User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 8:25 am, 7 December 2024 UTC [refresh].

Mona Lisa Kitchen apron, etc.

Hi Dianna. I wonder if you could offer some advice? Would you hazard a guess as to who might hold the copyright for this image? (I often think of Wikipedia when I see this image, for some reason). More generally, of course, my question relates to works of art reproduced on items of clothing or domestic ware, e.g a Mona Lisa kitchen apron. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123. So sorry, I don't have a Pinterest account, which is I think the reason why your link is pointing me at a collection of Far Side cartoons. Which while hilarious, is not the material you were trying to show me. Can you find a different copy of the pic at some other website? Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How curious. I don't have a Pinterest account either. But I'll look. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) If it’s about the coffee-mug at top left, the cartoon is presumably owned by Larson or his publishers; I would hope it’s used under licence (by the mug manufacturer). The photo itself would be considered a derivative work of the mug and, if published with permission from the owner of the rights to the cartoon, could also have its own copyright based on the choice of viewpoint, lighting, & so on. (But a copyvio can never itself be copyrighted AFAIK.) The Mona Lisa on an apron, assuming the painting were reproduced fairly accurately and without additional elements, would be in the public domain (at least in the USA, per Bridgeman v. Corel, and also according to Commons policy, for example) because the original is.—Odysseus1479 23:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So if the image was "used under licence (by the mug manufacturer)" (how would one determine that?), could that image be used at Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe such arrangements are usually private–unless they end up in court, that is. Regardless, the image couldn’t be hosted here (except perhaps under a convincing fair use rationale for a specific article): if it’s legit, we would need permission both from the owner of the rights to the cartoon and from the photographer, and if not, we’d just be perpetuating/compounding/exacerbating an illegal publication. In general we need positive evidence of a free licence (or that the work is ineligible or its copyrights have expired). See c:COM:PRP; I don’t know whether or not there‘s an equivalent policy here.—Odysseus1479 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's one at only US $10.50? or, in fact, you could take your pick of Larson mugs on eBay if you prefer. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There's two things that are copyright here: the Larson cartoon, and the photograph itself. Each of them is independently copyrightable. See for example File:1976D Type2 Eisenhower Reverse.jpg, which shows a GNU and share-alike 3.0 for the photograph, and a PD-Money-US for the coin. For Gary Larson mugs, you'd need a valid fair use rationale for the cartoon, and your own photograph. If it's not your own photograph, it's eligible for F7 deletion as a replaceable fair use. For Mona Lisa on an apron, you'd need two copyright templates: a PD-old-70-1923 for the artwork and a separate license of the photographer's choice for the photo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks. So, with the presumption made by Odysseus, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we would treat that mug itself as if it were the original cartoon or, at least, as if it were printed on any other medium. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost: the main difference is that photos of three-dimensional subjects add their own copyright, while OTOH photographers of 2-D art are considered not to make any creative contribution, so the only rights of concern are those attached to the subject itself. (Another difference between 3-D and 2-D subjects is that some countries exempt the former from copyright if they’re on permanent public display. In the USA this only applies to buildings: sculptures &c. are still protected.)—Odysseus1479 17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now this seems slightly at odds with Diannaa's "two things"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

How so? The cartoonist has rights over the original creation, and the photographer has rights over the photo for the way it captures a particular aspect of the 3-D mug. Between these two, printing the cartoon on the mug added no creative expression, but it did change the nature of the subject, such that reproducing it was no longer a mere mechanical exercise.—Odysseus1479 18:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You're saying that a photograph of a 2-D print of that image would not have it's own copyright status? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, at least under American law and Commons policy. It’s less clear elsewhere: for example the UK had a long-standing “sweat of the brow” doctrine that protected non-creative reproductions, but it was overturned by the European courts a few years ago—I suppose there’s a possibility of its being reaffirmed post-Brexit. See also c:COM:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.—Odysseus1479 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't know how UK law differs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Millet

Apologies for not adding the CE attribution. Was about to, but I noticed it already had a link to the Wikisource article, which I supposed indicated it was PD; and at the time, it seemed like over-kill. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Best to include it so it's obvious to the reader that the prose was copied and not something you wrote yourself. No worries though, it's there now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter Chapman (cartoonist)

If you are going to place a copyvio tag on an article then I'd appreciate it if you would do a thorough check on it first. When I create an article this is one of the things I always do & in this case the Earwig's Copyvio Detector report states 7.4% Violation Unlikely for the ABC article/reference. There are only three examples of identical phrases of five or more words - one of which is clearly the a generic title, the Australian Comics Hall of Fame, which is used in multiple references - the other two are easy and minor fixes. I don't appreciate shoddy work and the placement of a warning which is clearly not warranted. Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied at OP's talk page. No point in duplication. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Draft:Majid Alghaslan

Hi Dianna. Thanks for editing this page to address your concerns. Just to be sure I understand the status - with these changes, it is now clear to continue in the review process? Thanks. trix70 Trix70 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone will be along to review the draft for publication, but it may take quite a while, as there's an enormous backlog. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Lyrical vandalism

Please take a look here where what looks like an entire song lyric was randomly copy-pasted. Reverted by ClueBot, but probably copyright, so RevDel?—Odysseus1479 03:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Blood management

I thought the changes had been modified sufficiently not to infringe copyright. I will review and adapt further. I work for ISBT clinical transfusion working group so do want to enter some of information albeit it modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransfusionDoctor (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

COI

I am not paid by ISBT nor are they my employer. We are a group of people who are trying to promote better transfusion practice. One way of doing this is by providing free information on wikipedia and highlighting additional places where people can source free information. I actually work for the NHS, our aim is to provide unbiased information that is not influenced by any particular countryTransfusionDoctor (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright that is freely available

How can I explicitly provide permission for material that ISBT has agreed can be used on wikipedia and is publically accessible on the ISBT page?TransfusionDoctor (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

From LaShonda

Diannaa, This is LaShonda Katrice Barnett and I just want to thank you for sending along the email with all the information on proper protocol for making page edits. I initially logged on last month because there was erroneous data on my page, degrees listed were wrong and other things. I'm pleased with how the page looks now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.48.25 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

USOC Media Coverage - USOC 's Olympic Cable TV channel

Hi Diannaa......My local cable TV provider (Optimum) recently added the Olympic Channel to its channel lineup at channel 225. Over the course of the several months leading up to the US skating Nationals, my wife and I were able to watch on this cable TV channel the current international ice skating competitions as well as past Olympic competitions. The Olympic Channel's content is similar to, and I occasionally see programming interchanged with, the NBC Sports Channel. The NBC Sports Channel is designed to compete directly with ESPN and is of similar programming quality as ESPN. My observation is that the Olympic Channel offers high quality, commentated, quality edited, programming - nearly on par with the ESPN channel. Given the quality of the Olympic Channel programming, I thought it worthwhile to mention the Channel's market penetration, thereby giving people something to use to prod their local cable providers. On 13 January 2018, you replaced my footnote referenced disclosure of this cable channel with the non-referenced statement: "In 2017, NBCUniversal launched a linear version of the Olympic Channel over-the-top internet television service in cooperation with the USOC." May I ask the basis for your use of the words "linear version" (as opposed to well edited and inter-spaced}, "over-the-top" (as opposed to commentated and analyzed), and "Internet television" (as opposed to cable television) as the words appear to be misstatements of the facts? If you are ever in the New York City area, I'd like to invite over to my home to experience for yourself the US cable television Olympic Channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attorney18 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Attorney18. Sorry but I can't find the edit you are talking about. The only place I can find where our contributions have intersected was this edit to United States Olympic Committee where I removed some advert-like material you added on January 9. I added nothing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Meena Kumari ‎

Hi Dianna. We have a difficult case at Meena Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aside from large-scale copyvios, there is edit-warring by one of the regulars restoring the copyvios. Best regards. Dr. K. 05:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K. I'm not sure that this is copyvio, as we already had the content in our article on the date it was published (June 17, 2016). I found another potential source, here, dated January 13, 2016, but again we already had the overlapping content in our article on that date. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. This is the Earwig version before I started removing the copyvios. It has a 91.4% confidence for bombaymann2.blogspot.com/2015/01/actress-meena-kumari.html, and the source is used in the article. There are other high-confidence sources, which are also named in the article. How can this happen? Dr. K. 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K. Somehow I was comparing with a wrong webpage. I will look again right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

http://bombaymann2.blogspot.ca/2015/01/actress-meena-kumari.html is a copy of https://vamadevananda.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/journal-jan-03-2012-of-one-soul-meena-kumari/, which is dated January 3, 2012 and was posted online on January 14, 2012. At that point we already had some but not most of the overlapping content. Some we have had since 2006. But it looks like the the material you removed was copied from these documents. The copyvio appears to all have been by one person (Rockyleo94) so I have given him a final warning and will watch his contribs. I am going to check the article for further copyvio and then will do revision deletions. Thank you for your patience and for reporting this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dianna. Also thank you for your time-based analysis of the sources. Dr. K. 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Walter Willison copyvio

Hi Diannaa. I marked revisions of Walter Willison for deletion on copyvio grounds, and subsequently realised that the violation dates back to the very first revision of the page (Earwig didn't initially pick this up, for some reason). I'm just flagging this up in case you feel that it is necessary to delete the whole thing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion complete. The only visible versions are free of copyvio. I found some cites for the two award nominations and added those. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Best Footballer in Asia

Hello, the copyright holder have submitted the certificates of the two pictures File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg. and File:Elkeson BFA 2013.jpg regarding copyrights to wiki permission email. I am waiting for the reply. Hopefully there will not be problems with the two pictures and they can be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added some {{OTRS pending}} tags. Getting the emails cleared will likely take quite a while, as they have a huge backlog right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Attribution needed?

Hello D. In doing some maintenance work I came across this article Kakha Bendukidze and this section of another article Free University of Tbilisi#Kakha_Bendukidze. There seems to have been some cut/paste editing involved. Unfortunately I can't find where it happened so I don't know whether any "attribution" edits are needed or not. My apologies for not being more thorough in this but I thought you should take a look when you have time - just in case. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD. You can find when content was added by using the "Wikiblame" tool, which is available from the article history page. Click on the link labelled "Revision history search" and then paste in a snippet of prose in the "Search for" field. This shows that the prose was copied over on January 15, 2015. I have added an edit summary as attribution. Thanks for the question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Gosh that tool is slick as a whistle. Thanks for making me aware of it and for performing the needed edit. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Attribution

I found a draft in the user space of User:XYGyn that never made its way to being an article. The last edit this user contributed was in 2013. Can I give this editor attribution when the draft is completed and transferred to mainspace? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barbara. The best way for this to happen is to move the draft into main space using the Move feature. that way the page history remains attached, providing the needed attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Furniture Ombudsman

Hi - Please can you tell me why you deleted the info for 2016 review? You kept 2011 which was there previously but removed the 2016 which I added to update the information already there? (I understand your removal of the quote which was there before - thought I removed that as opinion so thanks!) Thanks Hellinadustcart (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the material because we try to avoid using quotations wherever possible. There's no reason why original prose could not be prepared. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - don't really get this - the information from the 2011 review is in there from the review I just put in the information from 2016? Have updated in same way hope that's okay now? Results from ombudsmen should be available on Wikipedia? ThanksHellinadustcart (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Oh oh finally penny dropped d'oh!

Dean Winslow

There is currently a large copyright violation at Dean Winslow. See these diffs. This same copyright violation has been added several times before, and you revision deleted it in the past, so I'm contacting you now to request that you do so again. Thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. The same content has just been added again by a new user--I think this is the 3rd or 4th different account to add the same info. Would you recommend page protection, an SPI, or something else at this point? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So far we've had it added by two named accounts and one IP. I've posted a socking inquiry on the new acct's talk page. I've semi'd the article but the original account is autoconfirmed so we will have to continue to watch-list and may have to go to SPI as well. Note this thread from my archives where the first editor has a flawed understanding of how this stuff works. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on the article. Marquardtika (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Diannaa, I've e-mailed you about a BLP violation that probably needs revdel; sorry to add to your workload. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Received, thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

D. K. Shivakumar

Hi Diannaa. I haven't pestered you in awhile, so I figured it's about time to do so again. Someone just added a big chunk of unsourced content to D. K. Shivakumar. I'd post a diff, but I don't want to create any more cleanup if my hunch is right. Anyway, I just scanned through it brielfy and it has the feel of a copy-and-paste type of copyvio of stuff taken from an external website. Is there a way to check something like this? As least to be sure before I start going in and creating more diffs which might need revdeleting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I didn't find anything using https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ but found some copied from http://www.dksinc.in/biography/, not as much as you might expect. Most of it does not seem to be copied from elsewhere online. This was determined by Google searching for excerpts from the addition. Shortly after you posted here the editor posted about 100 external links at the bottom of the page, presumably as citations for their addition. I have removed everything and posted a message on their talk page. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Hannah E. Taylor

Hi Diannaa. There appears to be considerable overlap between the Wikipedia article and the source. Although the source is noted as being in the Public Domain, surely verbatim duplication is not permitted, or is it? Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's PD, then while it's not ideal it's perfectly acceptable to copy/paste into Wikipedia, provided attribution is given (which is true in this case). Primefac (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Kevin Nagle Page

Hello - I see that you reviewed the draft page for Kevin Nagle but I am not sure what that means for the status of the page as it says it is still pending review? I am being asked for an update so am hoping to be able to provide a status, but I cannot tell from what the page says. Thank you - Erin ErinD22 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@ErinD22: Sorry but I did not review the draft; it's still in the queue. I removed some copyright violations is all I did. There's a big backlog of drafts awaiting review right now, so please be patient. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well colour me surprised

I maintain the AFC decline comments page, and I didn't know that we have a switch for cv declines. Neato. I'll be sure to pass this along to the troops. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm..I am seeing the switch for the first time too!☺Winged Blades^Godric 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I am busy clearing out Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations as many of these drafts still contain the copyvio. I have the page bookmarked for regular maintenance but have been pretty busy with https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en lately and let the category get out of control a little bit! It may be obvious, but I should mention that the switch to cv-cleaned should only be performed once totally cleaned, ie, all copyvio removed and revision deletion completed too. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, totally. I mostly didn't think about it (usually I end up just deleting them) but I'll be sure to start checking that more often. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Parole

I asked for permission after you reverted my edit and this is the response I got:

You are free to use the content from our History of Parole in Canada page, at no cost, as long as the Parole Board of Canada is listed as the source.

Thank you.

Best regards, Iulia Pescarus Popa Correspondence Unit Parole Board of Canada

Is this good enough? Whitebro (talk) Whitebro (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

San Ramon Valley Unified School District

Hi Diannaa, the article has problems with promotional tone, but I suspect there may be copyright issues as well. When you have the chance.....Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For your listening enjoyment while you wait :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you for the music! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Note the school website has a CAPTCHA, which makes their pages invisible to Earwig's tool. However, all becomes visible when using archived versions. This is something I had not seen before. Off to do some RL things for a while, ttyl. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

RL is good. I'm going to try it tomorrow. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Rudrama Devi

Hi, revdel needed for this edit if you could please do the honours? Copy/paste from here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yuwa-India

Yuwa-india Sorry, too terse: 'original prose should not be prepared'. Why did you drop the programs own vision statement (quote)? I restored the quote, added the term 'vision statement' and tweaked the order to be more historic.

It's a start. Hopefully someone will beef it up later.

BTW: The Edge feature article is mostly self-serving, although any publicity is good. The lead pic Edge used for the article is a stock photo, completely unrepresentative of the facilities at Yuwa, but that's another story...

I'm not a wiki frequent flyer these days. It may be awhile until it get back to this 19:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't normally include vision statements, mission statements, or corporate goals. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Rahully2j

Nokia N91 - Removal copyright

Hi. Thanks for removing the copyright part. The info was written by a mobile industry veteran named Eldar Murtazin which I used and cited. The technical specs of Hard drive are available on the web just like other specs of the phone. Not sure why that was removed as well.

If I write the entire thing in my own words and cite it properly would that be okay? The reason I ask because all the other info that's written was done the same way by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahully2j (talk • contribs) 04:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

writing things in your own words and citing your source is exactly what needs to be done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Canadian correctional workers who have died in the line of duty

Diannaa I am the Historian for the Hamilton Police Service. The information posted in Canadian Correctional Workers belong to us and I have the authority to release it. I’m not understanding why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstdavek (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmilon (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Open government license v 3

Can you confirm that it is safe to cut and paste a paragraph from School uniform which is licensed under

Open government license v 3 if I put a statement in References before {{reflist}} that says:

Parts of this article include direct copies from School uniform which is licensed under HM Governments Open government license v 3

or do we have a ready made template. ClemRutter (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I found this one: {{OGL-attribution}}. Your blurb is fine. Here's mine, I have it in a sandbox: " This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown copyright." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Solapur district

Your magic wand would be useful for this edit, which comes from here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeated upload of Copy-right images

Hi Diannaa, There is a recently created user Alikhan090 (talk · contribs) who has been repeatedly uploading Copy-right images to the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. First by providing the source and then under false claim of ownership. I think a warning or a small block might be warranted. Also, how should we repeat such editors in the future? ARV does not expect these and I am not aware of another mechanism. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80. I have warned the user and will monitor his contribs. I can't find a definitive answer as to where to file future reports. I sugget you can report to WP:ANI or bring to my attention and I will investigate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa I think reporting it to ANI is involving multiple admins when one anyone can help. Having a page similar to ARV might help. I can continue to bring it to your attention until then. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Poum

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

I am only one of two english-speaking researcher working in Poum. I spent time there interviewing, and wrote an article. You have not only removed all my edits, but it is impossible to get them back. Why? The article I used in the wiki was written by me, and the reference is to the DRAFT copy, not the final version which Taylor&Francis have copyright for (unfortunately). They do not have copyright to a submitted word document at all. Even if they did, you can still quote from a published article - I am also a journal editor and know the rules. All this is a net loss to the readers and I have no real memory of all the changes, in order to recreate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batterbu (talk • contribs)

It's okay to use short quotations, not extensive passages without quotation marks. That's not a quotation. So the material was removed as a copyright violation. If you are the copyright holder and with to release this material under a conmpatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Economy of Bangladesh

Hi Diannaa, I removed those parts of content which you think promotional and amended to the most moderate version. Thanks microsoftguru

Federico Bellone

Hi Dianna, my page was deleted for copyright enfringment. i'm the system admin and i want a wikipedia page in english too, 'cause i have that in italian, bit i don't find the option to link them in between. Hope that you reply soon please! i wait for work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroRibola1993 (talk • contribs)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Alchemy ,section :etymology

Wallis Budge was one of the biggest Egyptologists and Orientalists in the history he was born in 1857 and he died in 1934.he wrote many famous books such an english translation for The book of the dead which was written in egyptian hieroglyphs ,he also mentioned the etymology of alchemy at least twice,for example in page 19 of his book "Egyptian Magic" and in page 443 of his book "Amulets and Superstitions". so i didn't use a text from another contributor in wikipedia further Wallis Budge didn't even mention the word "chemistry" in this topic,just check page 19 of his book "Egyptian Magic"and you have a direct access to this page through google books,Thanks

Lithuania marked as "too long"

Hello,

You have recently added a template "too long" to the article of Lithuania, which size currently is 218 573 bites. Article of the United States is named as a Good Article and its size is 402 034 bites. Article of France size is 299 585 bites and it is not yet a GA/FA (only B-class), which means when it will reach such quality it will also be around 400 000 bites. Article of Italy size is 230 235 bites and it is also only a B-class article, which means it requires further expansion and inevitably it will cause rise of its size. It is clear that articles of countries have different standards (especially in the United States case when such a long article is named as a GA) because it requires comprehensive information about various fields. Creating a comprehensive and high quality article about country which is about 100 000 bites is impossible (according to Wikipedia:Article size articles bigger than 100 000 bites should be split). As a result, I believe that your added template "too long" from the article of Lithuania should be removed and only a discussion could be started in its talk page if it really has some issues. -- Pofka (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

To ensure that people using slow connections, old equipment, or mobile devices can still access the article (among other reasons), our guideline Wikipedia:Article size calls for articles to be no more than circa 10,000 words and 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose. Once articles are over this limit, they are typically split and sub-articles created: see WP:SUBARTICLE. Lithuania is 13,236 words, with 84 kB readable prose. Re-adding content from sub-articles into the main article is a bad idea, as it's already too big even without this addition. I am under no obligation to review other articles before adding a maintenance tag that I think applies. There's 5.5 million articles, many of which need maintenance of some sort. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for your reply. Well, I am currently using a quite old equipment, which I am planning to replace soon as I hate it at times due to its quite slow performance (it has a almost medieval times processor with only two 2.5 GHz cores). Although, such old equipment allows me to access the United States' article (402 034 bites) quickly and it is easy to navigate within it. Mobile version of Wikipedia does not open full articles instantly and you have to open every separate section (f. e. history, demographics) by yourself, so it does not cause any freezes or difficulties to navigate as long as you do not open all the sections (and even if you do - you can close some sections at any time). As a result, I do not think that 400 000 bites articles are "too long" nowadays and even if they are for some rare, very early 2000s computers it should be very highly outnumbered by the advanced computers of the English language readers who are seeking for a high quality, comprehensive articles. Article of the United States as I see does not include any unnecessary details and simply covers all the most important historical and cultural topics of a country. Reduction of its size to 150 000 - 200 000 bites seems to be impossible without omitting some important sections and details (who all are equally important). Consequently, I find it difficult to realize how it is possible to create a competitive article of another country with two times less size. It sounds like a book without half of its pages and this is definitely not what the readers wants. -- Pofka (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page, not here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Woore

Hi Diannaa. You may want to take a look. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Rev-del done. There is still a lot of overlap with that PDF, but since it's dated January 14 of this year and some of it we've had since the initial article creation back in 2004 and I can't find it anywhere else online, I have to assume they copied from us rather than the other way around for what remains. I did however presumptively remove material added by Trident13, a known repeat copyvio offender. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pinpoint

Hi,

Could you confirm whether or not there was indeed a copyvio (I think there was) and whether I was being stupid (I think I misread the copyright notice). Does this need revdel? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the GitHub Terms of Service (section G.1 - GitHub's Rights to Content) I think Yes, they have copyright the content on the website, other than the policy page, which is released under a CC0 1.0 Universal PD license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Rev-del is done. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio at Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Dianna, looks like there's loads of copyvio in this article. Could you take a look? — LeoFrank  ^Talk 05:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if the page http://travel2karnataka.com/bbmp_bruhat_bengaluru_mahanagara_palike.htm is a copyvio or a Wikipedia mirror, because their content matches ours right to the initial page creation back in 2006, and there's no archived revision earlier than 2010. Regarding http://www.onlinebangalore.com/gove/bbmp-structure.html, I discover that the page is released under a compatible license. But again the earliest copy that was archived is dated 2010 and we have had that content since 2006, so it may have been copied from us rather than the other way around. So, I can't prove anything. Neither of these sources is an official government website. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Maria Margaretha Kirch

Some of the material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright article http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/354389. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not use the Schiebinger Source you reference, because I did not have access to it. When I started editing the article a lot of material was alreday in there, and I kept some of the Schiebinger material, but tried to confirm or replace it with material I had access to. I used some material on guilds in from Schiebinger in https://books.google.de/books?redir_esc=y&hl=de&id=KO507eQPO4oC&q=Kirch#v=snippet&q=Kirch&f=false , mainly on guilds. I find it a bit difficult to establish what was removed, and if I added it. In any case, the article was focusing heavely on her dispute with the academy, rather than her scientific work and publications.--Peabodybore (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Examining the book, I discover that the chapter you say you cited is a copy of the same paper by Schiebinger. Compare the first page of the paper with page 56 of the book. Regardless of whether you copied form the book or the PDF file, copying from a source is a copyright violation and it's not allowed. The revisions containing the copyright violation were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. I can send you a copy of the removed material via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion of COPYVIOEL link at Trump–Russia dossier

Hello.

There's a dispute whether this edit (and subsequent edits which show the link) should be revision deleted for violation of WP:COPYVIOEL.

@Primefac, TonyBallioni, and Dlohcierekim: I'm pinging you because previously you have participated in similar discussion wearing an admin hat, and I'm explaining the history below. I believe the violating link (one diff above) need to be revdel'd as soon as possible, but the rest of this discussion is not urgent.

A history of related actions:

1. In December 2017, I emailed TonyBallioni (an admin who happened to be active at the time) and asked them to review these edits to the article talk page and the contents of a draft in userspace. I asked TonyBallioni to use revdel if they believed the edits violated BLP or infringed copyrights. I also provided a link to a related discussion at Commons about deleting the Steele dossier from Commons, and mentioned that talk page edits and the draft copied contents contents from the dossier in verbatim. I never mentioned anything about violation of COPYVIOEL.
2. TonyBallioni contacted Primefac, who has more experience as an admin.
3. Primefac revdel'd the talk page edits, scrubbed the userspace page of material copied from the dossier, removed links violating COPYVIOEL, and then revdel'd all edits that included the copied material or external links to the dossier.
4. Primefac removed the copyvio link from Donald Trump–Russia dossier and revdel'd roughly 300 edits (see deletion log) where a link to the dossier was visible. An archived discussion of these actions is available here.
5. On January 10, 2018, someone added an external link, violating COPYVIOEL.
6. I reverted the edit, emailed Dlohcierekim, and asked them to use revdel. At first, they didn't understand what my request was about, but after a discussion on my talk page they revdel'd three edits.
7. On January 16, 2018, someone else added the external link to the article. BullRangifer reverted the addition.
8. Yesterday I pinged an admin MelanieN on the article talk page and explained that violating edits should be deleted. MelanieN is very likely WP:INVOLVED with regards to this article, but I believe that would not prevent them from using revdel, or they could delegate the task to an uninvolved admin. MelanieN seems to be ignoring me (must be because I have done something very bad).
9. To my surprise, even though BullRangifer reverted the addition, they are now advocating that a copyvio link should not be revdel'd.

Sorry for TLDR, but I wanted everybody, including people without admin tools, to understand the full background because I want to put an end to this and focus on something more constructive. I don't know a better forum for this (maybe WP:AN?).

So, I have these questions:

(a) Have the three admins (Primefac, Dlohcierekim, and TonyBallioni) been wrong when they have supported, through their actions or statements, revdel'ing external links which violate COPYVIOEL?

(b) If the answer to (a) is "no", what would be a more permanent solution to the problem with this particular external link? Could we use an edit filter to block the most obvious link (the dossier at DocumentCloud), or would it be possible to get some admins to act proactively, after an addition has been reverted? I want to avoid a situation where I – and specifically I because no one else seems to care – have to explain all this over and over again.

Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know the answer to your question. I personally have never revision-deleted to hide an external link to a copyvio, and the revision deletion policy does not list it as something we should be doing. WP:AN might be a good venue to get further input, or perhaps WP:VPP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I’d suggest VPP if it is a question. Fram has dealt with more of these than most, so maybe they can weigh in here with thoughts before taking it wider. I personally read RD1 as applying to COPYVIOEL, but don’t work much in dealing with EL copyvio. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I guess I'll try VPP (maybe next week or so) when I've done some research, and hopefully I can come up with a good question. Have a nice weekend. Politrukki (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Policy forbids linking to a URL which hosts copyrighted material without permission. The link was removed, in harmony with policy. Revdel is normally used to hide outing, grossly insulting accusations, and severe BLP violations, not for links. It just disappears into the mists of revision history fog. Done. (I can imagine a URL which is grossly insulting which should be revdeled, but this isn't one of them. This one is famous and commonly used by normal people, journalist, and politicians, not creeps.)

This particular link is extremely well-known, as it's to one of the most notable political documents of the last year. Pretty much all major news sources mention and/or discuss the Trump–Russia dossier every single day. It's not every day that a sitting president is accused of being a Manchurian candidate, with more and more evidence coming forward which indicates there may be something to it. Indictments and arrests are already occurring to people very close to the president.

I use Google alerts to keep track of it, and it's hard to do. Major RS link to it all the time, and quote from it, and we are allowed to quote from copyrighted material within fair use limits. (Any copyright issues are between the copyright holder and the offending website, and have no effect on "fair use" rights or our ability to quote from said material.)

The dossier is actually hosted several places, and none fear reprisals from Steele or Fusion GPS. Keep in mind that Steele deliberately leaked the document to myriad sources. He wants it out there. I just wish that Fusion GPS would host it on their website for all to use. That would solve our problem. Fortunately major RS discuss and quote so much of it that it's available from their websites, where we can find relevant quotes to use in the context of how those RS discuss it. That's what we do here.

This is an attempt at WP:CREEP which must be nipped in the bud. Current policy is good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Current policy mandates the hiding of copyvios via revision deletion. Full stop. The question is whether linking to an unambiguous copyright violation is covered by that. WP:COPYVIOEL states that Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. Use of RD1 in these circumstances is arguably justified, and I don't think Primefac was out of line. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, where is this policy located? ("Current policy mandates the hiding of copyvios via revision deletion.") -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

ec...

As noted above, once I was aware that there was an issue with adding the link to an article, I deleted it when I saw it, and no longer added it myself:

• On January 16, 2018, someone else added the external link to the article. BullRangifer reverted the addition.

There should be no surprise about this:

• To my surprise, even though BullRangifer reverted the addition, they are now advocating that a copyvio link should not be revdel'd.

I have just followed policy which forbids linking and deleted it when people have tried to add it. There is nothing in policy about revdeling such a link from the history. It's not offensive in any manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:RD1 and WP:DCV deal with copyright violations more generally. The question here is if an external link to a copyright violation counts as one under the policy of the English Wikipedia. If they are considered violations in themselves, then they should be hidden. (Also, sorry to Diannaa for all the messages on her talk. Her views on this are always appreciated, though). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdeling the link itself makes sense, but since the link isn't offensive, the policy violation exists only as long as the link is live on the page. Once deleted, the problem is gone. I see no need for this form of extreme deletionism being pursued by several editors, some of whom still deny that Russia interfered in any manner in the election, and therefore see the dossier as unworthy of mention here. (I suspect that those indicted and arrested already would see some irony in this situation.)

Some editors aren't just hoping to have the link revdeleted from history, but would love to delete all related articles and all mentions of the dossier if they got their way. They say it pretty plainly on talk pages. This isn't some innocent thing, and we shouldn't play into the hands of fringe POV pushers who are carrying water for Putin and Trump. We're here to document what RS say, regardless of where it leads us.

BTW, I'm not so concerned about Politrukki in this regard, but more with some of the others making a ruckus and endless repetition of these fringe POV on article talk pages and AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdelete is normally used for this:

• "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links. (Emphasis added) Source: WP:RD1

Not even spam links get revdeleted, and the link under discussion isn't anything like that description. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can see your point regarding "things getting lost in the shuffle" but I still stand by my earlier administrative actions. At this point in time everyone's simply going around in circles, and I highly agree with the above view that a generic discussion about the suitability of revdel as used for COPYVIOEL links would be appropriate (i.e. don't say "this is the link that is being revdeled", but rather "when it is acceptable to revdel a link"). Primefac (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

TEC Edmonton

Hi Diannaa, I noticed you just declined the requested the deletion for TEC Edmonton. I believe the creator and only substantive author requested deletion here and here. I remain sceptical of the article's neutrality (paid creator/editor) and notability (particularly from the point of view of thin independent sources). With the author effectively giving up on the article, not sure how useful an AfD will be? Cheers, _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing his talk page is where I got the notion he did not request deletion ("I am starting to question your comprehension"). I do see now that he did actually request deletion, but I think the request was made out of frustration ("I give up. You guys are nuts. Just delete it", he states at one point). The article is okay now, I have personally checked for further copyvio and assessed all the cites and removed the COI tag. Please feel free to nominate at AFD if you think the article should go. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have deleted a couple more statements: there is no source for the staffing level, in fact that exact number comes up in press releases attributed to the total of their client's staff level (not the incubator). I also think that the economic success of their clients is not primary to the subject, so I have also deleted that. It is unclear which role the incubator played, quite often this is driven by venture capital investors or non-execs brought on board in later stages. Attributing this to the incubator is puffery IMO. I have not found any (secondary) public statements with regards to the UBI ranking in 2015, so may delete that as well if I have no luck. I am somewhat critical (maybe overly critical) in general with articles about start-ups/incubators/venture capitalists. This is a very dynamic field, where lots of money can be at stake, business risks are high, prestige can be great and WP is often used for marketing or leverage to attain prestige. I'm still not convinced given lack of proper secondary editorial coverage. I hope this makes sense. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The copyright issue is resolved, which was my purpose in visiting the page, so I leave it to folks more adept at assessing notability to decide what to do next. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I definately agree with "Jake Brockman" that he is being overly critical on this matter. I am not receiving any compensation for this, it was just a project on the side which I wanted to complete. As for the for your reference to VC, if you expanded your search you'd realize that TEC has a VC arm known as TEC venture angels (TEC VA). But its fine, I realize that you have some kind of psychotic drive to get this page deleted. Another editor is now questioning the notability of it. Its genuinely shocking to me that a top Canadian accelerator run by a top 5 Canadian university is not notable enough for you guys (maybe it was American you'd have a different outlook?). Regardless, this whole situation has been incredibly frustrating and disappointing for me. I have been threatened with bans and constant accusations. I can assure you that I will be stopping my annual financial contributions to Wikipedia after this.

Diannaa, I appreciate your support and your neutral stance on this matter. Thank you for giving me some hope that not all Wikipedia editors are crazy people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The main thing that we are looking for is in-depth coverage in sources independent of the subject of the article. That's how we determine whether or not an organization is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to be included in the encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria for more information on this topic. It's not too late to add such sources to the article if you have any such. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

York Green Belt

In response to your edit on the above site,

https://www.york.gov.uk/copyright states (ironically at very minor risk to copyright):

you may use the content contained in this website for reproduction in connection with presentations, reports, printed material, and other similar uses which are publicly distributed or displayed free of charge, including advertisements, posters, catalogues, brochures, and leaflets.

So, please clarify...

--The Equalizer (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not a compatible license, because our license permits any uses whatsoever, including commercial uses. Also, their license does not permit derivative works ("you may not modify, distort, mutilate or alter the content"), and ours does. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Hi, thanks for taking the time to reviewthe page TEC Edmonton. I noticed you removed the COI tag after your review, which I appreciate as it was the logical thing to do. Can I go ahead and remove the WP Paid tag on the talk page now? I don't think it looks very good and it is also untrue as I received no compensation. If that tag cannot be removed, then please go ahead and delete the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Since you stated here that you work for TEC Edmonton, you do indeed have a conflict of interest, whether you were specifically paid to write this article or not. Please leave the tag in place. Sorry you have had such a bad experience. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-05

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 31 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Foundation is working on how to get less unmaintained code on Wikimedia wikis. This could be by finding maintainers or removing unmaintained features. They are now looking for feedback on what do do with AbuseFilter, the IRC RecentChanges feed, the RelatedSites extension and TimedMediaHandler. You can leave feedback on the linked talk pages. [1]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Joeymiskulin

Hello, I stumbled on the above TP after I went to leave a message about maintenance template deletions but found it full of 'content' or draft which appears to copy extensively from here. Seems this is a new user who might need some pointers. As the vio is in userspace, I have not removed it (yet) not being sure if that would be the correct way to proceed. Can you help? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The material was copied from Wikia, which is released under a compatible license, so I have removed it but not done revision deletion. See User talk:Joeymiskulin for more details. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering about licensing as it was from Wikia. Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

List of William T. Hornaday Award Gold Medal recipients

Diannaa- Re: List of William T. Hornaday Award Gold Medal recipients. Your critique seems to lack depth of content and, thus, frustrates the honest contributor. That is... I'm not sure I follow your argument. What I have offered is a simple, straight forward, highlight-reel, fact list of accomplishments of each recipient (as best I can find them and edit them) in a few phrases set off by semicolons or in one to two sentences. For the reader, this briefly helps explain why the recipient made the list. The entries are too short to pull discernible passages from anyone else's work - certainly nothing that would constitute "intellectual property." Nevertheless, I use footnotes and cite sources where the reader can read the source article and learn more, and... well... to cite sources for the content in the way that meets with generally accepted, academic standards. I will be happy to redraft something if you feel that I have missed the mark, but you will have to be more specific in identifying exactly what is at risk and how I need to make edits. The list entry you mentioned as being at risk for copyright infringement is a simple list of five facts, is footnoted and cited (in the footnote) with an external link to the cited source. In fact, I have sought to cite at least one source and external link for as many of the entries as possible. Perhaps I should ask what format would be more acceptable / defendable with regard to safeguarding copyrights? Should every paraphrased entry include the repetitive intro text "according to (cited source)..." before listing the accomplishment, or should paraphrased entries be set off with quotes, anyway, despite being paraphrased and cited? Please offer further detail and clarification. Thanks.B93 (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

We can't copy from copyright material even if we cite the source. That's a copyright violation. Short quotations are allowed, but in this instance there's no reason why that has to happen, as it's a simple matter to write it in your own words. So to put it another way: properly attributed quotations set off in quotation marks are okay, but only in cases where there's no alternative. Otherwise, re-work the content, re-writing in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect... did you actually read the article and mine to compare the two? I contend that there is no copyrighted material copied into my article. I pulled identifying facts out of the article, not passages of text... and therefore what is read is offered in my own words. I still footnoted and cited the article as the source, including an external link. One example from the original text of the article reads (I am now copying text to make the point): "As an avid fly fisherman with a Ph.D. in conservation biology from Brigham Young University, Williams has worked as an independent biological consultant for his own company, Clear Creek Consulting, focusing on stream and habitat restoration for native trout, steelhead and salmon in the Intermountain West and Pacific Northwest." ("C of I Alum Awarded Rare Hornaday Gold Medal for Scouting Service". College of Idaho. August 11, 2017) I paraphrased, accordingly, minimally offering the following facts in Williams' listing: "PhD. in Conservation Biology; "for his work restoring fish habitat"." So, where is the issue? Cut anything else and there is simply no information at all. Shall I call him a doctor instead of a PhD? Out of an abundance of caution, should we strip the entire article bare of any content at all, beyond a list of names?B93 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the copyvio "focusing on stream and habitat restoration for native trout, steelhead and salmon in the Intermountain West and Pacific Northwest" and replaced it with "for his work restoring fish habitat." That was not your edit; it was mine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Near-death experience

Hello Dianne

I am working on the near-death experience page. Reference 47 is being used more than once. I have been trying to add a simple refname inside the first <ref> code, but do not succeed. References are insidea special code "Reflist | 30em" -- I am stuck. Any advice please? Have a great day Josezetabal (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Josezetabal: Your edit here seems to have resolved the issue. BTW, for future reference the '30em' code refers to column width and is now applied automatically when the No. of refs reaches 11. It can be removed from the {{reflist}} template in the majority of instances where it occurs. Eagleash (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Folco Quilici

Hi Diannaa. Please could you take a look at the article for Folco Quilici? A user is adding vast ammounts of text from another website, but they claim WP:MYTEXT applies. Any help with this matter would be much appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The source webpage http://folcoquilici.it/en/biografia.html is released under a compatible license (scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the license), so it's okay from a copyright point of view for him to add it here as long as it's properly attributed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi Diannaa, would you mind evaluating this diff for revdel? Mortee (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, and the edit summary as well. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! One more if you could: [2] Mortee (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am at work now, no admin acct access, so if there's a talk page watcher who could oblige? I won't be home for 4 hours. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 16:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gestapo

D - see this article page. Would you please consider temp page protection for auto-confirmed users. Kierzek (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

​Personally I would say no since the offending IPs have been blocked, but if it becomes an issue you're always welcome to request protection at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

As is typical with our Nazi Germany articles, the vandals are schoolchildren. There's been vandalism all month on Gestapo. I would probably not decline this at RFPP. Activity has stopped for now. I will watch-list for a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Ring of Solomon

Could you look at the 'Plot summary' section of this article please. It has a tag from 2015 with the copyvio material available in the edit window. This looks like it's been reported twice and has a directly applied template. Debouch (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem was that the user added the tag to the article in 2015 but did not report it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 September 13 until 2017, which had by then already been archived. The listed source document is part of this document, which is dated 2014, and we've had the content since 2011. I couldn't find it anywhere else online, so it's okay to keep. Though excessively long and detailed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, reported once and the dates are ok. Thanks. Debouch (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

public domain

Hi.
Is there a template for displaying that the content in some article has been copied from a public domain? Specifically from {{PD-USGov}}? Kindly ping me while replying, regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 23:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: The one I use is {{PD-notice}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks. Do you think this is right? special:diff/823225304.
Is there anything that would state something similar to "This article incorporates text, which is in the public domain." at the bottom of the article?
Also, do you remember me? You were one of the first very few editors who communicated with me on wikipedia. It was almost an year ago. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course I remember you :) You did it right; {{PD-notice}} is perfect for incorporating inside a citation. There's a selection of US templates for Category:United States government attribution templates that are intended for use at the bottom of an article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Wannsee and Yehuda Bauer

Dear Diannaa, Can I ask why you removed Yehuda Bauer's referenced comment from the Wannsee Conference page? Bauer is without question the world's leading expert in Holocaust history, holding an esteemed position at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and therefore his opinion on Wannsee is surely of great importance? I am baffled that you have deleted it. Thanks for your time.BookyDong (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Your answer is in the edit summary for the removal "remove - overlarge quotation gives undue weight to this one opinion". Heiro 16:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

One opinion; the fact is there is more than one "leading expert in Holocaust history". Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of COPYVIO on E!/Brently Perumal

Last week, you reverted and warned Brently Perumal (talk · contribs) on E! about the addition of copyrighted material about the South African version of the network; the user restored the material and hidden-noted that they were 'one of the Editors on www.tvsa.co.za and the the authority', suggesting a definite COI account (the site they're with seems to be a press release regurgitation site with little original content). I dug in and noticed that Zee World has also had COI fingerprints all over it and I had to revert to a clean July 2017 version to remove all of those issues. I'm tagging them with COI but judging from the COPYVIO restoration, I think they haven't gotten the point at all about it. Nate • (chatter) 17:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally I noticed that another COI editor on that Zee World article, Judahgreg (talk · contribs), was under a 3m block from October 31 to today, but had returned as an obvious DUCK Judahpagoo (talk · contribs) during the block, so that needs some scrutiny too. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Principles for Digital Development

Hi there - just to let you know that I've now recreated the page, without the use of CC BY-SA 4.0 materials. Many thanks! Bjohas (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)