Jump to content

User talk: Diannaa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CorbuleacM (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 13 August 2016 (→Deletion of Unigma). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 6:43 am, 16 December 2024 UTC [refresh].
Talk page archive
Send me no flowers
2009–2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Date-changing vandal

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

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, that was not my point. My point was a necessary article should be cleaned up--not deleted. --Blackhood (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your point and have apologised already, so I am unsure why you are posting here again. — Diannaa (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Alaadeen

Hi Diannaa. You recently removed copyvio at Ahmad Alaadeen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I just removed more copied from [1][2][3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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:
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)[reply]

Elevita

Could you help me understand what I need to do to keep our article from being speedily deleted per your request? I'm learning as I go and would appreciate insight on getting our article correct and verifiable. Thanks in advance. Juwebb (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could tell me where to locate the draft article that was declined in 2014. We need to have the continuity so that the original author gets attribution as required by the terms of our CC-by-sa license. A 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. Chances are that regardless of the copyright issue, the article would be speedily deleted as not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, — Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Future-oriented therapy and Future Directed Therapy Redirect

Hello Diannaa,

Several months ago, there were some issues regarding Future Directed Therapy and Future-oriented therapy. A previous article on Future Directed Therapy was merged onto Future-oriented therapy. The material of Future Directed Therapy was removed from the merge due to the content being entirely different from Future-oriented therapy. The redirect from the former to the latter is protected, so the new draft that I am creating for Future Directed Therapy cannot be added to Wikipedia until that redirect is deleted. Do you mind accessing the Future-oriented therapy page to delete that redirect of Future Directed Therapy to FOT? Once again, the two therapies are completely different, and I am in the process of having Future Directed Therapy having its own article on Wikipedia.

Thanks again so much, and hope to hear from you soon.

lhaddad1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaddad1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This can be done if and when your draft is accepted for publication. — Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
This also includes all your assistance in removing copyright violations. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dechronification

I have deleted the above article, as it was previously deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dechronification. I am also going to delete User:Shultz the Editor/Dechronification and User:Shultz the Editor/Joshua Brown (motorist). The reason is because copying other people's work into your sandboxes does not include the attribution history of the page, which is required under our CC-by-SA license. These pages are therefore copyright violations. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion is over 10 years old. Wouldn't a statute of limitations on them have expired by now? What does it take to legitimately remake an article deleted so long ago?
I started "Dechronification" under another username long ago, so I copied my own work. Would I please get that and the Joshua Brown (motorist) articles' latest versions in some kind of a private message or email so that I can keep them in a private pastebin? I would feel aggravated to see my efforts and time going down the drain like this. If anyone notified me that they were going to delete it; gave advance notice, I would've saved my efforts by archiving a copy of them privately. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to hear you don't have a copy, because you created it entire on August 4, 2016, at 05:12. I can email you a copy. There's no "statute of limitations" here The version you added was identical to the old version deleted long ago, and the policy page says "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". — Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of Johannesburg

I responded to both your queries on my user page. Sorry about my mistakes. I will try harder.Vaaljapie (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I'm copying this request from Drmies' page, figuring the more eyes on this, the better. Thanks for any help you or talk page stalkers may provide.

My stalling has paid off, as these are both already deleted. Good ol' Coffee, he's all about the fresh today — Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth saying (and this is especially true for poor Drmies, whose talk page I often embroider) that I rarely expect rapid responses to transgressions less than serial defamation. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel myth

I see this article has been put up for GA review; I know you had some interest in Rommel in the past, and worked on getting D-Day related articles (Normandy landings for example) up to GA in the past, so you may want to GA review it. I don't recall you editing on it before. Up to you -- Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't have time for GA review right now, so busy with copy vio work. — Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought. Kierzek (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F11 vs F9 on OTRS images

The users in those images have had well over a week to respond. The tickets have all been checked, they were all responded to asking for additional information, and they were all ignored. Waiting another week is not going to do anything when they have been waiting for an email response for months. --Majora (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F9 is not the correct speedy deletion criterion. The correct criterion is F11, under which the user is entitled to a week's notice. You may not think it's a big deal, but I am obliged to take the use of admin tools seriously and follow the policies to the letter. — Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between {{OTRS pending}} being older than the age of the backlog and being {{OTRS received}} and being ignored. The images are a copyright violation in their current form and permissions were denied. These images have been around for months and months without the proper permissions so an extra week as a copyvio isn't going to matter all that much but it is still allowing a copyvio to exist for an extra week. --Majora (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The correct criterion is F11, under which the user is entitled to a week's notice. You may not think it's a big deal, but I am obliged to take the use of admin tools seriously and follow the policies to the letter. — Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proper CSD tag for {{OTRS received}} but not confirmed.. Thank you. Majora (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amentini Motors

Why on earth would you feel the need to delete a page from someone's sandbox? Someone said it could not exist there forever, but it hadn't even been there 24 hours. I hope you have a good answer. Casmeli (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted was User:Casmeli/sandbox/Amentini Motors. The reason was because it's a broken redirect to Amentini Motors, which was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amentini Motors. Before deleting the material from article space, the deleting admin moved it to a different sandbox location, User:Casmeli/Amentini Motors. — Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Diannaa,

I am writing to you with regards to your removal of the edits and additions that were made to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Standard_Minimum_Rules_for_the_Treatment_of_Prisoners&action=history on 6 August 2016, at 18:56.

I understand why certain parts were removed. However, the current article lacks a lot of information on the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules). The additions that were made on 5 August 2016 by UNODCJS were prepared by the UNODC Justice Section in an attempt to ensure that all the information on the Mandela Rules were recent and accurate. We would therefore really appreciate if you could kindly provide us with guidance on this matter to ensure that the edits and additions we make are in conformity with the Wikipedia standards.

We propose the following:

- We will paraphrase and reference the copyrighted parts from https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/expert-group-meetings-8.html and http://www.un.org/en/events/mandeladay/.

- We will reduce the links to minimize 'link farm'.

However, as to the 'unsourced additions', these additions were based on the work of the UNODC and prepared by our staff. Therefore, most of the text was original which makes it difficult to source/reference them in accordance with the relevant Wikipedia standards. Appreciate any help you can give us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNODCJS (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. In addition to the copyright problem, there's the issue of conflict of interest. Writing or editing 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. Instead, you are supposed to place suggestions for edits on the article talk page. Using the template {{Request edit}} will place the article in the queue for Wikipedians to examine your request. Also, please note that 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. Regarding the matter of unsourced content, we do require citations for all content, preferably to reliable outside sources such as books and journals. Sourcing stuff to your own website is far from ideal. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for assistance in this regard. For assistance in general matters you might be better off asking at the WP:teahouse, where volunteers experienced in helping new users are available to help. — Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Diana, Thank you for your reply. I understand the issue with conflict of interest and will post a notice to that effect. However, the nature of the article makes it difficult to reference journals/books as the websites and referenced resolutions are the primary source for the information. Also, the information is all factual in nature which leaves little room for bias. Having said this the current article lacks a lot of information and does not reference any journals/research either.UNODCJS (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're active...

Need TNT at [4] CrowCaw 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Done -- — Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible libel

I can find no support in online newspapers for this edit. Since it is potentially libelous, can you delete the edit? Thanks for looking into this. 32.218.152.85 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Diannaa. The information was removed by another editor before I could get to it. Perhaps a revdel is needed? Also, I removed the superintendent's name as well. There's no need for such information since he does not appear to be Wikipedia notable, it is unsourced and it is not relevant to the context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Revdelled. --NeilN talk to me 04:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to folks who mind the store while I am at my day-job. — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quack

User:Justwhy69, actually asked for permission to edit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:28 on August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Done by DQ. — Diannaa (talk)

Water polo RD1 Edit

Can you please explain what you did and why? Still learning wikipedia, and would love to know. Thanks!Apriestofgix (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy to do so. The edit diff of Water polo appeared at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol as a potential copyright violation. I saw that there was a page Rules of water polo and as far as I was able to determine, the text was not copied from there. The material does appear at a couple of different sites on the Internet, including this one, so I revision-deleted it under criterion RD1. — Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So in the interest of article cleanup I had moved edits from the main Water Polo page, and added them to Rules of water polo. Should I also delete that content on that page as well then? Thanks! Apriestofgix (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do anything at Rules of water polo, as the content you moved did not contain the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Apriestofgix: “the main page” in your edit summary is a somewhat vague description of the source article; please try and be more explicit in cases like this, because it’s important that people be able to trace the authorship of the content from the source page’s history. See WP:CWW for a full explanation.—Odysseus1479 01:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For edit summary, I usually go with something like this: "Attribution: content in this section (or article) was moved (or copied) here from example on August 8, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution." — Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:11 Truth

Hi, As I understand it you have deleted this page because it did not conform to NPOV policy. I'm afraid I don't understand how it breaches that policy. To my mind, it's a simple explanation of the group of Military Officers for 9/11 truth with links to several of the members. How should I emulate, say, a similar group's page Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth to ensure I conform to NPOV policy? Thanks, Petra Liverani (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the draft for deletion because is a copyright violation. All the content appears to have been copied from the web page http://1amendmentcont.blogspot.com/2011/09/us-military-officers-for-911-truth_13.html. — Diannaa (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of that page. The page you quote simply places the whole of the Military Officers page on its page and as I put a quote (attributed) from the Military Officers page on my page which does not have a lot of text I infer that that's what makes it look like plagiarism. However, it isn't. Thanks, Petra Liverani (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have a look at the copyvios report, which shows your opening paragraph is also a match for that website: here is a link to the copyvio report. — Diannaa (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that the text almost matches, however, some of it is an attributed quote and a lot of it comprises a list of military personnel with their qualifications, taken directly from the website itself which I can edit to state that it is actually taken from the website. I'm not really pretending to say much myself at all. If this is not acceptable I will simply have to edit so there is less replication. Thanks,Petra Liverani (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally include mission statements or goals, so that part will have to come out as well. Of course that leaves you with essentially nothing, which is why I nominated it for deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Booster copright

Hi, I understand why release notes had to be deleted, but why Windows 10 ones are on Wikipedia (and are copyrighted), while driver boster can't? Thanks 82.202.116.145 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you see other copyright violations on Wikipedia, please feel free to remove them, or post a note on the article talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant wiki page Windows 10 version history, its content is copied from windows update history or windows blogs. 82.202.116.145 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already tagged for copyright clean-up and has been since December 2015. Please go ahead and clean it up if you have the time. — Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 10 comes up clean. I have to go to work now. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I received a note from you stating that my additions to the "Nuclear power in India" violates copyright. Since the information was taken from publicly available information, my assumption was that it will not violate any copyright issues. However if it does any copyright issues, thank you for reverting back the additions. I have added some information this time making sure that it does not violate any copyright issues. Please let me know if it does, so that I can edit it again. Monster eagle (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC) monster eagle[reply]

The material was copied from The Hindu, a copyright newspaper. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future Directed Therapy and Future-Oriented Therapy Continued

Thank you Diannaa for your attention,

However, this redirect can be very misleading to the public, regardless of whether or not the Future Directed Therapy article is accepted for publication. Future Directed Therapy is an active treatment being conducted at Emory Healthcare as part of our treatment resistant depression program. Future-Oriented Therapy is not a treatment model that is in use anywhere. The similarities of the name are confusing, and having a redirect to this page is potentially a great disservice to people suffering from depression who are seeking treatment. We are requesting that this redirect be removed.

Thank you kindly for your assistance with this matter,

lhaddad1

Hello Diannaa,

Several months ago, there were some issues regarding Future Directed Therapy and Future-oriented therapy. A previous article on Future Directed Therapy was merged onto Future-oriented therapy. The material of Future Directed Therapy was removed from the merge due to the content being entirely different from Future-oriented therapy. The redirect from the former to the latter is protected, so the new draft that I am creating for Future Directed Therapy cannot be added to Wikipedia until that redirect is deleted. Do you mind accessing the Future-oriented therapy page to delete that redirect of Future Directed Therapy to FOT? Once again, the two therapies are completely different, and I am in the process of having Future Directed Therapy having its own article on Wikipedia.

Thanks again so much, and hope to hear from you soon.

lhaddad1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaddad1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This can be done if and when your draft is accepted for publication. — Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaddad1 (talk • contribs)

The place to go if you wish a redirect to be deleted is WP:Redirects for discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Thomas Rosica Wikipedia Article

Dear Dianna,

Thank you for your efforts with Wikipedia: for moderating it, keeping it balanced, clear, within correct bounds and unified. Obviously I am not core Wikipedia expert, and I contribute in-frequently. I wish I had time to do more. I have learned about many subjects and popular opinions on persons and events thanks to Wikipedia, and I love that about Wikipedia.

What surprises me regarding the Thomas Rosica wikipedia article is how easily all content is being removed without being reviewed, adjusted or modified. As you can see, there have been many attempts to make the article on this individual detailed, balanced, referenced, and fair. There is a plethora of references to a detailed biography on Thomas Rosica out there in the web, he has authored countless articles, and been introduced with similar introductions and summaries. There is only so much I can do in paraphrasing and re-writing what this individual did factually based on the wide array of references available. The proximity of words to original articles is un-intended and coincidental, and cannot be helped in some cases in the efforts for being concise and factual. Please indicate precisely where the copyright issues are.

I have seen and read many other Wikipedia articles that have been far more poorly sourced, or written, and they do not undergo this degree of modification and wiping. I would hope that some admins and moderators would be open to being more constructive in adding, editing, or adjusting the article rather than removing all content, leaving it with a skim sentence about the person in question, and one section lending undue weight to a controversy.

The fact the article has often been reverted to this form several times regardless of many efforts to add information and balance the undue weight to a single controversy, leads me to believe there is a bias or carelessness on the part of some admins. If my gut feeling is wrong about this, please let me know. I would like to request other admins to weigh in on the history of this article over the last 3 months and see for themselves. Please keep the "Free" in the slogan of Wikipedia being "The Free Encyclopedia".

Thank you for your consideration,

Where_he_spoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where he spoke (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content has repeatedly been removed because it's a copyright violation, copied pretty much unaltered from http://saltandlighttv.org/about/rosica.php. The content was removed in its entirety because the violation is pretty much total. All material you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words please. Alternatively, if the copyright holder of the source website wishes to release the material under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I've noticed at ANI you seem to be the goto person for image copyright issues. I was on IRC in Wikipedia-en-help and there was a question about trying to figure out if an image that was taken by the Iranian Government would be in the public domain similar to what we have in the United States. Any help would be much appreciated :D --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Verheyen Vincent: was the user with the question. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron11598 and Verheyen Vincent: Just jumping in with a little information. According to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection, there are no official copyright relations between Iran and the United States. The general protection for most works lasts until 30 years after the author death for deaths before 22 August 1980, otherwise 50 after the death of the author. For photographs and film, it is 30 years after date of first publication. Maybe Diannaa will be able to find information specifically about government works in Iran. I haven't found anything else. When were the photos taken? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: I've poked Verheyen_Vincent on Irc and they will follow up here. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron11598 and Nihonjoe: The image Shahram Amiri (شهرام امیری).png was adapted from a Creative Commons Attribution-licensed video which published on 26 May 2012 on the YouTube channel "VOA Farsi" (used interchangeably with "VOAPNN" & "VOA Persian"), which is the Persian language branch of Voice of America (the official external broadcast institution of the US federal government). However, the original source of the relevant footage was recorded in a studio Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (the Iranian state organization regarding domestic and external broadcasting), in Tehran, Iran. This footage was either recorded, broadcasted, or both (not so clear to me) on 17 July 2010 (according to AP Archive). It seems relevant (assuming the footage is likely to be created by IRIB) to understand whether or not the Iranian government considers content released by IRIB [abbreviation of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting] as "free" or not, since Wikimedia Commons asks for the following:

Images must be free in both the country of origin and the United States in order to be free enough for Commons.

— Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Commons#Differences between Wikipedia and Commons (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC))
@Cameron11598 and Nihonjoe: Article 11 of the Official English translation of Iran's Copyright Law (communicated to Unesco by letter of April 20, 1970, of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education), with regards to the copyright law dated 12 January 1970, might be of interest:

Reproduction of works protected by this law, as mentioned in Article 2, section 1, and the recording of radio and television programmes are permissible, but only for private and non-­commercial use.

The above was translated from the originally Persian passage:

‌ماده 11 - نسخه‌برداری از اثرهای مورد حمایت این قانون مذکور در بند 1 از ماده 2

و ضبط برنامه‌های رادیویی و تلویزیونی فقط در صورتی که برای‌استفاده شخصی و غیر

انتفاعی باشد مجاز است.

— Islamic Parliament Research Center (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC))
@Verheyen Vincent: None of that says anything about whether government content (images, etc.) is considered public domain or something else. That's what needs to be found. If it is not specifically addressed in the law, then we must default to the general guidelines for how long the copyright period lasts, which I mention above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Please note that "public domain" might be a concept which can not be found as such in Iranian idioms (therefor, it might be interesting to look for characteristics of works which can be considered "free", particularly in the original Persian text). Article 11 at least mentions the the right to redistribute television programmes, under circumstances. Another article which catches my eye is Article 8:

Public libraries, documentation centers, scientific institutions and educational establishments, which are noncommercial, may reproduce protected works by a photographic or similar process, in the numbers necessary, for the purposes of their activities, according to a decree to be issued by the Board of Ministers.

The above was translated from the originally Persian passage:

‌ماده 8 - کتابخانه‌های عمومی و مؤسسات جمع‌آوری نشریات و مؤسسات علمی و آموزشی که

به صورت غیر انتفاعی اداره می‌شوند می‌توانند‌طبق آیین‌نامه‌ای که به تصویب
هیأت‌وزیران خواهد رسید از اثرهای مورد حمایت این قانون از راه عکسبرداری یا طرق

مشابه آن به میزان مورد نیاز و‌متناسب با فعالیت خود نسخه‌برداری کنند.

— Islamic Parliament Research Center

I think that both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons can certainly be considered documentation centers, and the image in question is certainly produced by a photographic or similar process. Nevertheless, I understand the relevance of your reply though. I seem to have to accept that, if no Persian reading person could find new information, the future of the image on Commons is not looking very bright. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Verheyen Vincent: That would be sort of fine for Wikipedia (though it might still get deleted), but would not be acceptable on Commons. To be on Commons, the image must be free for any purpose, not just non-commercial purposes. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It seems to me this hinges on the legitimacy of the CC-BY licence on the VOAPNN video. If they had authorization to release the video under this free licence, then an image derived from it should also be free, assuming proper attribution. The status of the original work only matters if the CC licence is invalid. Is there reason to believe the channel is careless of permissions? Or is it assumed they would ignore Iranian copyright in the absence of a treaty? If in fact VOAPNN had no right to license the material, I agree there’s nothing to indicate it would be free under Iranian law. There seems to be a common misconception that all government works are PD, but the US federal government is actually quite unusual in this regard. Most countries (and individual US states) make a few exceptions for things like laws, regulations, and public notices (although there are often non-copyright restrictions instead), but reserve copyright on everything else to the state (or the Crown). I also agree that non-commercial and educational-only permissions are not acceptable: although the WMF projects themselves would qualify, policy requires our free content to be reusable for all purposes; in other words we are not only publishers, but also distributors.—Odysseus1479 19:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the existence of this section at an identically named section on Wikimedia Commons, namely: at the talk page of the file "Shahram Amiri (شهرام امیری).png". I have notified all users who participated to the above discussion during the creation of the mentioned new section. I would like to propose that the discussion be continued on the mentioned Commons talk page, as this discussion seems now to be centered around that mentioned file. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright issues for article Draft:Bernd Kortmann

Dear Diannaa, thanks for you comments on the "Bernd Kortmann" draft article. I have added some changes as requested. Is it ok to keep the "publications" part the way it is? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.91.86 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are almost always okay form a copyright point of view, as long as they are "simple, non-creative lists of information". So yeah, you can leave that part as-is. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright issues for article Cayman Islands Cricket Association

Dear Diannaa, thanks for you comments on the "Cayman Islands Cricket Association" article. My questions:-

  1. How will I come to know that copying material from their (for that matter any particular) website is a copyright issue?
  2. Is it okay if in Wikipedia page of Cayman Islands Cricket Association page, one provides link to Cayman Islands' History page and does not copy the extract and paste on Wiki page?
  3. Is it okay if I take a prior e-mail approval from them before picking the information from their website and pasting on wikipedia?

Best Regards, Vikram Maingi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikram maingi (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Very briefly:
  1. Always assume material is protected by copyright unless there’s an explicit licence or release saying otherwise, or it’s so old that the copyrights have expired.
  2. Yes, you can generally use a citation footnote (following a summary or thorough paraphrase in the article body) or the External Links section.
  3. No. Permission to use material on Wikipedia is insufficient: it must allow anyone to use it, for any purpose. To be accepted it must also go through the OTRS system for verification and recording: see WP:Donating copyrighted materials.—Odysseus1479 04:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues for article The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

Dear Diannaa,

What makes you believe the section removed from the page is copyrighted? It seems to me a clear case of a backwards copy.

  • Here is where the "paradigm shift" phrase is first introduced, containing "it makes the reader to": [[5]]
  • This is the only hit I can find that uses the original phrasing: [[6]], which was established in July 2012, so it's possible it copied from Wikipedia - the other book descriptions on that page have google hits, so they look copied too.
  • Then there is the part where the phrase is changed to "it helps the reader": [[7]]. After that, many many hits show up. This strongly implies that Wikipedia was repeatedly copied by external sites.
  • The final change in phrase is the addition of "i.e.": [[8]]. Again many hits show up.

In conclusion, it looks to me like there is a gradual change in phrasing, documented on the page history, and repeated backwards copying from Wikipedia to many external sites.

Do you still have reason to believe the content is copyrighted? Do you have an original source that is not an external website that could have copied the Wikipedia article? GoodStuff~enwiki (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the "paradigm shift" paragraph I was concerned about but the summary that follows of the seven habits. Looking back, although it has been edited heavily since then, we have had a version of that summary since 2003. It looks like the material has been removed and re-added a couple of times, which is what triggered the bot report. Looks like you are right, it was a false positive. Sorry about the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI issue at Draft:Silvio Laccetti?

You had raised a Copyvio issue regarding Draft:Silvio Laccetti. The discussion at Draft talk:Silvio Laccetti seems to indicate that the editor who has create the article works for a public relations firm that owns the rights to portions of text that had been added. Perhaps the OTRS process may address the Copyvio issues, but it now appears that the bigger issue may well be WP:COI. Do you see this as an issue here? Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it may be a paid editor, as there's an unrelated article creation at Danielle Sheypuk (which is actually a copy-paste of Draft:Danielle Sheypuk, but that's another story). I will notify the user about the relevant policies. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on MS Kungsholm (1928)

Hello. The material added in this edit is copied verbatim from the source ( http://www.30thinfantry.org/history_docs/john_ericsson.doc ), so could you please revdel it? Thomas.W talk 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Done; sorry for the delay. I had to go to the city to help my mom with something all morning. — Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Don't feel any stress, we're not getting paid so real life always takes precedence. And enjoy being with your mom while you have her, one day she'll no longer be there (I lost mine a few years ago). Thomas.W talk 21:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainHog sock/SPI

I thought I would make you aware of yet another CaptainHog sock. The sock has been blocked, just trying to fish out any sleepers. I've alerted DeltaQuad, since she ran the checkuser in the last SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26 on August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio on Draft:Urban informatics

Thanks for checking this draft article under review. You removed 2 definitions from the page. I had another reviewer check this out on 7 Aug 2016 and he confirmed that the direct quotes do adhere with Wikipedia policy as listed here Wikipedia:COPYQUOTE - the definitions use the quote tag and so are clearly visible as direct quotes and attributed to the original source. The material does not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted either. The quotation are useful and aid understanding of the subject, since they are concise definitions of the subject. I have undone your edit. Can you please comment and confirm? Thank you! sunday9pm (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the quotes because I think they are too lengthy, failing our WP:NFCC. I have no intention of edit warring with you about it though. — Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of Unigma

I am user CorbuleacM and I am the author of Unigma wiki page. If you believe this url: http://www.bsminfo.com/doc/public-cloud-monitoring-management-is-now-easier-unigma-0001 is a clear copyright infringement you should have it removed from Unigma wiki page, but not the entire page. I believe that based on all partnerships Unigma has: with Autotask, Kasyea, AWS and those were proven by using accurate URLs, Unigma is significant, it is a top player on the cloud management market based on its features and benefits. Let me know what I need to provide more to prove its importance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that in many instances the copyright violation can be removed and the article rescued. However I did not think it was worthwhile to do that in this instance, bacause the article also failed speedy deletion criterion A7: "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)" and it was deleted on that basis as well. By the way I did not deleted the article, I nominated it for deletion. The actual deletion was done by administrator User:Y, and another version of the article was deleted back in January by administrator User:Liz, in which instance the speedy deletion criteria were A7 and G11 (worded like an advertisement). — Diannaa (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your promt reply! Please let me know what I can do to rescue the article because I believe that its importance is proven based on the fact that big managed services companies like Autotask and Kaseya agreed to partner with it even though it is a young company, founded in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to meet the notability criteria as outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), you'll need to provide multiple in-depth coverage of the organization in sources independent of the subject. We like to see a minimum of three independent sources that give detailed coverage (not just brief mentions). I'm just not seeing that at this time, so the subject does not meet our notability requirements at the present time. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the ones that I mentioned here are 3 recent sources published after Unigma released an API-based multi-cloud cost calculator. There are only few multi-cloud costs calculators out there and for that you may check:
http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/unigma-helps-it-departments-evaluate-public-clouds-with-new-tool
http://www.findmyhost.com/webhostingblog/unigma-offers-it-departments-service-providers-first-capability-to-compare-and-select-public-clouds/
http://cloudpost.us/2016/07/hostingcon-spotlight-kirill-bensonoff-founder-of-unigma-talks-cloud.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbuleacM (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe you have adequate material to establish notability, I suggest you start a draft using the Articles for Creation process. There you will have the assistance of people experienced is assessing sources and notability. — Diannaa (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dianna!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa&oldid=734343919"