs or wants from you.

Since you didnt bother to read any further after detecting copyright problems, you couldnt have noticed that you were reverting most of my contribution, which was totally unrelated to the source which apparently I can not use the way I did. Actually, from all of your reverts, probably less than half has anything to do with copyright, but was about summarizing, trimming and the like.

I may understand that you have precious little time doing your assignment all over the wikipedia. But blank, aggressive, reverts such as the ones you just made without even bothering to read what you were reverting can be only understood as either punitive ("user X needs to learn his lesson") or unprofessional ("user X infringed copyright with this one edit, so he's guilty by association and all his remainder edits must be reverted"). And, by the way, it's not only you who has precious little time, but also "regular" contributors like myself, who may get disappointed or even cynical with the project after getting such "retribution" for their unpaid time.

Neither makes a positive impression of your actions or the project you claim to defend. You may -or not- want to think about this. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 12:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed was three paragraphs copied from http://voxeu.org/article/spanish-economic-growth-long-run. I have checked and the material was indeed copied from that source and nothing was removed that does not appear in that source. The revision deletion requires that all diffs from the addition of the coipyvio to its removal be hidden. This hides but does not alter your subsequent edits, which remain intact. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMG...you're perfectly right. I saw at the history that you had deleted all my edits so I took for granted that it was a blank reversion to the last version before I started working on that. So, in the event, it was me who didnt bother to read what you had done...

I owe you a big apology. I am sorry about my post above, please accept my apologies.

You are such a patient man... MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 18:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and Happy New Year. You recently made 4 revision deletions at Dark energy, and left a comment on my talk page, accusing me of an RD1 copyright violation. The Dark energy deletion log states:

15:26, 26 December 2016 Diannaa (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 4 revisions on page Dark energy: content hidden (RD1: Copyright violations: http://casofran.blogs.uv.es/2016/11/22/y-si-la-expansion-del-universo-no-es-acelerada-ing-suspenso-d)

Firstly, your URL is wrong. The sources I used were:

[1] J. T. Nielsen; A. Guffanti; S. Sarkar (21 October 2016). "Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae". Nature Scientific Reports. 6.

[2] Stuart Gillespie (21 October 2016). "The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate – or is it?". University of Oxford - News & Events - Science Blog (WP:NEWSBLOG).

Secondly, my edit was not an RD1 copyright violation, since it merely consisted of a quote by Subir Sarkar fully in accordance with WP:QUOTE, preceded by two heavily paraphrased sentences from what I explicitly stated in my edit to be a WP:NEWSBLOG. Fortunately, the original material you deleted survives at Accelerating expansion of the universe: (Redacted)

Quite apart from the WP:AGF and WP:TALK issues in your actions, it's clear that my edit was not even close to being an RD1 copyright violation. My edit was fully in accord with WP:QUOTE and WP:NEWSBLOG. Please revert the comment you left on my talk page. The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material was removed from the article by another user for reasons other than copyvio. Your actual sources differ from where I found it because the material has been reproduced in several locations online. There was indeed a block quote in the removal but the overlap in the other paragraph is excessive by Wikipedia standards, and that's why the revision deletion was done. Different publishers have varying standards for copyvio and paraphrasing, and Wikipedia is quite strict about it. Your edit was over the line, as it presented the same ideas in the same order using for the same terminology and in some spots identical wording. The overlap is highlighted in Bold:

(Redacted) Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @The Cube Root Of Infinity: I don't see any AGF issue (well, actually I do, you aren't offering Diannaa, who has done a lot of work with copyright violations and is clearly much more experienced with these than you are) or an issue with an article talk page. I do see a couple of very minor tweaks which don't avoid a copyright violation. I've revised your edit at Accelerating expansion of the universe to read "A 2016 report from Oxford University's Department of Physics and the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen working with a much larger data set has cast doubt upon the arguments for accelerated expansion." You're a new account so this isn't a major issue so long as you learn from it, but it would have been much better if you'd come here and asked why your material was considered a copyright violation. If you wish to copy my version to Dark Energy, note that you must place a note in the edit summary stating that it's been copied with a link to the article it was copied from. Otherwise that would be a copyright violation. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I wonder if the code dealing with edit conflicts has changed. I'm sure that after I posted my request below I opened a new window on this thread, wrote my comments while rewriting the material at Accelerating expansion, and then save them - after Diannaa's post, which I hadn't seen. Yet no edit conflict. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got an edit conflict while writing to this thread at 15:25 as it took me about 20 minutes to prepare my post and you had posted below in the meantime. Don't know why you didn't get one at 15:35. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The translation seems to be clearly a copyright violation. I presume the same goes for a transliteration and of course the modern tagalog translation. I'm not sure how to deal with this, ie what to cut or? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it looks to me like all three versions are copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DatBot_6. Approved to take over Theo's Little Bot. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

Thanks so much for helping get this resolved! We have 616 transclusions right now, so we shall see how many get done in tonight's run. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Few hiccups at first (apparently due to transfer from Windows to Linux, and DatGuy was on holiday), It's rattling through the backlog as we speak - there are 103 left, and now Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions has grown... Lots of clicking of the "rescaled" tab next week end! I've turned off Task 1 of Theo's Little Bot. This] show just 390 files >1000px both ways (probably less by the time your read it! I can start narrowing the criteria soon. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It got off to a slow start as DatGuy was on hiatus, but ticking along nicely now! @Sphilbrick: this will interest you, since you do most if not all of the deletions of orphaned revisions. I will help too if there's not too much copyvio action. You can also check how many are left to reduce by viewing the transclusion count on the template (thus). Note the bot will not do svg, ogg, gif, tiff, wav, etc (or at least has never done these in older iterations). I will go through the remaining items and reduce the ones I know how to do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Yes, thanks for the heads up, doubly so. I've noticed some oversized images, and vaguely wondered what was up, so now I know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, the cat I usually depopulate is Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. There are some situations where it may make sense to wait seven days before deletion, but this doesn't seem necessary here - any reason I shouldn't start working on them?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd better wait, due to the wording of the WP:F5 policy. How about helping with https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en while you wait? there will be a few days in the next week with little or no orphaned versions more than 7 days old to delete, and I am having trouble keeping up with the copyvios. (Just a suggestion ) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still can't do svg, ogg, gif, tiff, wav - it's all down to what the Python Image Library can process. I have done some svg in the past (although it's really a reduction in the default size, as svg are vector and can be scaled as you wish) - I have a crib page at User:Ronhjones/SVGreduce (as I usually forget how to do it!) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HI Diannaa, Thank you for sending me a note about my edits to Julio Larraz. This is my first post and clearly made all the rookie mistakes :/ I will start in smaller batches and submit updates slowly. Thank you - Annabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelsimpson (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa,

I am very glad to know that my work at wikipedia has attracted such a great person's like your attention. Thank you very much to criticize my work. Actually, I have been involved with Bangladesh Army University of Science and Technology (BAUST) and everybody wants to know about it . Even I want everybody to know many more details about it. Wkikipedia is the best way to know. So I collect genuine information and photo about BAUST legally. I just want to make a view about BAUST at wikipedia like Islamic University of Technology , Military Institute of Science and Technology, University of Toronto, St. Francis Xavier University etc. But I'm quite new at this. So I want to know more details like how I can be legal at this purpose and for with whom can I meet or discuss which makes sure my work legal at wikipedia.

Thats all for now. I am looking forward to your reply. You are warmly welcomed to my beautiful contry, Bangladesh. Thank you again--M Tanvir Rahman —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Don't copy material from the school website and paste it here; that's a copyright violation and is against the law. Also, you need to add citations for the material you add. It's best if these are not from the school website but are rather from other places if possible. I have placed some links at the top of your talk page to help you get started with Wikipedia editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, The article "Apex Fund Services" was recently deleted after edits I made. Can I restore the page as it was prior to those edits? Regards, Jerry J Kelleher (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to speak to the deleting administrator, who was User:DGG, to see if he will restore it or not. The reason I nominated it for deletion was the company does not seem to meet our notability requirements, and the article was worded like an advertisement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Happy New Year to you :) Can you expand on my use of "copyright material' with respect to Grenada and what was removed? I am at a loss as to what is being referred to in the message... Plus stating that I have used copyright material without giving me a chance to explain is damaging to my character and this appears to be a consistent statement from you to me which I have not followed up on previously. Would you be so kind as to be a bit more careful in what is being stated especially in a public forum? Perhaps there should be tracking of information which is being removed by persons who join Wikipedia so that they understand the rights of persons to provide information which is fair and free from bias and which may be seen as being reliable.

Have a good day....

Jennifer N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer N Bailey (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennifer N Bailey: Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here. All prose that you add to this wiki must be written in your own words. For the Grenada article, the material that was a copyright violation was the description you added of the Summits of the Americas, which appears to have been copied from http://www.summit-americas.org/default_en.htm or elsewhere online. The page is marked at the bottom as © Summits of the Americas. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Diannaa

Thanks for the information. My information on the Summit of the Americas relates to "factual stuff" which is made known to the public via newspapers, gov't releases and such... The dates and locations of the Summits are public knowledge since funding is provided from various countries. The number of countries which are members of the OAS, details of their joining the OAS, is free knowledge. If I were to paste extracts exceeding a certain number of words etc from reports, then I believe that would be copyright. Jennifer N Bailey (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... You have removed all my data on a particular page.. I plan to start slowly introducing Maltese politicians to wikipedia in order to expand further on the subject. I've added information on Keith Schembri just because it was totally biased on just one event happening in May. I also edited other pages relating to different politicians and parties. The information and photos I've put was all in the public domain and cited by the relevant references... kindly explain why such changes had been removed - I honestly think that this should be reverted.. Thanks for your help and I appreciate your help :) - fenechtonio (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2017 (CET)

The source page http://www.summit-americas.org/default_en.htm is clearly marked at the bottom as being copyright. As such, it is not okay for you to copy the material here. It's against the copyright policy of this wiki and against copyright law. If you don't understand this, you need to stop editing right away. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Diannaa Marking something copyright means that it may relate to the official site or there may be rights attached to the information.. If you were to look at Trinidad and Tobago, you will see that I have included details on a number of Treaties which have been signed by the Govt of Trinidad and Tobago over a period of time. In my blog, O Come O Come Emmanuel ~ Reminiscing I have included information on my source or access to the treaties. However unsigned copies of the Treaties are available on the BIR's site as it supports the practices of T'dad & T'bgo wrt withholding tax. At this time, I have not linked everyone of the treaties to the BIR's site, however it is my intention to do so. I have included the The Tax Information (Declared Agreement) Order (with the United States of America) 1990 on the page, however that may not have been included in the BIRs site. So perhaps I will suggest that it is included in that site or a link is provided.

Have a good day Jennifer N Bailey (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dianna. Another revdel may be required at Narciso Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to the latest sock edit. I will also take this opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year! Take care. Dr. K. 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision-deletion done, and I have also semi-protected for a month, it's getting out of hand. Happy new year to you as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was really fast. Thank you very much Dianna. Dr. K. 00:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Diannaa! Hope 2017 is a great one for you and yours.

Would you mind taking a look at Pete McLeod for copyvios when you get the chance? Article is pretty promotional sounding in tone and looking at it in the edit window I noticed some curly quotes and em-type apostrophes, etc. which often happens when text is copied and pasted directly from an external sources. The use of the first name throughout much of the article also sometimes indicates a bit of copy-and-pasting has been done as well because personal websites/official pages tend to refer to individual use their more familiar first name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any copy vio but stuff like "Pete's inaugural air show season exceeded expectations and paved the way for even greater results in 2007" needs to come out; it looks like it was written by a PR guy. I will clean it up tomorrow, right now I am going to watch some stuff on Netflix (Star Trek TNG and The Mindy Project is what I'm into right now :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking Diannaa. There's no great rush since there are no copyvios. I just wanted to make sure before creating any extra diffs which might need some revdeleting. I also asked about the article at WT:AV#Pete McLeod so there may be others also working on cleaning it up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I have nominated this article for deletion. I'm certain your experience and feedback would be valuable should you decide to participate in the discussion. Thanks Veritycheck (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I won't be participating. I am notoriously bad at assessing notability, my A7s almost always get declined. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you here at your talk page, I don't do that, but as WP:NACD says that the only thing I can do is to contact an admin, and you said that I could ask you if I had any doubt, let's go. Recently a template at discussion got a non-admin close for a merge after a very long discussion. The problem is that in my opinion the discussion was far from reach any merge consensus, I counted 11 support votes for merge and 19 against it. I know that this isn't about counting votes, or democracy or whatever the name they gave it, but it seems a bit to risky to do that with a template used at 3084 pages and with some serious technical issues raised by some users. Maybe an admin should take a look. Best regards, Bertdrunk (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you raise this matter at WP:AN for a review of the close. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; if another editor thinks the paraphrasing and word changing I did was not sufficient, I'll rewrite it again. Note that you shouldn't have deleted the last paragraph, as it was entirely new. Anyway I'll go back and fix it. Cheers and Happy New Year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph didn't make sense to leave in without the other material. I suppose I could have commented it out instead of removing it! Thanks for fixing this up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa, thanks for the warning and I have now sent an email to the Wiki permissions address forwarding the appropriate email which I believe shows that I have permission to use material from this website. Can you advise what happens now please? Regards StuPat (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC) And the permissions email address keeps bouncing back!!! Can you help pleaseStuPat (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check that you have the correct email address. Try doing it by following this link: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I think there may have been some issues with Yahoo but your permission email needs to come directly from the corporation, which should not be a Yahoo account. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa! Hope you're well.
Just wondered if you could have a look at this diff[1] of Gabriella Di Laccio and give me a second opinion. The 'Career' section is an almost direct copy of [2] (the oldest copy the Wayback Machine has of the current, virtually identical, page[3]). With the site being undated, I was just wondering what your thoughts might be on the section being a possible copyright violation? Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two different tools (this one and this one) both show the gabrielladilaccio.com page as being created in 2015. Content was added in 2014, most likely by the subject of the article. So no proof of copy vio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. Thanks again for your help with Pete McLeod. I've found another one which may be a copyvio. Part of Rachna College of Engineering and Technology looks like it's been copied-and-pasted from rcet.uet.edu.pk. As before, I just want to avoid any unnecessary revdels before trying to attempt some clean up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking it out, because although the wayback machine does not have that page archived, the line breaks show the material was copied from an external source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I just wanted to know whether I can upload these images of the Queen Mother (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the Princess of Wales (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) on Wikimedia commons or not. I checked the categories and I think that they haven't been uploaded yet, and based on Wikimedia's guidelines it seems that it's OK to upload these images but I just wanted to check it with an administrator first. Keivan.f^Talk 05:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All these images may still be under copyright. The ones of Diana will definitely be copyright. Please don't upload them. You might consider posting at Commons:Village pump/Copyright regarding the Queen Mother images, which might be ok. I am not an admin on the Commons, so I am not prepared to make a call on this for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I think there's still a chance that a few of them might not be copyrighted. Dozens of images are uploaded from Flickr based on the copyright status provided there. Of course I will take your advice and try to discuss it with an admin on the Commons again. If they approve the copyright status then I'll upload them. Keivan.f^Talk 21:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is as it seems at Flickr; there's been plenty of cases of Flickr washing, where a copyright image is uploaded to Flickr with a fraudulent compatible license and then uploaded here or to the Commons. There's more information on this at Commons:License laundering. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to make sure, as you said, I will leave a message on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I think they'll be able to guide me. Thank you so much for your response. Keivan.f^Talk 22:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you had suggested, I had a discussion on that page and based on its result it could be possible to upload this image which seems to be taken by freelance photographer John Macintyre for paisley.org.uk but it's not clear whether the copyright was transferred or not, so the user recommended contacting the photographer. I think a similar case had happened before when one of the users asked the copyright holder's permission to upload an image of Princess Margaret which is currently used as the article's lead image. Mr. Macintyre doesn't seem to have any contacting information like e-mail. So what should I do? Are you, or maybe the others, able to contact him in any way or at least find a way to contact him? Keivan.f^Talk 04:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And wouldn't it be better, or at least possible, to upload the image that I mentioned above, and let the users discuss and decide what to do with it? It's also an option. It's not copyrighted based on its license but if anyone has any doubt he may start a discussion later. Keivan.f^Talk 11:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Keivan.f, but it's not my decision to make. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa, My name is Len Ellis, I am a board member of Peacemakers Incorporated in Dallas, TX, and have known Vivian Castleberry for many years. We wanted to set up a Wikipedia page for both her and for Peacemakers Incorporated, but it has not happened yet. Then today I see that you have been involved with Vivian's Wikipedia page, starting just last month. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to comfortably find my way around, but I did find this and I would be grateful if you could contact me directly to discuss this. Thank you so very much for setting up Vivian's page, we certainly want to add to it, and, we want to start on the Peacemakers Incorporated page. You can contact me at (Redacted). Thank you!

PeacemakersInc (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PeacemakersInc: I am not responsible for the Vivian Castleberry article and have only one edit to that page. Please don't create an article on Peacemakers Inc; if you work there, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing on that topic at all. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can please let me know what was the exact issue with the page? and is there anyway you can revert to the previous state for a day, so that I can atleast copy source and make necessary edits, which will be much easier than Redoing it all over again.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reubenthomasv (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reubenthomasv: All the content I removed was copied from various newspapers, in violation of the copyright policy of this website and copyright law. The material was removed for that reason. Everything you add here needs to be written in your own words. I can send you a copy of the removed material via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I have done that. Thanks for letting me know. I will correct it asap. Reubenthomasv (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. Remember none of this content is acceptable except for the stuff I left in the article. It all has to be re-written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you put on my talk page the information that further verification was needed for the file I uploaded ( File:Karen Mok (莫文蔚) at the TV show "The Singing Battle (天籁之战)" on 31 Oct 2016.jpg). I got the owner of the file, Christo Jan, to write the email you requested to the mail address you requested but the file was deleted anyway. Could you let me know why this happened and how we can get the file back up again.? Thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaeljojo. The step you missed was adding the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the image. I have restored the image and tagged it for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa! Not 100% on this, but [4] & [5] possibly need revision deletion? I say 'may' as I'm unsure if revdel is required where the same image is used under fair use on another article (but where fair use clearly doesn't apply here)? Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally use revision deletion on these edits. Thanks for your query, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Diannaa. Whole content of this edit is copy-pasted from the cited source – details. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion done. Thanks for reporting. census2011.co.in is a copyright web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, thanks for looking at my updates. My talk page says you did something but I can't figure out what. Can you let me know please. Robertwhyteus (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some content describing these spiders that appears to have been copied from http://australianmuseum.net.au/mouse-spiders, a copyright web page. And then I did revision deletion to remove the copyvio from the article history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was possibly information in being able to determine the difference between the Actinopidae (Mouse Spiders) and the Hexathelidae (Australian Funnelweb Spiders) which may have medical importance. But can't recall cutting and pasting material unchanged. If it is scientific in nature and deals with diagnostic characters, there are limited options in the use of the paraphrase. Is it possible for you let me know exactly what it was you removed? Robertwhyteus (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I am sending it to you via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. Cheers. Robertwhyteus (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. It appears a new editor unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works may have been copying-and-pasting stuff from an external website into Al-Ahbash. Would you mind taking a look when you have a spare moment or two? i think the website is this which was also posted at File:///I:/Qawl document RN is working on.doc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found it here. The material has already been removed. I am going to do revision-deletion now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... about that, it was unintentional. Paul August ☎ 03:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa,
I've deleted the a draft as for three reasons:

• per WP:G12
• following the Precautionary principle regarding WP:COPYVIOs
• If Diannaa says it is a copyvio, that's good enough for me.

I personally think the draft article was something of a mosaic of obvious copyvios, close paraphrasing, and some good "write it in your words" prose.
I guess I could have started a whole new WP:CCI about this. Which in my opinion would have been a WP:WASTEOFTIME#please, just write and edit encyclopedia content.
All that said, I see no reason to question whether the article draft was made in anything else but good faith.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Today when I was reviewing two articles that I had expanded before January 2016 (which means before the time you blocked me), I realized that I might have added some copyrighted content to them. There are actually two articles that I wish to be reviewed from a copyright point of view. This article about a Japanese princess and this article about a British noble. I decided to report these as soon as I realized that they might contain copyrighted material. I wanted to check them myself but as you have had enough experience in dealing with such cases, I thought you would be the best choice. Keivan.f^Talk 10:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned both of these. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. There are two more that I wish to be reviewed. 1 & 2. By the way, you cleaned the articles so fast. Do you use a special tool, and is it accessible to everyone? If not, how can ordinary contributors clean an article? Do they have to always report it to the administrators? Keivan.f^Talk 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I use https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/. This tool can be used to look at the entire article at once or compare with individual websites. What I did for the two articles this morning was create a contrib survey using a special tool at Labs and then inspected all the diffs in bold. I've created the surveys for the Princess Tomohito of Mikasa and Princess Akiko of Mikasa and you can view them at User:Diannaa/sandbox. Yours are easy to clean because the material is cited, and the copying comes from those cites, which are for the most part still extant. Of course I also do it fast because I have done literally thousands or even tens of thousands of these cleans. I will work on these tomorrow. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to learn this. You also said that you had created "a contrib survey using a special tool at Labs". What's the name of this tool? Keivan.f^Talk 03:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also edited this article earlier today. Here's the difference between revisions. I just preferred to let you know that I had edited the article, because I thought you might still want to check my contributions. Keivan.f^Talk 07:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution surveyor is https://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor/. What it does is makes a list of all the articles edited by a person and organizes them with the most heavily edited at the top. It's helpful because it can be used to create a list of diffs for a particular article or suite of articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa,

Although I appreciate your remarks regarding copyright violation, I am representing and I am authorized by the international NGO to publish the materials in Board of European Students of Technology page. We have had the materials feedbacked and the texts and picture presented are the final form.

Dragos-Andrei Gaftoneanu PR Department Secretary of BEST

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

Another problem is conflict of interest. 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 am adding some information about conflict of interest to your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I might have found another partially copy-pasted article in Davide Tucci. Mainly the promotional sounding nature and the use of Tucci's first name are things that standout, but thought I just ask first this time and avoid any new diffs, before jumping in and doing some clean up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not finding anything using the copyvio tool or manually. This was likely written by a PR flack, who also uploaded the photo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BEST logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Diannaa! Revdel needed on aisle 7, please... today, Spades, specifically revision 758667196 by IP 208 ... 162, which is a direct copyvio of [6]. Merci beaucoup! Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix and the info. I wasn't aware there was a problem with doing this. I have done it on a couple of others. I hope I can remember which ones. I started using cut and paste to create new pages for CDPs that didn't have a page. Mostly just the info box, first paragraph and Geography section, plus the box at the bottom of the page. I just change the relevant information. I don't think this is a problem because there is no edit history. If it is let me know.

I am still unclear on how you changed the title of the page. I think I've done other name changes in the article, but the title remained the old name before I found I could change the redirect, which evidently isn't the right way to do it.Jdtrue63 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are moved using the move function. There's more information on this topic at WP:moving a page. Non-administrators are usually able to move articles to new locations themselves. If you find you are unable to move a page yourself, you're supposed to file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found the move function and am pretty sure I will be able to do this properly in the future. I do, however, have a problem with Morgan Farm, Texas. I did the cut and paste thing for the rename from Morgan Farm Area. I was able to "undo" Morgan Farm Area, Texas, but can not move the page because Morgan Farm, Texas already exists. If you can fix this for me, that would be great. The other cut and paste jobs I've done are for new CDPs, not moving info from an old page to a new page, so I think that's okay since I'm just using it as a template to construct the new page, without changing the old page. (example - creating Boling, Texas and Iago, Texas pages from the Boling-Iago, Texas page)Jdtrue63 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Nevermind fixing Morgan Farm for me, I figured out how to do the history merge request. Hopefully everything should be good from now on.Jdtrue63 (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a kind request to please consider unblocking the page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Comedy_Shorts_Gamer&redirect=no so that an individual page can be created for "Comedy Shorts Gamer". Comedy Shorts Gamer has improved significantly since 2015 and a ban on his name/page simply because his fans (who were unaware of Wikipedia guidelines) mass-created pages feels unfair. Please kindly consider this request to unblock this page so that I can create it again, citing the correct, appropriate individual sources which I already have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithu123 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Shorts Gamer. I suggest you create the article in a sandbox and if it's acceptable it can be moved to the proper location. You can use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation system to create your draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.52.186.148&curid=24419677 who is clearly the same person from Arnold, Missouri behind this IP range: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=250&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=2602%3A304%3AB34B%3AA940%3A*&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1 and 'analysed' the IP's edits. The edits from the range are disruptive, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_Q-M242#The_Moral-Scientific_Necessity-Imperative_of_Transcending_All-too-Human_.22Identity-Politics.22 and he's back again as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:304:B34B:A940:5D1A:B29C:EFF3:EE1B Doug Weller talk 08:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies has blocked for 31 hr to start. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen that, thanks. I'll keep an eye on the range. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa,

Can you add true content that is your own knowledge? If so, how would you cite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Kamionsky (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add personal knowledge, because other editors have no way to verify it. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for information on identifying acceptable sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that all the work I did to illuminate the opera 'Fausta' has been deleted. By a 'bot', as they call it, I assume? What a pity, and now no one can benefit from what I pulled together, as I've not seen anyone pull together this info about the historical/literary underpinnings of the opera any where else at all. Most of the entries on wiki seem like regurgitations of widely-available info, including the data on 'Fausta', and are hardly original primary-resource research. I thought wiki was to get jnfo out and was far more casual, and that the 'copyrighted' material you speak of was there for the picking. I don't think I could find all that info again if I tried. All lost. (sigh) Oh well.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucvaldo (talk • contribs)

Unlike other editable sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. We don't consider other people's copyright to be a casual thing, nor do we consider other people's copyright material to be there for the taking. If you are not comfortable with this, I suggest you discontinue editing here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you sound like a quavering old bore. Te ipsum.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucvaldo (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa, thank you so much for your guidelines on my talk page! I wanted to apologize, since I'm new here, as I created the article in a hurry and found that the write up at the sources were neutral in point of view. Now, I am aware my actions could have brought on legal implications, I will be more careful next time, and not create an article in haste.

I would very much appreciate it if you could go over the article once I have rewritten it, following the guidelines you have left me. You help and guidance is very much appreciated! Thank you! Seadonkey1999 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, two articles with spotty, if not pervasive copyright issues I've recently encountered are Media literacy and Renee Hobbs. The former appears to have a lot of content lifted verbatim from its sources, like much of what's attributed to Henry Jenkins; perhaps the issues go further. The Hobbs article has POV and COI issues--I've found one or two small copied passages, and don't know if there are more, but its overall tone tempts me to post a notice at BLP. Though I've done some copy editing, going through these line-by-line is a bit daunting, and I'm hoping you have the tools to check these with more facility. Thanks for any help you can provide, and best wishes for the new year. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I check them using https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/. In cases where some of the content has been there a while, there's going to be Wikipedia mirrors to watch out for. I have checked for copyvio using the tool and done some spot checks as well. I have checked for copyvio only and not for neutrality or POV. Hobbs seems borderline notable so I have added a tag. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about direct attribution? I.e., "Sinologist Yuri Pines says...". Plato.stanford does provide Author and Citation Information, I think they want to be quoted FourLights (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per our non-free content policy, we don't build our articles using quotations. Everything you add should be written as much as possible in your own words please. Short properly attributed quotations from ancient texts are okay, but translations are copyright, so again don't over-use. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. You suppressed all the history on this particular page as if I had never created or contributed on the page. --SirEdimon (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]