User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 11:31 pm, 16 December 2024 UTC [refresh].

Thank you!

Thank you very much for bringing the lack of the appropriate citation for the article Thrombosis prophylaxis. I embarrassed to say that I rarely use public domain text and didn't realize attribution was necessary. Is there a 'format' for doing so? Is it a citation that is usually located in the reference section? Thank you again, Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Barbara: you can use {{PD-notice}} or others from Attribution templates, where there are also specialized ones for particular sources & licences.—Odysseus1479 10:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation of copyright theft

Earlier today, you left a message accusing me of committing copyright theft regarding the article on Hans Klok.

The website to which you refer actually took much of its information, including the parts to which you refer, from an earlier version of the Hans Klok page here on Wikipedia, and so they are the ones who have committed copyright theft. If you check back through the edit history of the Hans Klok page here on Wikipedia, you will see that the information you claim that I have stolen from the site you reference was originally added to Wikipedia on November 1st 2007, while the domain for the site you claim I stole the information from was not even created until July 12th 2008 (see http://dawhois.com/site/all-about-magicians.com.html). Therefore, the information's appearance on Wikipedia predates the creation of the site you accuse me of plagiarizing, and the link I have supplied proves that they are the one who has stolen the information verbatim from here, not the other way around. As a result, I suggest that you check back through previous edits of pages and get your facts right before you wrongly accuse people of copyright theft, and apologize immediately for making false accusations!! 95.147.118.85 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Checking back, I see the content was in the article for quite a while (added in 2007 and removed on February 17, 2014). I did check the old revisions but obviously I did not look far enough back. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

Similarly, you performed a whole sale deletion of Women's health alleging copyright violation. Please revert your changes. I assure you it was not copied. It is possible that the some of the numerous sources that were used in writing this section borrowed from each other, however that is impossible to verify due to your deletions. If you restore the article I am quite happy to carefully review the text for any possible similarities. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Information on STIs was copied from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs110/en/. The parts that were copied were the bullet points starting "Mother-to-child transmission of STIs..." and "STIs such as gonorrhoea and chlamydia...". I have temporarily undone the revision-deletion so that you can compare your prose with the source web page. Here is the copyvios report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I will take a close look at this. As a university professor I take plagiarism very seriously. I also happen to work with WHO. A fact sheet is a fact sheet, and facts are facts. As far as I can see, a number of peer reviewed articles that cite this source follow it very closely. Thankyou. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The material actually appears twice in your version, so it looks to me like you were in the middle of doing your amendments and got distracted and hit "save" before you were actually finished. I am off to work now, TTYL. — Diannaa (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

just came to the same conclusion - as I often do - I placed the original on the page and wrote my paraphrase above it. Actually what happened was a browser crash, I recall, and the original got saved accidentally - thanks for catching this - easily fixed. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Earwig looks like a useful tool - I should use it more often :) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(Greetings from Nova Scotia) Too many false positives in my brief experience, it needs to flag something more than an occasional common phrase, and stop flagging citations!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and for fixing this up. — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks for erasing my page, not! copyright my ass

excuse my french but go fuck yourself i took time to just translate this page which i do believe is important. any wikipedia has become a pure joke! Copyright form wikipedia? you joking me, people are free contributors! man, i can't believe that! i'd already stop writing because of the constant censorship but within 1 year it has become even worth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmvernay (talk • contribs)

I see the only place where we have interacted is on the new page Franck Lepage, where I asked you to please in the future provide the required attribution when copying licensed material from one wiki to another. Not sure which page you think got erased, but it was not this one. Sorry you found that so upsetting, but I think you are over-reacting a bit. — Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a bit. He needs to relax and spell check, as well. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mike Pence

Since you notified the editor recently of copyright issues, I thought I'd ask you at what point this sort of edit becomes disruptive. He/she has added content repeatedly with sources that make no mention of Pence. I've posted to his/her Talk page explaining that this would be considered WP:original research, but he/she continues to do so. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Permission to fix copyright issue requested

Hi Diannaa. I am asking again about MORT (long non-coding RNA). You say that in the opening segment there is still a huge overlap and a lot of too-close paraphrasing and that you are unable to find any record of TomStar81 commenting that the article might be ready. The TomStar81 conversation is here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 June 30. I want to fix the opening segment, and any other parts that may need it, but as the article is now it is not supposed to be edited by anybody else than "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". - Do I have a permission to edit? - ElmonstruodeGila (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No. You are not supposed to edit the article directly while to copyvio core template is in place. The instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Rewriting content say that what you are supposed to do is propose a rewrite on a subpage. For this article the subpage should be created at Talk:MORT (long non-coding RNA)/Temp. Then, one of the administrators or clerks who works at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page will assess your rewrite and see if it is adequate to address the copyright issue. — Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerhard Medicus

Hi Dianna, Wondering if you can take another look at my revised content and references for keyword: Gerhard Medicus. This was deleted last December due to inadequate reference build-out. I feel it's much better now and might be ready... or close. Thanks, Behal509 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Behal509: What you should do is submit the draft using the {{AFC submission}} template so that an experienced person can review it. I have no experience in this area. — Diannaa (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Congolese anthem

About the recent edit on the Congolese anthem, I checked the French article on the anthem. It was written by Simon-Pierre Boka. According to the article on the author of the anthem, he died in September 7, 2006. Are the lyrics public domain after he died? 174.113.214.250 (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No. In Congo the author has to be dead 50 years before their works fall into the public domain. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of User:AnAwesomeArticleEditor

Hello. You appear to have deleted my user page per CSD G8 because it redirected to a nonexistent page. Please know that I didn't do this. There is a 99% chance this is vandalism. Please undelete my page. Thx! AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the mistake. I sometimes do Twinkle batch delete of the items listed at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects/Userspace. It appeared on that list because someone placed a broken redirect at the top of the page. I don't remember viewing your page so I must have included it the batch by mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:AnAwesomeArticleEditor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:AnAwesomeArticleEditor. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Website copyright issues

1 Main website now carries message as per wikipedia guidlines 2 All html pages have the copyright footnote deleted as per your suggestion 3 If Sitush or any other user does their homework by visiting/studying/reading any of the numerous sources that I cite in the articles then they will see that the material is not only reliable but important. Greyhound Racing remains even to this day as the second largest spectator sport in the UK and had very few articles relating to it. 4 I will now add on the homepage that the PDF pages are copyright free but find it hard to see that there is still an issue because it is clear that I own the website and that no copyright laws have been breached.Racingmanager (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Copyright free" is not the same thing as released under a CC-by-SA license. And there's no such thing as "copyright free" under the law; according to the terms of the Berne Convention, prose is copyright until specifically released under license or into the public domain. If you are releasing the PDFs into the public domain, it's better to use the phrase "public domain" rather than "copyright free". If you are releasing them under the terms of the CC-by-SA license, you need to say that. — Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/
• User talk:Sitush#Speedy deletion nomination
• User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#Copyright issues

Barbara Hafer edits

Ah yes, you're absolutely right. As I edit and add/remove info, I copy&paste the info I'm using from the source, then add whatever I am adding, then delete the "copied material." Usually I remember but forgot to on that one! I'll make sure to add it the proper way. Thanks! Regards, MavsFan28 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

CopyRight Issue

Hi, Diannaa, For the information regarding to SuperMap, I have contacted them to give me the permission to use the content on their website and they have sent an email to verify my use last week. I checked with them this morning, yet they got no reply. So can I use the information now or should I wait for them to get a reply first? Thanks Seanzhang1015 talk

The way it works is the copyright holder sends a permission email to the OTRS team. One of them assesses the email and verifies that the material has been released under a compatible license. This may take a while as they are experiencing a 60-day backlog. Regardless of the copyright issue, some of the material you copied from the corporate website (mission statement, values, etc) is not really suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Lists of products are okay, but without the advertorial introduction. The wording in the history section is okay, and can be re-added once the OTRS ticket is processed. However, if you work for SuperMap, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article at all. I have placed some information on conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Relu Ram Punia

Could you take a look please? It appears to be a foundational copyvio from this forum post but the author there and here happens to be the same. The author is a serial image copyright violator on Commons. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Article was deleted as copyvio on June 12 under its former title Relu Ram Poonia and was re-created June 24 with more-or-less the same content at the title Relu Ram Punia. So I have deleted it. I have given the user a final warning for copy vio and will watch his contribs. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of my Sandbox

Perhaps you can explain to me why you deleted my page Smallchief/Sandbox3.

During my 6 years at Wikipedia and 20,000-plus edits on 1,000-plus articles I have used sandboxes to work on new articles and store material I might want to use in the future. I thought that was why sandboxes exist. So, why did you delete it? What harm did the deleted page do?

I don't recall what material if any I had on Smallchief/Sandbox3, but whatever it was it is now lost. Smallchief (talk 07:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What I deleted was User:Smallchief/Sandbox 3, which was a redirect to User:Chiribaya, a page that does not exist. You had moved your sandbox to that location on June 22, where it was deleted on July 23 by another admin, as there is no such user. I have restored it and moved it back to your sandbox 3. — Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Recently added content - copyright issue

Hello, regarding the recent edits to Paralympic classification articles and the message you posted here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:62.157.163.42&oldid=730809608&diff=cur I work with the International Paralympic Committee. We are trying to update the information here in Wikipedia, and make it accurate and up to date. Therefore, I wanted to kindly ask you if you could undo the changes you made to these articles. I appreciate it. HernanGold (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't accept copyright material without the express written release of the content under a compatible license by the copyright holder. There's instructions how to do it at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion Needed

OmniBot, which is operated by Omni Flames, is doing "General Fixes" but according to the Tasks section on the bot's user page, it appears that was "withdrawn by operator". Is this bot operating without the proper permissions or am I missing something? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:01 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Neutralhomer: OmniBot was approved for trial. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89: I was going by the first entry in the "Tasks" section of the bot's user page. My mistake there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:35 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

Wondering if we have a sock and/or a paid editor here: [1] and [2]. Started the same day, similar styles, similar errors, have the feel of paid puff pieces. The articles themselves so far are GNG in my book, but the cleanup needed is noticable, I don't want to get into "two for one" editing here. Your thoughts? (or actions...). I can start an SPI, but if you feel you can act faster, go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. Looks like we have an answer here: multiple interns at the equestrian magazine The Plaid Horse. I will lay some COI {{Uw-paid1}} templates on the talk pages of the two you have discovered so far. — Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Undisclosed Plaid Editing? Crow^Caw 19:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Remunerated by check, no doubt.—Odysseus1479 20:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I see a pattern here --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL! I am so glad we all had fun here! And thanks for your help. Montanabw^(talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars

Hullo Diannaa,

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you, but it took quite a while for me to understand how to do so.

As I did not keep a record of what you may have deleted I am somewhat puzzled by your message.I get the impression that whatever it was it may have had inverted commas around part of it. Can you please elaborate on the thrust of your message?

Ngarndhi (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

PS My user name is "Ngarndhi", not "Ngamdhi".

The copyright violation was detected by a bot as the same content appears in this document which was published July 22, 2015. It's the sentence that begins "In June 1804 a handful of settlers confronted..." — Diannaa (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hullo Diannaa,

Thanks for the explanation. The copyright violation comes from my own work, www.nangarra.com.au which is an online history of the Hawkesbury Nepean Frontier wars. I copied and pasted my own sentence, which is a summary of a contemporary newspaper report. I hope this explains the transgression. Ngarndhi (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In order to protect the rights of copyright holders, we need you to verify via email to the OTRS team that you are indeed the copyright holder. If you wish to release the material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential copyvio?

Hi Diannaa, could you please check? The copyio detector report is linked here Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

The content has been present in our article since November 2007. The Wayback Machine has archived the potential source page on July 15, 2007, coming up with a 92.5 per cent overlap. So yeah, this is a copy vio, added on November 10, 2007. Has to stay out. — Diannaa (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Historic paint analysis

Is it possible to get the edit summaries back? After your moved the page back to the proper title casing, the old edit summaries disappeared. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 03:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you mean edit summaries, I think you mean diffs. The old revisions were intentionally hidden so as to remove the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right about difs. And... Oh. Ok then. I didn't make the connection. Gracias. :) —PermStrump(talk) 03:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

NGC 1854

Diannaa I will definitely do that in the future and don't want to be banned from editing Wikipedia which I like to do.D Eaketts (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright for the HP LoadRunner page

Hello Diannaa, you wrote: "All or some of your addition(s) to HP LoadRunner has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder." I'm the Product Marketing Manager for this product so no copyright problems - how can I prove that? Thanks GasWiki (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There are several problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. If the copyright holder wishes to release the material under license, they need to follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.Regardless of the copyright issue, not everything that is suitable for inclusion on the corporate website is suitable for our encyclopedia. Product listings, how-to instructions, and material worded like an advertisement is not the kind of content we are looking for.

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 have placed some more information about conflict of interest and paid editing on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Andrewthoma17

Hey Diannaa, maybe you can help with this user. I'm not sure if they very 1)new and not sure how things work, 2)are posting on the wrong page, or 3)are just wasting time and vandalising. Their edits show 4 edits (their only edits) that could go for any of three. I added a Warn1 message with a polite addition to it explaining the problems with their edits. I am trying to AGF, but I would appreciate a second set of eyes on this. Thanks in advance...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06 on July 28, 2016 (UTC)

It almost looks like they are trying to promote something. Or possibly they are a very young and very new. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and what that is, I haven't the slightest clue. I'm was thinking it was a little bit of both. That's why I wanted the second set of eyes. :) I'll keep an eye on the user. They haven't updated since my Warn1 warning, so hopefully that got the message across. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:08 on July 29, 2016 (UTC)

HRWF block

Hi. You blocked 'User:HRWF'. I suspect they reincarnated as 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVR17' to edit the same article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Without_Frontiers

There are no references except the individual/orgs own website. I removed a load of linkspam. I wonder if the topic page is legitimate at all? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.10 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What we've got here is the latest single-purpose acct to edit the article. Whether they're the same person or a different person is unknown but I am not going to bother our busy check-users, since EVR17 has not edited since May. I have removed some copy vio, copied from their own website. This has also been a perennial problem with this article. As is notability, as you say. I am not very good at judging notability so I am going to start with an A7 speedy deletion and we will see. — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Metacompiler - Copyright issues

Hello again. I got your email of the removed text. We talked about block quoting. It seams the removed questionable text was block quoted and referanced. Can you be specific as to the problem. If it is a problem then there are several other articles I took as examples on referancing copyrighted meterial. The lexeme example I gave previously. The difference is the copyrighted meterial being wholly contained in the referance. I am confused.

See lexical analysis - References and

Does using blockquotes make a difference:

(Redacted)

If the above is OK then why not the following?

(Redacted)

On a side note. Using the android app I can only append here.Steamerandy (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Problematic material and copyright violations on this wiki can never be solved by adding more problematic content or copyright violations. As we have more than 5 million articles, there's always going to be more examples, and adding more only makes things worse. Placing material in a block quote or inside quotation marks does not let us off the hook from a copyright point of view. Short, properly attributed quotations are okay, but that's not what you're proposing here, as I already told you on July 19, when I said "Short properly attributed quotations are okay. So what you should to is introduce the block quote by adding a short introduction, making the attribution clear. For example, "Aho et al define 'lexeme' as follows:" and then place the block quote. In other words, what you need to do is make it clearer by stating outright that you are quoting and who you are quoting, and make your quotation shorter (or better yet, paraphrase the material and avoid the copyright issue altogether). — Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. The META II document I quoted from is in public domain by law being created at a government facility. It was in public domain by law from the time it was created at a government facility. Namely UCLA. If you have any questions you may contact the legal department at Walworth Publishing were I worked. I am now retired.Steamerandy (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Content of the UCLA websites is marked as being © The Regents of the University of California. The source web page http://www.ibm-1401.info/Meta-II-schorre.pdf is not marked as being copyright, but it does not need to be. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. D.V. Schorre's paper cannot in my opinion be construed as being a work of the US government, which would make it in the public domain. If you wish to pursue this further I suggest you contact the Wikimedia legal department at legal@wikimedia.org . — Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Double-checking your work, I hope you don't mind. The article in question is not copyright by the University of California. The copyright is owned by the ACM. The researcher who wrote the article was working at the UCLA Computing Facility at the time of publication per the byline on the article, but that paper was presented at an ACM National Conference and subsequently published in their official Proceedings for the Conference. The ACM, the leading association for computer professionals and academics, clearly shows the copyright and publishing date (per law) on their web page where they sell this article. There are wild PDF versions of this article on the internet, which the editor had referenced, but I have heard the ACM defends and enforces their copyrights whenever possible. The ACM reference and copyright can be found here:

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=808896

— 75.62.129.228 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I also called up the legal department of the University of California to ask their opinion, and they informally assured me that the Regents of UC own copyrights, trademarks, and patents, and that they enforce their rights of ownership. They said that the public domain rule applies to Federal government work, but even that is not absolute, for example the Post Office owns the copyrights on stamp art. So the editor is confused about asserting public domain versus copyright rights. — 75.62.129.228 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You assistance please.

Not really sure how best to deal with this but there is a user who has self-identified as being the representative of Fred Lynn and is actively changing his page. When I reverted his changes, he left multiple messages on my talk page ([3] & [4]). Even stating that if needed he would sign up for multiple accounts to make sure his edits stuck. Can you advise? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The photo has already been in use on other websites such as here, so I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. An OTRS ticket is required. The user has been blocked for 31 hrs by a different admin. — Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Something screwy happened

Hey Diannaa, something screwy happened. Earlier today I added a couple of comments to your copyright discussion of 20:42, 28 July 2016.

When I went back to proofread what I had written, both of my edits and your 20:42 edit had disappeared from your Talk page! Not only that, but 5 edits altogether had disappeared, 2 of yours and 3 of mine.

The page seems to be reverted to the edit just prior to your 20:42 edit, that is, to the 19:56 edit of Steamerandy.

Yet the "View history" page for your Talk page shows all 5 missing edits and no undo's or reversions. It's as if your changes and my changes never happened. But the history page confirms they did happen.

I have never seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. Did I screw something up? Did Wikipedia roll back something in the database and restore an old version of your Talk page?

I apologize in advance if I did screw something up, but all 5 edits were there, I swear. I went back and checked what I had written at least a couple of times, and I was only going back for a final proofread when I noticed the reversion to the 19:56 edit had taken place.

Wha hoppen?

Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter, especially if I did something wrong.

Cheers and keep up the good work :)

I will check here in case you post any updates on this screwy situation. Thanks :)

—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. Everything seems to be back to the way it should be. But what happened?

Feel free to delete this whole section.

—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What often happens when you view pages whilst you are not logged in is you are served a cached version of the page. For the best and easiest viewing experience, I suggest creating an account, as then you are always served the most recent revision. If you are not interested in creating an account, you can manually purge the server cache by clicking the "edit" tab and replacing the word "edit" in the url with the word "purge". A couple of the super busy pages like WP:ANI and WP:AN have built-in purge buttons. — Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, thank you so much. I only do very casual editing and reference checking here on Wikipedia, so I never figured I'd need an account. My bad. I will look into creating an account first thing in the morning, when I'm awake enough to create an ok user name. People here seem to imbue their name choices with some flair. I usually avoid such things, as well as the rest of social media and its customs. I will make an exception for Wikipedia. Again, thank you so much for the explanation, and I apologize for any problems I may have caused.—75.62.129.228 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

All the best usernames are taken! you might have trouble finding something excellent. See you later, — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Superbird-6 alternate name.

Dear Diannaa, you've made a change in the Superbird-6 redirect where you reverted my change. From Gunter's Space Page Superbird-6 and Superbird-7 state quite clearly that Superbird 6 is Superbird A2 and Superbird 7 is Superbird C2. Also SatBeams and even the Manufacturer's page on the Superbird-7 states that it is Superbird-C2. JSAT own fleet report states that Superbird C2 was launched on 2008, just like Superbird-7. So I'm very worried if I've missed some important source that states the opposite. Regards, — Baldusi (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't have an article Superbird-A2 so there's no point directing people there. Redirects to nonexistent pages routinely get deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. So we might as well leave the redirect where it is. — Diannaa (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

But we do have an article for JSAT Corporation where there's an entry with most details of that specific spacecraft. A better explanation of the redirect would have allowed me to correct the situation faster. Regards, — Baldusi (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying large chunks of text by SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits

Hi Diannaa,

I contact you because I saw that you recently talked to SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits about copying chunks of text from one article into another without proper attribution. Could you please also have a look at his work on Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)? It seems he has previously been rewriting it in his sandbox and is now copying that to mainspace section by section. However, he has copied large chunks from various articles and seems to have made small changes so that it appears to be different. Compare for example the text of Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)#Lugal with that of the actual article on Lugal. I already did some cleanup work as some of the changes were not for the best, but it seems there's quite some copyvio going on here and I don't know how to proceed. I would also like to point out that he has done something like this on the exact same article about a year ago (see [5]). Thank you for taking the time to look into this! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations everywhere I look

Hi Diannaa, I'm writing to request your assistance with multiple articles and users, some of whom I've reported at AIV with no luck. First, much of what CSMLA (talk · contribs) has posted has been blatant copyright violation, but despite numerous warnings and a history of unacceptable edits, my report was not considered actionable. More recently, I've tagged Rich Ashooh as promotional and suffering from copyright violations, but there's been little action on similar nominations recently (more about that soon); perhaps you can confirm the extent of copied text. I've also asked that every article created by Hokagedemehin (talk · contribs) be deleted for blatant copyright violation, and asked for a userblock; this, too, was deemed not actionable, and several of the articles still stand. Perhaps nearly everyone is vacationing.

So, my frustration is fairly palpable, and of course you're in no way obliged to take care of each of these. But I respect your work here, and dropping this en masse at ANI isn't practical. Lucky you! My thanks in advance for any suggestions and assistance you can provide. 2601:188:1:AEA0:E043:273F:60CC:B6DD (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in helping with copy vio work. I can understand your frustration as the problem is huge and it's hard to keep up with all that is going on.

• CSMLA: I have revision deleted the material on Los Americans and elsewhere and will monitor future contribs from this editor. He is now on final warning.
• Rich Ashooh: Earwig's copyvio detection tool showed 42.2 per cent overlap with the website https://www.ashoohforcongress.com/meet-rich. I have cleand out the copy vio. I think A7 speedy deletion might be an appropriate criterion as running for office alone is not enough to establish notability. I have warned the user re: copy vio.
• User:WikiDavisco added some copyvio at Obafemi Awolowo University so he has been warned. I discovered this while checking edits of Hokagedemehin. He receives the short custom warning (it's actually one of the prepared messages from User:Diannaa/Copyright) as there's already a lot of templates on his page. He too will get added to the virtual tickler file for monitoring. Thanks again for your help. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, and have a great weekend! 2601:188:1:AEA0:E043:273F:60CC:B6DD (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You or admin stalkers

This probably needs a fast close and a possible boomerang: [6] Clear copyvio, edit-warring to remove a CSD template. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks like it took two-three admins but the case is complete. Thanks for posting, — Diannaa (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hence, calling your talk page stalkers too! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Greyhound articles

What is the problem with Sitush? I get a comment on my user page for good work on my latest two articles and he jumps in and insults the work. The two new articles are sourced with their original sources which is the way I am going to work from now on because of the concerns over using my own website as the source. Where does he think the original work for my website came from? He then insults me by telling the other user that he is looking to get me blocked. I suggest that you block him for attempted bullying. Racingmanager (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel on Going Bananas (film)

Howdy! Kindly nuke revision 732134467 by IP user 68.58.25.211 from 7/29/2016 at 14:32 U.S. Pacific time, which inserted a copyvio plot summary from [7]. Thanks much! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. regarding Racingmanager. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Greyhound articles

Dear Diannaa, Sitush keeps reverting the article information that I am editing. See 1927 English Greyhound Derby. Where there is a 'clarification needed' I have added the clarification only for it to be deleted constantly. He is also deleting any reference to the Barrie Dack book that I a using in the competition reports. Why is he doing this? I even added the page numbers which he initially said were missing. Please help.Racingmanager (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have added comments to the administrator page that Sitush has started. Please respond to the my concerns above, (you reply to Sitush immediately). I cannot believe that you are now claiming that I have copied another website (This website only carries Derby final information). I don't know what you want from me! I was under the impression that wikipedia wanted information and I am doing everything that is asked of me despite this harassment from Sitush and the false accusation of a blatant misrepresentation.Racingmanager (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the article differences between greyhoundderby.com and the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article. The website states -

• the wrong result of the winner of the Northern Final
• the wrong northern qualifiers
• no mention of the illness of Great Chum
• no mention of the cost of Entry Badge
• no mention of the Hopsack

How can you possibly claim that the article had copied the website and suggest this as though in support of the fact on the administrator page?.Racingmanager (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suggestions for handling copyright, SPS, misrepresenting sources?. Please don't cross-post your comments here or at Sitush's talk. If I have anything to say, I will say it at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at the Administrator page and provide feedback if necessary. Many thanks.Racingmanager (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Presidency of Religious Affairs:

Much of the alleged copyright violation was in quotes. And much of the edits you have annihilated were not even alleged violations. Now I can't even go back and look at what I've written to redo the edits! Isn't this a bit heavy handed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

None of what I removed was in quotes. I left off doing the revision deletion and offered you a link to the copyvio report at 01:48 so you could check my work. Your response was to re-add the copy vio, so I went ahead with the revision deletion at 01:59. — Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong about the quotes (or at least much of them), none the less a great deal of what you have not just reverted but destroyed was rewriting for clarity, form, grammar etc. and had nothing to do with text from the turkeyanalyst story. Now impossible to go back retrieve it. BoogaLouie (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I might add I was unaware you were an admin at first. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not revert; I selectively and carefully removed only the copyright material. The revision deletion is a separate transaction which hides the intervening diffs. Not all the content in those diffs was reverted. — Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Much rewriting having nothing to do with copyright has been removed. If you will allow me access to it I make improvments to the writing of the article that will have nothing to do with copyrighted material. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It is possibly the material in your edits of 01:36 and 01:40 were lost in the process as there was an edit conflict. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can check my work and re-do the two lost edits. The copyvios report will be visible again, where you will be able to see the comparison between the source web page and revision 731855691. Here is a link to the copyvio report. Please do not re-add any of the copyright material. All content you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have done my best to repair the material that was lost in the edit conflict. Sorry about that, it initially looked to me like just a small edit but I see it was actually quite a bit of stuff. Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Saw your note on attribution - Will follow guidance - Question on Edits

Too easy to put the attribution in comments for pasted content from linked articles. Strip club article edits are not showing on public site, and not able to determine what protection level is on the article. Was planning to do more edits, but want to know what the situation is before spending more time on the article. Are you able to check status? Thanks. Wallanon (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

People who are not logged in are served a cached version of the page. Perhaps that's what is happening here? — Diannaa (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that was possible. Just had not seen it take so long to push edits, but I have not been that active on Wikipedia for a while. Thank you for replying. Wallanon (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a big wiki, server lag may be an issue at times. — Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Need Your Opinion

Hey Dianna, I was wondering if you could take a look at the edits of User:Magnolia677, specifically those made on July 23, regarding Kentucky towns and high school sports championships. The user removed sourced information from each of the pages with the edit summary "Per WP:USCITIES", while using TWINKLE. I checked and I could find nothing regarding high school sports championships not being allowed in articles regarding towns in WP:USCITIES.

Admittedly, the information added could use some sprucing up, but wholesale removal of sourced content. This is kinda troubling. More so, when tonight Magnolia677 was engaged in removal of sourced content with User:Alex jirgens.

I'm wondering how I should procede. Leave it with you, take it to ANI, ignore and revert? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:12 on July 30, 2016 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: He has now replied to your query on his talk page. The guideline he is talking about can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Sports, where it says to only include major pro sports teams and major Division 1 college teams. However that will most definitely leave some articles such as Bardwell, Kentucky (pop. 723) devoid of sports content. I don't see the harm in leaving it in myself, but in most instances there's no sources anyway. Some of his edits are obvious errors, such as the instance where he removed the citations and left the content or accidentally removed the coordinates of the town. You might like to follow up on those. — Diannaa (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I get that it is supposed to be only "major" sports teams, but in rural Kentucky there aren't any "major" sports teams. :) That part of WP:USCITIES should be changed. But, what continues to concern me is that according to his reply, User:Magnolia677 and User:John from Idegon (both non-admins) and User:Graham87 and User:Fuzheado removed, what they called "spam" added by User:Drrharpe33, even though it was sourced. The source coming from the Kentucky High School Athletic Association, the main organization in that state for managing high school athletics. Then User:Fuzheado blocked User:Drrharpe33 for "repeated nonuseful edits".

The whole thing smacks of biting the newbies, reeks of misuse of tools (since TWINKLE was used) and stinks of abuse of power (regarding the block). I really want to take this whole thing to ANI, but I want to know what you think regarding it first before I do. Since fellow admin are involved, I completely understand if you wish to back away from this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:25 on July 30, 2016 (UTC)

Let me add more to this, an ANI thread was started regarding this by John from Idegon requesting a "Quick block needed to get someone's attention". I didn't know we did those. Fuzheado then blocked Drrharpe33 for 48 hours. That's alot more than "quick". Then, did not add a block template to Drrharpe33's talk page. It was added by another user.

Please tell me I'm not seeing 4 users, 2 of them admin, ganging up on a newbie editor, removing sourced content, requesting a "quick block", blocking a user for no clear reason, and disregarding every rule possible. Because that's what I'm seeing here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34 on July 30, 2016 (UTC)

They may believe him to be a spammer, as almost every edit contains a link to khsaa.org. This kind of edit is called "reference spam", where a spammy link is added in the guise of a citation. That would explain why he removed the citation and left the content on that one edit. The best place to start is to talk to the blocking admin. — Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

But the link isn't spam, it's actually a reliable source. I'll talk to the blocking admin, but I doubt it will do any good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:24 on July 31, 2016 (UTC)

showing up out of the blue and adding 100 links to one website doesn't look good, whether it's a reliable source or not. People will question his motives, especially when there's been 4 posts on his talk page asking him to stop and discuss. — Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Still, a 48 hour block should not be given for constructive edits, not responding aside (that is a problem), and a reliable source. I am actually considered going back through and readding the information myself, especially after this exchange from John from Idegon. "Stick it" clearly shows how constructive he is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58 on July 31, 2016 (UTC)

Mail send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org regarding Copyright of File:Karan_Hariharan.jpg

Hi Diannaa... I have forwarded the mail from Actor Karan Hariharan to the wikipedia mail regarding permission to use the Picture. I hope that should solve the problem. If anything else, do let me know.

Anamika S Jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anamika S Jain (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for some input

I am troubled by some recent edits to Ysgol Uwchradd Aberteifi; specifically the addition of the Headteacher's Message. I arrived at the page through copy patrol, and in the context of copyright issues I note that they did include the passage in quotes and added a reference.

I am concerned about a couple of things. First, the absolute size of the passage is 208 words, which is significantly larger than I think is typically accepted as fair use direct quoting. Arguably, I could stop here and say this is not acceptable on this basis alone.

Second, I think it is well accepted that the usage of quoted material should not look solely at the size of the quote but also the relative size of the quote compared to the rest of the article. In theory an article should have a lot of pros and a relatively small amount of quoted material in comparison. In this particular case, the quote is 208 words, and the entire rest of the article is about 124 words. Thus, well over half the article is this single quote. I don't think that's acceptable but I'm not put my finger on exactly what principle a guideline is applicable.

Third, we strive for a neutral point of view. While that does not mean that the view of an individual with an obvious conflict of interest is absolutely prohibited, we ought to be cognizant of the fact that a message from the headteacher is not exactly neutral in general, and in particular this one is decidedly not neutral. Essentially, it is an advertising message and far from de minimus.

I'm tempted to remove it but would like some additional input and support or pushback, whichever is appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The policy that applies to the usage of non-free content is WP:NFCC, which states that non-free content should be used only when there's no alternative and its use should be the bare minimum needed to do the job. Regardless of the copyright issue, we don't normally include vision statements, mission statements, or corporate goals, per the essay Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements and the wikiproject style guide for schools Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Content of this type almost invariably is advert-like in tone and generally does not impart any useful information. I think it should be removed. — Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Plus the headteacher's message is just dropped in verbatim, with no analysis, discussion, context, or anything, so seems to me to be non-transformative and used to provide content rather than support or contextualize article prose. Crow^Caw 16:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I'll remove it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Hasidim page

Hello

Why did you deleted Daniel Hasidim page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hasidim)?

Their is no problem with copyright issue with the page of the zionist billionaire forum [8].

Both pages were writen by the same man.

I added the page as a source.

What is the problem?

Here is the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hasidim (2nd nomination). In addition to the copyright issue, the decision was that Hasidim is not notable enough (as Wikipedia defines it) for an article at this time. — Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted page for BASIS Oro Valley

I am a representative from the company BASIS Schools (BASIS.ed) and I am trying to build out the page properly. I worked on that schools page yesterday for a long time. Please undelelet BASIS Oro Valley. No sure I understand what I did wrong. Please help me restore the page. Can you save the page before it gets published? LDMedia Account 1 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

The second problem is notability. I am not sure the organisation is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. We require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newpapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organisations that are not notable are typically speedily deleted.

The third problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page.

So if you wish to add the copyrighted content to a Wikipedia article, the proper licenses and permissions will have to be in place. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how that would be done. Or, you could write a new article that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. And you would have to avoid the conflict of interest guideline while doing so. Even then, chances are that the article would be speedily deleted as not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, — Diannaa (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Zombie (computer science)

FYI, the reason for all of the copying of Koobface into Zombie (computer science), Conficker, ZeroAccess botnet, and others is that they are all technical support scammers trying to get their "warnings" into the article. One step of the scam script is to point the potential victim to a Wikipedia article as a "see, there is proof of what I'm trying to tell you". I locked them out of the Koobface article, so they have been changing their script to target other articles and have been trying to dump their "only we can fix it" type stuff into the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Tafila Technical University page

Hello Diannaa,

website now redirects to : https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ,

but why all my history points in the page were removed ? why managers make things harder to me more and more every day ,is there any thing else now?

how can I assure my edits will be stable , so that next manager reviewing the page will not just disparage my efforts and delete things with another new..reason !? thanks --Thelaststory99 (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The person who removed the material direct you to read the content guideline at Wikipedia:Spam for the reason why he removed the material. What it means is that the content and tone of what is acceptable on a corporate website is not necessarily suitable for inclusion here at Wikipedia. This is not the place to promote the school. Promotional content and stuff that is worded like an advertisement is typically removed. That's what is happening here. — Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	thanks for mentioning my faults. I'm so thirsty to learn more about copyright rules and you did it free for me. it was nice of you . health and wealth. Amir Muhammad 09:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Diannaa Thanks for reviewing and amending the draft wikipedia page Music Rehearsal Space. Is the page now ready to be reviewed and accepted/declined? Bandspace (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't normally assess new drafts; there's a group of people who specialize in that. This may take a week or more, as the Articles for creation process is backlogged; there are 642 submissions waiting for review. Please be patient. — Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Philipandrew2 Investigation and where should I request a CheckUser?

Hi Diannaa, if you remember the user I linked here, you gave him instead of advice, a notice on how he contributed here in Wikipedia. As of now, that concern was taking up at sockpuppet investigations section under this link. Where should we request a Patrolling Admin or ChecUser for this concern? I already ask MSJapan to check his contributions (since I knew that he/she can check it properly, despite having an issue with DZXL article). Please do participate and help us together with the user who reported the said contributor to SPI. Thank you in advance. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A request for checkuser should be added to the sockpuppet investigation case page. Add your request to the section "Comments by other users". Checkusers will not undertake checks unless there's a good reason to do so, so be prepared to present some evidence as to why a check is needed. — Diannaa (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I put that request? Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just state that you want a checkuser to have a look, and present your evidence why a check is warranted. The instructions say: "Explain how you know the accounts belong to one person

1. explain how the accounts are being used abusively
2. explain why CheckUser evidence is needed (in most cases it isn't)
3. support your case using diffs: Clerks and CheckUsers will not do so for you!

If you can do all those things, do that, and change the template {{SPI case status|open}} to {{SPI case status|CUrequest}}. This will put the case in the queue for checkuser attention. — Diannaa (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Revdel of SuperMap

Hi Diannaa. We've now received OTRS permission to use the copyrighted text from selected pages of the source that was pinged as a copyright violation at SuperMap (see Talk:SuperMap). Would you mind taking a quick look when you have a chance and determining whether any/all of the revision-deleted revisions should be made visible again (or possibly reverted to)? Alternatively, I'd be happy to do it if you prefer. More broadly, do you have any objection to me undoing revision deletion upon the receipt of appropriate permission via OTRS? Thanks for your diligence in protecting the rights of copyright holders. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I have no objection to you undoing revision deletion when OTRS permission is received. In fact I am super busy keeping up with the copy vio stuff so it would be helpful if you could do that step yourself if you don't mind. — Diannaa (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I did it in one other situation already, but I'm always hesitant to revert administrator actions and I definitely don't want to do it en masse without asking first. Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arresting Power: Resisting Police Violence in Portland, Oregon

I copyedited the text a little bit. Is there a filter etc. that you can use to see if the copyrights issue still remain? TouristerMan (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes we do have such a tool! I have checked and the new synopsis is fine. — Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind can you explain the notice on the top of the page? I have tried reading the help but it is kinda confusing. How is the "Orphan" notice removed? TouristerMan (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A bot has now removed the orphan tag, as links to this article appear in 3 other Wikipedia articles. You should not have uploaded the poster to the Commons. Non-free movie posters don't get uploaded there. I have created a local copy of the file and tagged it for fair use and added it to the article. — Diannaa (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not upload the poster lol. ty for creating local copy anyway :D TouristerMan (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot — Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

CaptainHog...yet again

User:EndAll6969, DUCKs are a-quackin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:05 on August 1, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58 on August 1, 2016 (UTC)

File:Careers360 Logo.png and File:2nd Avenue 2014 logo.jpg

Greetings, noting here that these files were listed at FFD because there were questions about whether they can be copyrighted at all. There is no way to keep the bot from mistagging them as F5 when they are at FFD, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2nd Avenue 2014 logo.jpg is a low quality image which has been superseded by a high-quality replacement svg logo, File:2nd Avenue (2014).svg. In my opinion there's no point moving the old logo to the Commons as it has no foreseeable usages. I am not seeing a listing at FFD for that one.

I should have noticed the FFD for File:Careers360 Logo.png, I probably would have left it alone if I had. But I expect the outcome would eventually have been the same: deletion (but perhaps with a different criterion). The related article was deleted 3 times at the title Careers360 and once at the title Careers 360 at AFD. — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issue Triple-S

Hi, this is my first attempt at this. Please forgive any mis-understandings. The material you have removed is not Copyrighted. The standard is open any freely copyable, as is all of the material on the Triple-S website. Can you please revert the change ?

Patmolloy (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Patmolloy There is no indication on that website that the material can be freely copied - or freely sold for money and modified, both privileges we need to host text. On the contrary © 2016 The Triple-S Group. All rights reserved. implies we can only look at it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Tatjana Veiled Head (Tight View), Joshua Tree 1988

Thank you Diannaa for citing the improper use of this entry. I have asked the Foundation that owns the copyright to grant permission to me to create the entry. I am learning the laws and regulations that protect artists from abuse and theft and am eager to correct my entry. I noticed that the photo is gone, but I did not remove it. Does this mean that the textual entry may remain? Please advise, and thank you so much for all you do. -LaVicente LaVicente (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of questions here, which I will answer in order.

• The prose was copied from www.getty.edu. Getty never releases their stuff under license, so the odds of you receiving permission to use prose from one of their websites is very low.
• The photo is not present in your draft, and it never has been. You must have forgotten to add it. Regardless, non-free images are not allowed in draft space, only in article space. The image is too large for non-free use; I have tagged it as {{non-free reduce}} and a bot will be along shortly to make it smaller. The image can then be used once your draft is accepted for publication.
• Your entry is still in draft space. If you think it's ready for publication, add the template the {{AFC submission}} template to place it in the queue for review. Then an experienced user will assess the draft and publish it for you. This process could take a week or so, as they have a backlog right now. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, I will correct the prose and upon all parties approvals, I will prepare the template for publication.

The Herb Ritts Foundation wrote back to me via email stating that it would be up to the living subject of this photograph, in this case Miss Patitz, to grant permission. The Foundation does own the copyright to all of Mr. Ritts' works. My question is, how to I transmit their approvals to add "Veiled Head" to Wikipedia to you.

Many thanks, LaVicenteLaVicente (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to bother doing that, because our fair use rules permit a small version of the image to be used in the article once the draft is published. If the copyright holder of the image wishes to release it under a compatible license, they need to follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. This is Not a good idea for works of art, as the license is irrevocable, and applies to all uses, not just Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Rationale (musician) query

Hi Dianaa. I have a small query. There is an article by the name Tinashé (with an accent), of a British musician whose real name is Tinashe Fazakerley. The musician released an album with Island Records in 2010. After a 5-year hiatus, with the success of another Tinashe (US singer/actress), the artist decided to re-launch under a new name, Rationale, in 2015, and is now signed to Best Laid Plans/Warner Music UK. I proceeded to move the page Tinashé to Rationale with your assistance. However, last week one user (Paultnharris) decided to remove all the changes referring to the name change and did not provide an edit summary. I reverted these edits. The user then went on to change those edits again, insisting that the two artists are different, and I should change it back (in edit summary), yet I have cited articles on interviews where Mr Fazakerley's change of name [9] is confirmed. The said user has now moved the article to a third Wiki article, Tinashe(UK) and seems very adamant and refers to Tinashe in past tense, yet they are a living person (BLP).

I believe Katy Perry and Snoop Dogg, for example, changed their names and record labels, with old names redirecting to current names, and old accomplishments still indicated. I would like a third opinion (3O) from you as I realized it may soon turn into an edit war. -Takutau (talk)13:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have moved it back to Rationale (musician) and left a note for the other user on his talk page. I have found over time that attempting to communicate only via edit summary seems to be unproductive. A talk page message or user talk page message is a much more effective way to communicate — Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Victorian Railways wagon page history

Hi,

Thanks for taking care of the history bit that violated copyright. I didn't know you could remove history pages like that.

Cheers, Anothersignalman (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Tinashé / Rationale page

Hi Diannaa I just saw your revision of my changes to the Rationale / Tinashé page. Please let me explain in more detail.

Tinashé Fazakerley was signed to Island Records and released music around 2010, including the album "Saved".

After this album, he put his artist career on hiatus. Last year, he started releasing music again as Rationale.

My problem with the page is as follows: - Rationale did not release music as Tinashé Fazakerley, yet the page is titled Rationale. Therefore the article makes it look like the artist named Rationale previously released the music that was released by Tinashé. The artist Rationale did not release this music. The article would make sense if it were titled Tinashé Fazakerley and then detailed Tinashé's various exploits in music - but it is not. It is titled Rationale. This is not logical, or accurate, and therefore does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. - it is misleading because, although the article is titled Rationale, it says He is known for his synth-pop sound[2] and his African influences. Rationale is not known for either of these influences. Tinashé might have been, but this article is titled Rationale. Again, misleading.

At the very least, to be factually correct, the page should be titled Tinashé Fazakerley, and not Ratioanle, and differentiate releases made under the alias Tinashé and those made under the alias Rationale.

- I also do not believe that Tinashé warrants a Wikipedia page at this time as his achievements so far have not included the awards or success of his releases required by Wikipedia to warrant a page.

Thank you.

Paultnharris (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Paultnharris

Okay, looking at the http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/rationale-interview-ive-carved-my-own-path-and-its-feeling-good-a7124761.html article I see Rationale is releasing his debut album so they can't actually be the same guy! Also compare the photos. Not the same guy. We were both moving the page at the same time; it is now located at Tinashé Fakerley. — Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Any further discussion on this topic should take place at the article talk page, please. — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Paultnharris (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Paultnharris

Re:Copying from other Wikipedias requires proper attribution

Well, I thing the original contributor was me. Let say, I'm not the one who created the article in id:wiki, but about 3 years ago I found the content was so horrible and it was translated from en:wiki. So I rewritten and added so many references and so many information mistakes and hope someone to translate it to en:wiki. I think I left my message on it's talk page. But no one seems to care until some days ago I translated it by my own. And there are still so many articles like this, like City God, Wealth God, etc., but I don't think I'm gonna translate it soon. I don't know if it is still necessary to put the contributor, but I don't know. How do you think? Okkisafire (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already added an edit summary to the article that states that attribution for the content transferred here from the Indonesian wiki can be found by reviewing the history of that article, plus I added a {{translated}} template to the talk page. So all the attribution is done. If you are the sole author of the prose that has been copied or moved, you technically don't have to include this step, but I always do it regardless, so that people know what's going on. — Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I checked the talk page and couldn't find my message. I must left it on the other articles' talk page. But I noticed your {{translated}}. Thank you again Okkisafire (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Leaving a message on the talk page is not what the requirement is! We are supposed to use an edit summary in the destination article at the time we move the content that states that the material is copied, and where we got it. Here is a sample edit summary: "Attribution: Content in this article was moved here from example on July 31, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution." — Diannaa (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

re: copyright problem

Dear Diannaa, You are right. I more or less copied the purpose (three lines) from the web site of the association because I found that the words were well chosen, but you are right. I wrote the rest of the page myself. And I sent a message to the president and the vice-president of the association, to tell them that I created a page about ISCA and suggest them to improve the page. Thanks for your work. Francopoulo (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you again, but can you take a look at this picture and tell me if it is worthy of being a featured picture. I took great pains taking the picture at just the right angle and spot. TouristerMan (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about featured pictures. I think there's separate featured picture processes at the Commons and here. There's a page on the Commons at commons:Commons:Image guidelines and locally at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. — Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal

190.104.115.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• 190.104.115.104
• 190.104.115.208
• 190.104.120.32
• 190.104.120.136
• 190.104.120.148
• 190.104.120.240

Same range as last time, 190.104.112.0/20 (4096 addresses). Hard to say if anyone else wants to use this range, because he starts editing again the day the range block expires. But no one has complained that I know of. Blocking for 6 months. — Diannaa (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright for Operation Okra

Hello, I received a message that I "added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder" being "(remove copyright content copied from http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2016/07/20/prime-minister-minister-for-defence-joint-media-release-training-iraqi-law-enforcement-agencies/) for Operation Okra.

I believe you mean this "additional 15 ADF personnel who will provide a counter rocket, artillery and mortar capability at Taji which is currently being provided by another Coalition member"

This is an Australian Government media release on the Defence website which is copyright. http://www.defence.gov.au/Copyright.asp

Now the Prime Minister's website has the same media release https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2016-07-19/training-iraqi-law-enforcement-agencies

It is creative commons licence https://www.pm.gov.au/copyright

So I can use this?

It was too difficult to paraphrase. --Melbguy05 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The PM's document contains the stuff I removed, so I was able to put it back in. Thanks for finding that other source. — Diannaa (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Reconciliation Day

Hi, as you are an expert on copyvio could you please reply to this user, their last article Reconciliation Day was a 97% copyvio copy and paste from what they claim is their website, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I prefer "specialist" to "expert"; being an expert is too big and scary! I have replied at Talk:Reconciliation Day and also laid a {{uw-copyright-new}} on her talk. This info should have been provided to her when the copyvio was originally removed but somehow this step got missed. — Diannaa (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations on Southern Connecticut State University article.

Hello! I noticed that a couple of years ago you dealt with some copyvio problems on the Southern Connecticut State University article. It looks like you cleaned up stuff that people had cleaned up years before. And just today it looks like I cleaned up a lot of the same stuff. My point is that apparently this is going to be an ongoing problem. I'm not sure if there's any action that can be taken to keep this from happening again but I thought I'd let you know what's going on since you were involved once before. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a chronic problem on school articles. I will add it to my watch list. — Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted photo - wasn't quick enough with copyright letter

Hi, I don't log in very often and my photo got deleted sooner than I saw the message about it requesting a letter. If I organised the photographer to send the copyright permission letter now, could the file be undeleted or should I upload again? Cheers, Wallstonekraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallstonekraft (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) On Commons it’s usual for OTRS to undelete the file automatically on validation of permissions (or, where the volunteer handling the file lacks the tools, to request an admin to do so) and I think it’s the same here: easier to undelete than to re-upload. I wouldn’t worry about it unless it doesn’t reappear in a reasonable amount of time. I don‘t know just how long it should take, but the queue at Commons typically runs two or three months. In the meantime an admin might be willing to restore the file with an {{OTRS pending}} tag; best to first approach the one who deleted it, as admins are usually loth to undo others’ actions.—Odysseus1479 02:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Odysseus, I'll have the copyright letter sent and then get in touch with the deleting admin.Wallstonekraft (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad article on Peter W. Grayson ‎

I was stunned that wikipedia had no article on a presidential candidate for the Republic of Texas, so I tried to write stub. My article may be weak, but a sound approach would be to blank my contribution, not the article itself. --Blackhood (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has already looked after cleaning up the article for you. Your point is taken that I could have done this myself. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahmad Alaadeen

Hi Diannaa. You recently removed copyvio at Ahmad Alaadeen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I just removed more copied from [10][11][12]. The last one has conflicting licensing on the page CC BY-SA/GFDL and (C). Was I correct in removing the text? If so please RevDel, otherwise you can revert me. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

An older version of the webpage archived by the Wayback Machine on Sept 14, 2011 shows the material as being Copyright 2008-2010 ASR Records. All Rights Reserved. I think this may be a case of license washing, and we should leave the content out. There's more info on license washing at commons:Commons:License laundering. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Question about copyvio

Hello. I have a question regarding Draft:Donald W. Sweeting: what's the proper tag for COPYVIO? It is clearly copied from the university's website. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If the copy vio is pervasive and there's no copyright-compliant version to revert to, go ahead and nominate for deletion as G12 (copy vio). If you can find a clean version, revert to it, and use the template {{copyvio-revdel}} to get the item into the queue for revision deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Cathedral Basilica of Our Lady of St. John of the Lakes

The article in english is a translation of only some parts of its version in Spanish, in any case a verbatim copy of any web page.--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case you should have said so in your edit summary. When copying from other compatibly-licensed wikis, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content. It's also a good idea to place a {{translated}} template on the talk page of the new article. I've undone my removal and added the required attribution. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

• Editorial: Wikipedia policy suppresses sharing of information

• News and notes: Foundation presents results of harassment research, plans for automated identification; Wikiconference submissions open

• In the media: Paid editing service announced; Commercial exploitation of free images; Wikipedia as a crystal ball; Librarians to counter systemic bias

• Obituary: Kevin Gorman, who took on Wikipedia's gender gap and undisclosed paid advocacy, dies at 24

• Traffic report: Summer of Pokémon, Trump, and Hillary

• Featured content: Women and Hawaii

• Recent research: Easier navigation via better wikilinks

• Blog: All-new notifications page helps Wikimedians focus on what matters most

• Technology report: User script report (January to July 2016, part 1)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hi! Here's an annoying request that I keep adding to talk pages of admins who are active right this second! RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

List articles

I've recently been involved in a discussion on whether or not a single Knight’s Cross confers presumed notability. There’s no consensus on whether it does, although opinions differ; here’s a summary of a multi-part discussion at Notability (people).

The avenues for reducing the volume of such articles is AfD or PROD. A matter might come at AfD as to whether the articles could be redirected somewhere. There are list articles containing all of the 7000+ recipients, which I only recently became aware of. I am concerned that these lists may not be sufficiently transformative—that is, the list articles appear to be a line-by-line reproduction of the work by Fellgiebel (sample), which is available in English as Elite of the Third Reich. Compare to the article Recipients starting with Sa-Sch They include exactly the same information as in the book, and in the same order.

Is this okay from a copyright perspective? Another issue is the amount of red links, which does not appear to align with WP:LISTPEOPLE. But it’s the copyright that’s my main question. What’s your take? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a copy vio. It's an alphabetical list; that's why they are in the same order. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism, "simple, non-creative lists of information, such as a list of song titles on an album, or actors appearing in a film. If creativity has gone into producing a list by selecting which facts are included, or in which order they are listed, then reproducing the list without attributing it to its source may constitute plagiarism." — Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

...and again

Another CaptainHog sock, User:NoMoreSilence420, has popped up. The checkuser and range block was turned down by Vanjagenije, I think might help change that user's mind. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20 on August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Let's go back to your idea of page protection. I have protected some of his most popular and most recent targets:

• WJJS
• WPLY (AM)
• WVBE-FM
• WVBB
• WSFF. Semi-protected for one month. — Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully that will force him to give a rest. Thanks for your continued help on this one. Much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42 on August 5, 2016 (UTC)

The sock is strong with this one. Keep me posted please, happy to help. — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)