Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 9156 articles, as of 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

Talk page archive
Send me no flowers
List Archive 1 Nov 2009 – June 2010 Archive 2 July–October 2010 Archive 3 October–Nov 2010 Archive 4 November 2010 Archive 5 December 2010 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 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 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 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 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 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 Archive 50 January–February 2017 Archive 51 March–April 2017 Archive 52 May–June 2017 Archive 53 July–August 2017 Archive 54 September–October 2017 Archive 55 November–December 2017 Archive 56 January–February 2018 Archive 57 March–April 2018 Archive 58 May–June 2018 Archive 59 July–August 2018 Archive 60 September–October 2018 Archive 61 November–December 2018 Archive 62 January–February 2019 Archive 63 March–April 2019 Archive 64 May–June 2019 Archive 65 July–August 2019 Archive 66 September–October 2019 Archive 67 November–December 2019 Archive 68 January–February 2020 Archive 69 March–April 2020 Archive 70 May–June 2020 Archive 71 July–August 2020 Archive 72 September–October 2020 Archive 73 November–December 2020 Archive 74 January–February 2021 Archive 75 March–April 2021 Archive 76 May–June 2021 Archive 77 July–August 2021 Archive 78 September–October 2021 Archive 79 November–December 2021 Archive 80 January–February 2022 Archive 81 March–April 2022 Archive 82 May–June 2022 Archive 83 July–August 2022 Archive 84 September–October 2022 Archive 85 November–December 2022 Archive 86 January–February 2023 Archive 87 March–April 2023 Archive 88 May–June 2023 Archive 89 July–August 2023 Archive 90 September–October 2023 Archive 91 November–December 2023 Archive 92 January–February 2024 Archive 93 March–April 2024 Archive 94 May–June 2024 Archive 95 July–August 2024 Archive 96 September–October 2024 Archive 97 November–December 2024

Thank you for re-editing my contribution to the page. I understand that I might have used too much copyright content and honestly appreciated your inputs. That said, I do not fully capture why you restored the maintenance tags as I felt that my edits had taken care of those issues. More specifically:
1) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject: perhaps the original author did back in 2017, but I surely don't and apparently neither do you nor the other editors who contributed since that time.
2) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral: the website of the consortium was removed and references listed included universities and a very top academic journal like 'Small Business Economics'. I am sure there the web has countless websites listing the use of GEM data, but it becomes a matter of using the references appropriately. Do you think there should be a section listing academic studies using GEM data?
3) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations: I think the numbers clearly show the ongoing relevance of this project on a global scale (25 years of history, 115 countries participating, use of data by the UN, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the OECD)
Again, thank you Mobinow (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please post on the article talk page to discuss your proposed removal of the maintenance tags. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done! Mobinow (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa-Thank you for flagging issues with the edits I made on the Iona College page. I am an employee of the College and have been asked to update the Wikipedia page. Can you let me know if the image was the only issue or if there were other issues with my updates? Thanks! Marcomgael (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There were 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 problem involved prose copied from the school's website as well as the image.

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. — Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to Wiki so I was wondering if you could help me. I saw you reverted my edit on the England national page. I must agree, that I do feel my edit went over the top in the history sections. I was wondering, though, on how do you go around attribution? How do I copy content from other Wiki pages with attribution? If I go over the edits I made, such as trimming down my edit on the history section, and learning how to fully attribution, would you allow my edit to go through? Appreciate it.

Woozworlduser (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't favor adding all that content, as the main article England is supposed to be an overview of the topic. Details on different aspects belong in the sub-articles. That's why sub-articles were invented: to prevent the main article from becoming too large to read or edit comfortably. We start creating sub-articles when a page reaches about 10,000 words. England is currently 17301 words, even without your additions. You can see at the bottom of the article there's a set of templates that offer our readers links to our articles on various topics that they might like to read about further.

Regarding attribution: 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/info/faq.html, which is not released under a compatible license. That's because their terms of use states "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO." Our license allows derivative works with no such restriction. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa. This is odd because all content produced by WIPO since 2017 is published under a CC BY 4.0 licence, as stated in the terms of use of their website [1]. I have discussed that with WIPO several times, and except for situations where a report include elements copyrighted by other parties, all their websites and all their content are CC BY. I have tried to find what piece of text was an issue and I have tried to find where you found that section in the FAQ. And could not find any of those.

Can you please tell me in which section you found "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO. » And please tell me as well as which part of the text was problematic and removed from my edits please ? I’ll revert back to WIPO Lex team to find out if that piece of legal text you mention might be a leftover from before 2017 ? And if a sentence is a copy of something you believe to be copyrighted, then I’ll get them to send a permission. Please revert to me. Thanks in advance. Anthere (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am acting WIR at WIPO. Anthere (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link to says "This is in line with the Creative Commons – Attribution (BY) 4.0 – license" which is not the same thing as saying that the content is released under that license, because they very intentionally go on to make a restriction that's not part of the license: "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO." The terms of the cc-by-4.0 license states that "no additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." So this is not actually released under license, because they've added extra conditions, which is not allowed under cc-by-4.0. — Diannaa (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They also state that "From November 15, 2016, new WIPO publications as well as other selected content are available for use under Creative Commons licenses and clearly marked as such." The particular page that was copied has no such marks or notice. So, that particular page does not appear to be released under license. For comparison, here is an example of the way they mark the specific pages/reports that are released under license. — Diannaa (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it makes sense. I’ll revert to them to ask them what they suggest. I suppose I can rephrase the sentences removed. Thanks. Anthere (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we rephrased. Felt like the easiest option. But I now keep in mind that the website itself is restricted. Anthere (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at the above article. It appears to be a near complete copyvio (96.8%) of https://web.archive.org/web/20090205181433/http://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/pinguin.html from 2010. Looks like it was picked up once but readded by the now banned editor Lyndaship (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the violation by restoring an old revision. I won't be doing revision deletion though, because to do so would hide 12 yrs worth of edits. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, guru of all things copyright. Here are 2 links to the same article:[2][3]. The first is to the paywalled paper itself, the second I got via the WP-library>Proquest. Unlike say JSTOR, that link doesn't seem to expire/demand login later. To your knowledge, is it problematic to add the proquest link to a cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot view the ProQuest version in full, because I am not logged in. I don't know if ProQuest has the right to re-publish content from The Telegraph. Why not just link to the original article? Fun fact: Earwig's tool can view the whole article, even through the Telegraph's paywall. — Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to add the ProQuest would have been because it would have been more helpful to the general reader, but if its not, that's moot (that is a fun fact). And now I see that ProQuest has kept me logged in, probably a cookie-thing, but if I log out I can't read it in full either. So not wrong in cite but also on the whole pointless. Oh well, thanks for talking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirmed your Earwig claim. That's hilarious. Have to test that on more paywalls. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try it on the Washington Post, lol — Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I used as the basis for the biograpghy, same was done for Jake Sully's article Advofspec (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for both articles. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started using more attribution, thanks! Advofspec (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa - I work for the City of Longmont and the Longmont Museum & Cultural Center. The content currently on the Longmont Museum & Cultural Center wikipedia page is very out of date. I updated it last week to bring it up to date, but it appears all my edits were rejected. We have complete permission to use the content I posted because we wrote it about ourselves (i.e. the history of the Museum) and would like to share this information with the wiki community. Joanharrold (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, looks like a revdel is needed at Marie Claire; the content was added with this edit with text copied from marieclaireinternational.com. Carlstak (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Diannaa. Carlstak (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message on my talk page. I took the advice and I'm going through the copyright and policy guidelines. Skhofeni (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me improve my Wikipedia editing! Advofspec (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, you recently removed some copyright violating content from the article German State Theatre Timișoara. Unfortunately this left a broken reference in the article, which I can't fix because I can't see the deleted revisions. Would you be able to repair the reference please? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need this page deleted. I created the redirect, but misspelled Repository and have no clue how to make it go away. I made one with the correct spelling, which is fine. I am sure there is a technical way I can request this with some template or something, but I have no clue how to do that. Thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The way to request is via tagging {{Db-g7}} . — Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your "always willing to help" attitude. SusunW (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback. — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, hope you're doing well! I am having some issues with an editor at Endogenous retrovirus, where they copied text from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11423012 (CopyPatrol link) and have repeatedly reinstated the text after removal. At User talk:DanCherek#Copyright violation, I am concerned by their statements and misunderstanding of copyright policy. Could you assess the recent edits and perform any removals / revision deletions as necessary? Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the delay, I was away from computer for a while. — Diannaa (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. DanCherek (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least I have Internet! Rogers network has been down all day, Canada-wide. I am on Telus. — Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just saw it in the news! I had Rogers when I used to live in Ottawa (my hometown!), but that was a long time ago. Glad you're still online :) DanCherek (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no new CopyPatrol reports since 22:19 UTC, as the service is undergoing scheduled maintenance. https://twitter.com/turnitinstatus. I don't know if the error message we are receiving when trying to view an iThenticate ticket is related or not. See ticket T309816 for my comments on that. It might be a separate issue, I don't know. — Diannaa (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. First, thanks for all the work you do here. Second, you noted that you took down some of the content on Etruscan and that I needed to pay more attention to copyright and plagiarism issues. I have tried to be fairly careful on the plagiarism front, but it would be great if you see somewhere when I fall down on that and let me know specifically, so I can learn. The issue of wikipedia and copyright is what I need to (and have started to) learn more about. It seems rather restrictive. I'll try to see if I can determine whether something is copyrighted or not in the future. Any hints on how to do that (besides the points made on the copyright page that you linked and that I have read now) would be helpful. In general, it would be great if you could indicate exactly what was wrong with particular deletions, again, so I can learn better, though I know this puts a burden on your already busy schedule. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! Johundhar (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlapping content. It should be pretty clear why I determined that there's too much overlap with the source, and had to remove it. If you are unable to rewrite this material in your own words, you will have to leave it out.

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. That being said, the vast majority of print material and stuff you find online has its copyright status clearly indicated. The particular work that the content was copied from is https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118354933.ch14. The webpage is marked as "Copyright © 1999-2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved". When I click in the link to have a look at a pdf copy of the chapter, it offers to sell it to me, which is a clear indication that it's not available under license. The content is a book chapter from the book A Companion to the Etruscans which is marked as © 2016 John Wiley & Sons in its front matter. — Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I came across this while doing page review. I ran earwig and its report 92.5% from Hawala. Is that stringfixer public domain? That whole block from Post-9/11 money laundering crackdowns section is the same as that site. Any help is appreciated. scope_creep^Talk 20:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a copy of our article Hawala, — Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it will be an attribution notice, if its not already present. scope_creep^Talk 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did that on June 9. Diff of Hawala and crime — Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will check to see what it looks like. scope_creep^Talk 21:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the Earwig on this, came up with Earwig at 93.4%. I'm a on a fairly steep learning curve here. Firstly, I see a you've left a notice on the editors page, so now they are no longer using that url. It does seem from the Earwig, that the three urls the editor is using, constitute about 90%+ of the article. It looks as though the contents been copied across. That is one of the problems, its not referenced either. I would say it is close to "All of article violates copyright" from WP:COPYVIO. That would be assuming they are not public domain sources. How would you tell? scope_creep^Talk 21:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a block out. It looked like copyvio, left a warning and moved the article to draft. scope_creep^Talk 22:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article history, I see that I had indicated in February that the content was moved to the new article from Al-Ma'unah back in February. Looking at the November version of that article compared to the new article accounts for all the overlap. So once again the purported source web page is a Wikipedia mirror. Please have a look at Earwig's report comparing the revision of the draft before you removed the content with revision 1054885865 of Al-Ma'unah and go back and reverse your actions please. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. Geez, how did I get it so wrong. Its difficult work. Talk about fumbling about. I'll issue an apology. scope_creep^Talk 08:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Here's an important clue. All the citations have old dates. It's the first clue that the material was copied/moved from elsewhere on Wikipedia as that's a lot of stuff to fake. Also, I don't think you had a careful enourgh look at the edit history. — Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. I never thought to check that. Is it often copied content from a WP source, for example a mirror? I was planning to go through the NPP list with the filter set to copyvio, try and do as many as I could, so as to take the load of the other reviewers, but its definently difficult work. I'm now planning to do another one, and maybe report to yourself what I think is needing down, then you tell me if i'm going in the right direction, before I do it. scope_creep^Talk 13:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's do that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say, there's usually at least 5 or 10 a day like that at CopyPatrol, where they copied from another article or moved content from another article. Looking at the page history sometimes helps, or if they've moved content, looking at the user's contribs will tell you where they got it, as you will see a diff of the removal. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought to look at that either. I'll watch out for it. scope_creep^Talk 14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I have this one, first one on the NPP list: [earwig]. It has block Groosham Grange reported by earwig to be copyvio. Examing the report it states, this as the url with the supposed copyvio text: https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4603253/normal_600257d391bdd.pdf When you look for normal_600257d391bdd.pdf it comes up with "Groosham Grange - Two Books in One!", an edition of the book. So I suspect that block has been copied from the book. scope_creep^Talk 14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But look at the bottom of page 5 and you will see the message "This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. December Learn how and when to remove this template message. AnthonyHorowitz- Return to Groosham Grange." So it looks like the portion picked up by Earwig was copied from Wikipedia. There's an article called Return to Groosham Grange so I am checking old revisions there to try to locate the content.

It may not be obvious to you as you are not an admin, but the article Groosham Grange was deleted back in 2013. More to follow — Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the dates on the citations, some of them are really old. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: And here it is: Previous revision of Return to Groosham Grange. So our attribution needs to be as follows: "Attribution: text was copied from an old revision of Return to Groosham Grange on June 7, 2021. Please see the history of that page for full attribution. (See WP:RIA for more information.)" I will do that right now, and let the editor know as well. — Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa. I did notice one of the citations dates were old. So that is obviously an indication that content is itself old/older, indicating its been copied from another article. I was wide of the mark again. I don't know if you have the patience, but I'd like to do another couple more, see how they pan out, maybe in a week or so. Its details work. I'll take a look at the attribution notice. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to work through a few more that would be great. Happy to help. — Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a third copyvio warning on the talk page for this user for misattribution of uploaded images. I don't normally do a lot with copyvios but since you left the first warning for this user and it doesn't appear to have sunk in, I'll call your attention to it in case additional steps are needed. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: one of the images was uploaded right before your initial warning, but the other was uploaded yesterday. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The images were uploaded to the Commons. I can't block on this wiki for activities on a different wiki. Please contact the Commons admin team. I think the correct place to do so is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. — Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Images posted by the NTSB fall under public domain, and therefore are acceptable in the commons. There is no copyright infringement with using publicly shared photos from a government agency. Bmurphy380 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you label the images "own work" if they're from a government agency? What was the source of this image ? — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image from the NTSB should not have been labeled as "own work". If such was labeled, that may have been a mistake on my end. The source of the image is NTSB Report# AAR89-02S Doc PB89-910405. Bmurphy380 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa. Thank you for the corrections and recommendations. I'll be sure to refine my editing appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanKB (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa - hope you are well. Thank you for dealing with the copyvios from Cornmazes' contributions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lugnuts! Hope you are well. Thanks for your interest as well. — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your effort i really appreciate that, but can i ask you to show me how i largely copied from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-012-0954-z i tried to see what you reverted but i couldn't so i hope to show me or explain to make it to me clear so i can re-edit it with all respect to the copyright for both articles if you don't mind, Thanks and hope you are well. Lanm-more (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so if you can show me the content you deleted / hide to review it because when i reviewed the article i didn't see that i violated the copyright, i'm glad to get your help in that Lanm-more (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions were flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and were assessed by myself.

• Here is a link to the bot report for Neurofibroma. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.
• Here is a link to the bot report for Schwannoma. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. — Diannaa (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  i added the differential diagnosis section again in Neurofibroma if you want to check it again and cellular Schwannoma section, i tried to fix it Lanm-more (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have checked both of these using this copy of the source and found you have added the same content in the same order using very similar wording. That's a violation of our copyright policy. So I have removed both additions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No i just summarized it and write it with my own words and logic, i'm a MD so explain to me ? Lanm-more (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and sure i'll summarize in the same order and when i edited again after you checked i changed all the sentences spotted by the bot to respect the copyright, there is a difference between summarizing and stealing the data, if you checked them by any plagiarism detector it will be unique 100% Lanm-more (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just reword phrases and substitute different nouns; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. Technical material is difficult to summarize. Closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression. If you can't figure out a way to re-write the material, you can't add it to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add some material to the page for Vehicle Routing but I'm not sure if I am following copyright.

I created a draft based on the 2nd reference in Arc Routing and Bodin and Goldin (1981) at User:WalkingRadiance/draft changes.

I will not add this if is a copyright violation. WalkingRadiance (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference is .

Omer, Masoud (2007). "Efficient routing of snow removal vehicles".

.

WalkingRadiance (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot check the draft against https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/net.3230110204 because it is behind a paywall. I have removed content copied from https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5362&context=etd from your draft. There's also a copyright problem with your addition at Gliosarcoma; I will clean that in a minute. — Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) WalkingRadiance, I've removed some content from your page as you seem to have taken it more or less directly from the Bodin source. Hi, Diannaa! I don't know if you have Wikipedia Library access (I imagine you do), but you may not have seen that Wiley has been added to the resources there. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do seem to have access. — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned about the edit you made here. It wasn't merely a refernce that was needed, but rahter context. What struck me about the writing was that it seemed as if the contributor to the article was making the claim as opposed to the source. With regards to the Rosner source, I've copyedited the statement to reflect that it is Rosner's opinion, not ours. Unfortunately, the Ligocka source is more problematic. Nowhere in the book that you added as a source specifically/explicitly mentions that the girl in the red coat featured in the film is Ligocka. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the Rosner article online, and it specifies that it is Genia-Gittel Hail's relatives (not Rosner) who believe the girl was their relative. I don't have access to the other source (Ligocka) and I am not the person who added that content. The content was already there when I made my first edit to the article in 2010. The content appears to have originated based on this 2004 article which states that Logocka is the girl in the red coat. This blurb shows that Ligocka might believe that she is the girl. What we have to realize is that there may have been several Jewish girls in Krakow who owned red coats. I am going to amend the text to reflect this. In the future, please note that this type of discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. I am not the only person maintaining this article - there's several knowledgeable contributors who do so. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am aware of the regular practice of bringing discussions about content up in the article discussion space, but topics such as what I brought up are pretty emptionally charged, and it seemed prudent to make sure that no increased offense was taken at the edit; for example, someone freaked out over the removal of the carnage images in the Rape of Nanjing article a few years ago, or the emotional, nationalistic flame wars that erupted after the 300 was released. That sort of emotional investment is non-conducive to collaborative editing. That said, I am glad that we had a civil discussion about this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article and edited it again with improvements that respect copyright with my own words so if you don't mind to check it again and discuss me without blocking me (because i'm practicing not violate the copyrights intentionally), Thanks for help Lanm-more (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you are doing it intentionally or not. If you can't write your own prose, you can't edit here. — Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dianna, hope you're doing well. I want to alert you that an IP editor, apparently a sock of a user banned from editing the article itself, has added a massive wall of text (57,577 bytes worth) to the Talk:New chronology (Fomenko) page with text copied-and-pasted from here and here and probably other places as well. This editor has a long history of trying to add fringe conspiracy theory material to the article, adding ridiculously long walls of text to the talk page, and attacking other editors there. Carlstak (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlstak. I've done the revision deletion. Thanks for the report. If you have more IPs, I can see if a rangeblock is possible. — Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Diannaa. I'll let you know if I find anything. Carlstak (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I was a bit worried about this recent copy of an entire paragraph from The Economist. Following your copyvio block of its editor, perhaps you could deal with this too please. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding quotations to citations is not a copyright violation, but when done to excess it's a violation of our non-free content guideline. There's no set limit on the size or number of quotations. That said, Wikipedia articles should for the most part be written in our own words, and quotations used only when absolutely necessary. I often remove quotations from citations, especially if the quotes are from readily available sources or the content is not controversial or the material is not likely to be challenged. The quotes are still available in the page history, and by viewing the cited source document. I have removed six quotations from the article Greased piglet, including the long quote from The Economist. — Diannaa (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and thanks for your actions. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Diannaa. I've seen you frequently address copyright violations so I think you might be the right editor to ask: Did I get this and this right? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robby.is.on. Thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. You are correct, that's a violation of our copyright policy. The template you placed on the user's talk page is a good one to use under the circumstances, as they have no previous copyright warnings and very little interaction with other users in spite of their length of service. I will do some revision deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, i finished my first article, I've checked via Earwig's Copyvio Detector to detect any copyright violation to see my progress in writing and summarizing, i hope to check it and review it and let me know if you see any necessary edits to be done. Thanks Lanm-more (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted due to checkuser results and block. — Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting many copyright violations at Talk:Nova Scotia am I missing somthing here? Moxy- 12:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of quotation of passages from the article itself that have been pasted to the talk page. Also in the collapsed section labelled "notes &refs" there are quotations from various sources/potential sources. — Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you take a look at this. The prose is as near a complete copyvio as can be, but there is a great swathe of stuff that is not. Your expertise would be valuable here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the amount I am going to have to remove is quite large. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking at some others on the same page as autism, and copyvio is everywhere I look. How can I avoid pinging you every time I find one that needs to be addressed? Here's one, for example: [4]. I've found quite a few, so have started only marking those that are clear, passing by those that have copyvio and need attn. For example, starting at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 02#Pages 1001 to 1020, Jeremy Bamber is more than I can address, and at St Pierre, Monmouthshire is CC by 2 (https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/300002043-church-of-st-peter-mathern) acceptable? Is it OK to just add a note on those that need CCI admin attention so I don't have to ping you every time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]