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 Dsparakh (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 27 October 2016. 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 3:37 pm, 29 November 2024 UTC [refresh].
Talk page archive
Send me no flowers
2009–2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Checking

Hi. Would you please check my recent edits on Diana, Princess of Wales to see if there's any copyright violation? As long as I know paraphrasing is OK. If you approve it, then I'll continue to edit and add new material to the article. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 09:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When copying from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary where you got the content from, like I did here. I did not check your edit of 21:31, October 16, 2016 — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Did you see any other problem? Keivan.fTalk 22:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I did not check the edit of 21:31, October 16, 2016. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just wanted to let you know that I'm editing the article. If you see any kind of problem, please tell me. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 22:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I have a question as well. Since you had warned me a few months ago about the copyright violations, I haven't added a single sentence from a source by copy-pasting. So why is my name still on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations? What does it mean exactly? Because as long as I know you cleared the whole article before and everything that I've added to it since then has been checked by you as I've reported every single change to you. Keivan.fTalk 07:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also based on the article's current situation, do you think it has the potential to be nominated as a good article? Keivan.fTalk 07:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your name will remain at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations until such time as someone goes through all your contributions listed there and checks them for copyright violations. Unfortunately there's nobody working on that task right now, so the listing could remain there for a long time. I was looking at the article as a potential GA and felt there's some potential. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Maybe you can also help to expand the article a little bit more. Although you had said that you were working on copyvio and I wonder if you have actually finished working on it. Besides you own some books about her which can be used as sources for new material. So it's not bad to edit and expand popular articles like this, of course if you have free time. Keivan.fTalk 05:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had completely finished checking for copyvio on Diana but had not finished improvements towards GA. I reached "Marriage to the Prince of Wales" when I stopped. To achieve GA status, checking the material already in the article and confirming that it is backed up by the sources provided is an important task that needs to be done. Anything unsourced needs to be removed. Adding more examples of state visits is not necessary or desirable. All the prose will need copy editing to bring it up to GA standards. The article is about the right length. Unfortunately the source material (even the books) does not have much depth and only scratches the surface of who she was and what she did. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. You did a great job on first two sections of this article. I also think that the section relating to her trips has enough material. I don't know which biography books you own about her, but it could be much better if those books, or any other source that can be found, were used to create a section about her public image and style. I was looking at numerous articles about famous men and women (like Jackie Kennedy for example), and I saw that there was information about their public image, popularity, etc. Currently I believe there's only a little information on "Legacy" regarding her public image, popularity, style, etc, but honestly it's not enough for a public figure who was praised by millions. You, as an expert in Wikipedia, are the best choice to improve the article in these aspects. Keivan.fTalk 05:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

Sorry about this.It hadn't happened before and I guess I got complacent. I mean I was never before made aware of this. I thought the message "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" handled that sort of thing. Am fixing now as best I can. Thanks. Yours,Quis separabit? 01:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Quis separabit? 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Request

Hey Dianna, could you upload this image for me? I tried, after scaling it to the standard 300px, and it came out looking like this. Yeah, a mess. I was hoping you could help. Thanks....Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:06 on October 17, 2016 (UTC)

I deleted your version and uploaded a bigger version under the same file name, and asked the bot to reduce. Let's see what kind of result that gets! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, that works! :) Thanks! Hope all is well with you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:07 on October 17, 2016 (UTC)
Bot has reduce the file! it looks okay :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denisthiyam

Hi Diannaa. Hope you are doing well. Would you mind taking a look at Denisthiyam's contributions when you get the chance? The account is only about a week old and they have been upoloading some image files without proper copyright licensing and source information, moving various articles around, and adding File:Udaykiranhanging.jpeg and File:Kunalk.jpeg to the main infoboxes of Uday Kiran and Kunal Singh. I understand Wikipedia is not censored, but this seems more then a little over the top per WP:PERTINENCE and there's no way to know who these photos really depict without better source/copyright information. Maybe we're not quite at WP:NOTHERE yet, but it does seem to be heading in that direction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. I have deleted a couple of the photos, as I found them elsewhere online. I will watch — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Haugh

Sean Haugh, an article you reviewed a little while back, is being contended as not notable. I believe the article meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG standards and wanted to bring this to your attention. A user is making the page into a redirect because he does not believe it is notable and I have suggested to him to start a discussion. I wanted to bring this to your attention as I thought your input on any discussion would be important. Acidskater (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio file

File:Ruthvika Shivani.png seems copyrighted, as it first appeared here in February. Its higher resolution versions like this one has also appeared before. In fact, bot tagged it for deletion. But the uploader removed the tag. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the image and alerted the uploader. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Deletion image

I understand your rule, I picked it from other website I will not repeat the mistake again please forgive me , I have done lot of information on this page from scratch. Kaminenibharath (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on E-SCREEN

Diannaa, as this appears to be a school project (the folks at the Biochemistry department at the University of Barcelona (BQUB) often run undeclared school projects here at Wikipedia), might it be worth the effort to try to identify the class project leader / teacher, and have them better inform their students about copyright issues? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, the student appear to be operating under an education project at ca.wiki (ca:Viquiprojecte:Bioquímica UB). I'll reach out to the project leader there. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea, as there are over 150 users whose usernames start with "BQUB16-" and this is not the only article they have been editing. Thanks for offering to help — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impact
No problem. That's what we gnomes do. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your awesomeness is unsurpassed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WE ARE THE STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA AND WE ARE WORKING IN A PROJECT THAT HAS A DEADLINE, SO PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH THE WORK UNTIL WE HAVE FINISHED IT, BECAUSE IT IS VERY HARD FOR US, AS WE ARE 18 YEARS OLD, TO LOOK OUT FOR INFORMATION ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND YOU REMOVE ALL OUR INFORMATION WITHOUT THINKING IN THE HARD WORK THAT IS BEHIND. SO PLEASE, BOTH OF US, BE EMPATHIC!!!!! THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Gjimenez (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but there is no excuse for violating copyright law and the policies of this website. Please read the information on copyright already posted on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Diana thank you for your time and I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by our ignorance in the process of editing Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Gjimenez (talk • contribs)

E-SCREEN

Hello Diana,

You don't know me but I'm Gonzalo Jiménez Fernández, and I'm from Granada, a beautiful city of Spain. Now I'm studing Medicine in Barcelona and we are making a project that consists in creating or improving biochemical terms in the Wikipedia. But we don't know how to use Wikipedia well because our teacher hasn't taught us. So I beg you that please don't change anything of the article, because our teacher will give us a bad mark and we don't want it. I think 30th October is the deadline, so after this date you can change what you want, as you want, but in the meanwhile please don't change it. We know that we can't put things with copyright, but instead of removing it, you can tell us how to do it and we can do it well. It very sad that we are almost all day working in the project and to get up the next day and see that evertything has been changed our removed. So please be empathic.

Thank you, I hope you understand me.

Gonzalo Jiménez, University of Barcelona (18 years).— Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Gjimenez (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but there is no excuse for violating copyright law and the policies of this website. Please read the information on copyright already posted on your user talk page. @BQUB16-Gjimenez: Multiple members of your class are violating copyright law on several different articles, and there's no reason why this website should allow your copyright violations to remain in place so that you can get good grades. In fact, your professor needs to be aware that you are violating copyright law, and grade you accordingly. One way to do this is to remove the violations immediately. There's already information on your talk page about copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing; to add to that, let me say that content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. This is difficult but not impossible to do with technical material. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diana, I’m the present instructor on the ca:Viquiprojecte:Bioquímica UB. I’m sorry to hear from user:WikiDan61 that pupils working on updating of the en.wiki article E-SCREEN are violating copyright of some documents. Plagiarism is unacceptable in our institution and I will act in consequence. But, to ascertain if the pupils had a malicious conduct or they just misunderstand the publishing rules, I would acknowledge some details about the violations they made. Could you please explain me if they verbatim copy text or if they performed some unacceptable paraphrasing? Did they cite the documents they plagiarized? Please accept my apologies for that unacceptable behavior. RodriguezAllue (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RodriguezAllue. Thank you for attending to this matter. The copyright violations were verbatim copying from the sources. Sources were cited. Violations that were detected were committed by the following users: BQUB16-Jcalvet, BQUB16-Jdiaz, BQUB16-Plapenya, BQUB16-Emaicas, BQUB16-Gjimenez, and BQUB16-Mcuenca. Articles involved are E-SCREEN, Death effector domain, and Alpha-tubulin N-acetyltransferase. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, RodriguezAllue. Our intentions were not to violate any rights of the articles, in fact, we tried to rephrase them and we did our best. However, we will try to readapt them again in order not to make anything that breaks Wikipedia's laws. Thank you for your good intentions, we know that you were just following the rules and just tried to help. We feel really sorry about the possible misunderstanding of our intentions and attitude, we only wanted to do our best. Thank you for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Mcuenca (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit "20 October 2016: we don't need all this, as CorenBot is no longer editing"

Regarding your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2016_October_20&curid=52049354&action=history please review Wikipedia:CP#Instructions as well since it is the page I was following. --Fukumoto (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have amended the instructions to reflect this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha-tubulin N-acetyltransferase

Hello Diannaa, I am @BQUB16-Plapenya. My colleagues and I are creating a new web page on Wikipedia because it is our homework. We understand that if we violate copyright, your duty is to advert us and delete if we are committing any violation. However, we do not clearly understand (maybe because we are new in Wikipedia) but if you go to: Alpha-tubulin N-acetyltransferase > View history > Revision history statics > English: it looks like you have done all our work, because it provides fake information, as the only thing you have done is deleting our work, and there it is said that you have done the 58.3 % of our work by uploading 22.000 bytes approximately. However, it has been us who have done all this work, and it is not the impression caused studying this statics. Therefore, I would be glad if you could explain it to us and, if possible, to correct this, because when our teacher visits our page to evaluate us he will probably have the wrong impression that we have done nothing and you have done everything, when it is absolutely false. I'm looking forward to hearing from you, @BQUB16-Plapenya — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Plapenya (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BQUB16-Plapenya. This is one of several articles where you and other students in your class copied material from copyright journal articles. Material you find online is almost always copyright, and it's against the copyright policy of this website and a violation of copyright law to copy it here. Please have a look at the material I already posted on your talk page for more information on copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I completely understand this. The thing I cannot clearly understand is why you appear to be the major editor of our work, having uploaded around 22.000 bytes, when the only thing you have done in our work is deleting our stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Plapenya (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't know the answer to that. I have only done three edits to the article, and they were all removals. I suggest you contact the maintainers of the tool for more information. https://tools.wmflabs.org/?list shows the tool is maintained primarily by user:MusikAnimal and user:Cyberpower678. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by our ignorance in the process of editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Plapenya (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the WP:REVDEL that Diannaa performed (which is the procedure when removing copyright violations) is throwing off the calculations. If you compare the last visible diff to Dianna's last edit you get this. I'm not sure if this should be considered a bug, since the tool has no way of knowing the content of the hidden diffs, it simply looks at the before/after. I can open a ticket to investigate further. Best — MusikAnimal talk 16:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Issue is now being tracked at phab:T148857. Thanks for the report — MusikAnimal talk 17:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colinetto/sandbox

Colinetto (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Diannaa - I'm just about to start work on some Wikipedia entries as a result of an Editathon with Clem Rutter - noted that my Sandbox seems my Sandbox was deleted on 4 October - and the page referred me to you?[reply]

Hi Colinetto. You had a draft in your sandbox, which was moved to Draft:Rachel Gadsden by another user back in March. At that time, your sandbox became a redirect to that draft, which was deleted on October 2 by another admin. I see you have already made a new sandbox, so if you need any further help or need to retrieve your draft on Rachel Gadsen, please let me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt

Hello Diannaa, I am @BQUB16-Jdiaz. As you know, you've deleted some contents that I've include in the page of Death Effector Domain. I have rewrtied the information and now I think it has no copyrighted material. Please can you check it and tell me if it's fine now or if you consider that I have to change anything? Thank you so much and sorry about my ignorance about how to add information to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16-Jdiaz (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bot picked up some of your recent additions as being copyright violations, in particular the material added at 12:44 UTC on 21 October. The paraphrasing you have since done is adequate. Please don't add copyright material to the wiki, even temporarily for editing; all your amendments should be completed before you save your edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

You may be interested in this discussion regarding a user you have blocked. Sentence from their edit "This would be the first time Golovkin fails to fight three times in a calender year since 2012, when he first came to the United States and teamed up with HBO." and from source "This will be the first time Golovkin has not boxed three times in a calendar year since 2012, when he first came to the United States to fight and linked up with HBO." 80.235.147.186 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is copyvio/too-close paraphrasing and have re-worded it and commented. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

quote farms

Are this and this ok? You'd previously warned the user about copyvios, but this is far too much non-free content IMO. —SpacemanSpiff 10:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is too much, especially in U Turn (2016 film). I've removed some of the non-free content and explained to the user why this is not okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medici: Masters of Florence (TV Series)

Apparently an entry was made by another user, for the above new international television series, and you deleted it. Perhaps it was full of inaccuracies, copyright violations and spoilers? What happened there? Fb2ts (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copyright violation, top to bottom, with the plot section copied from http://www.luxvide.it/en/medici-masters-of-florence-166.html and the remainder copied from http://biglight.com/work/medici-masters-of-florence. Your version contained some copyright material as well, copied from the Variety article. I have placed some info about copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what version you're talking about. I got the original version from imdb, which may be where Lux got it, or vice versa. I've switched it out to quote the co-creator from a 2015 interview. I'll rework the Variety quotes. Fb2ts (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Think I caught all the copy & paste bits. Please let me know if I missed something. Thanks. Fb2ts (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already edited out all of the copyright violations. Your edit has removed some of my improvements, so I have restored the properly formatted citation and properly formatted bulleted list. References go before external links. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! Sorry. I was editing when you were editing and was less careful than I should have been in merging my new changes with your new changes. Thanks for your patience.Fb2ts (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP image

Hi Diannaa, I'd like to check with you if it would be appropriate to upload a non-free image that I found here: photo. I'd like to use it for the article on Ronald Smelser, but I'm not sure if this would be okay under fair use rationale. If you could help clarify for me, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't permit non-free images of living persons (fails WP:NFCC #1, as a freely licensed image could still be obtained). You might consider contacting the copyright holder of the photo and see if you can get it released under a compatible license. There's instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification; I will inquire with the school. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Springs Toledo Page

Hi Dianna, I was fixing the page when you deleted it. You're so fast deleting it you didn't even gave me time to fix it. Anyway, I already recreated the page. Pacphobia (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. I am going to place some detailed information on copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright issue has been fixed already. Pacphobia (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Control copyright icon Hello Diannaa, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, I wonder who did not receive their template?!! I will try to figure it out using the time-stamp. :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

I remember now; I was trying to paste this in my sandbox, but it displayed here instead, because I used Twinkle. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was scratching my head on this one. "Diannaa warning Diannaa" in "The Twilight Zone". Kierzek (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed

— John Lennon

ColeB34

I don't think they are getting the message about NFCC and is uploading multiple screenshots without addressing NFCC#8 (or 3 for that matter). I think they are thinking that if they comment on the image that satisfies the criterion. Do you want to have a try at explaining as I'm already big bad wolf. Nthep (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I can say that you have not already said, but I will try. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OMG he has uploaded 82 of these images. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was on my way to bed when I left you my original message, sorry that ColeB34 seems to have gone on a revenge tagging spree and dumped the results on your doorstep. Nthep (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry --ColeB34 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: Panama Private Interest Foundation

Rather than G12 it, perhaps rollback to before today's edits. One new COI user likely is the violator for the copyright.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that, but the Earwig's tool shows that there's more. I couldn't find a clean version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying

This page has content copied from this site and also at this page from this site. A discussion at User_talk:Vin09#Bhogapuram_Airport was made. Can you deal this?--Vin09 (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please delete

I think you have forgotten to delete these screen shots. Thank you--ColeB34 (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we have an image of the actor in character at the top of the article about that character, so any like that can be kept. But we don't use non-free images in list articles, so those will have to go. File:GordonJackson.jpg, File:UpDown S3Ep7.jpg and File:Richard Bellamy.jpg can be kept as the images are used in the article about the actor, and we have no free images of them. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the uploader has not edited for several years, they are entitled to a notification about the deletion nominations. I have gone ahead and done that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think, there are much more to delete. I will help you. Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see the image in Leonard Trolley, Mary Wimbush, Nicholas Selby, Donald Burton, Roger Brierley, Angela Browne, Patsy Smart and Heather Canning (article about the actor/actress). I think these images can be kept. They are used in the article about the actor, and we have no free images of them. thank you. --ColeB34 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please delete

Why? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We normally have an image of a character in the article about that character, so these are okay to keep. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrjob - it's back!

Hi! Thanks for deleting Mrjob that Zkc131 ripped directly off the internet - it seems they haven't learnt and have recreated it again, despite my advice on their Talk page and the numerous copyright warnings! Might a salt and/or block be in order? Thanks again! Mike1901 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several persons adding similar articles, perhaps classmates? I have blocked for copy vio, as there's plenty of warnings already in place on the user talk page. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Diannaa! I did notice that (and had similar thoughts!) but ran out of time to deal with/report the others. Agree they're likely classmates or similar. Mike1901 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting speedy deletion

Hey Diannaa, I would like to contest the deletion of a page I created with the title: The Citizens' Empowerment Center in Israel. You deleted this page based on criteria: G11, G12. Source URL: http://www.ceci-israel.org/ Please revise your decision in the light of the following reasons:

  1. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion - This page is a description of an NGO for which I work, and its public activities. It also has a linked page in Hebrew with similar information as shown here: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%96_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%97 If you find the content too "promotional" or not neutral enough, please point out the parts which you find as such and I will edit them.
  2. G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement - The text in the page was written exclusively by me for the purpose of the page and the organization's website. I hold all the legal creative rights for it. Additionally, you may see in the website that there is NO declaration or a demand to reserve copyright for the text.

Waiting for your reply and hoping for a change in your mind. Danya Leshed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledanya14 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required.

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

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

So if you wish to add the copyrighted content to a Wikipedia article, the proper licenses and permissions will have to be in place. Or, you could write a new article that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. And you would have to avoid the conflict of interest guideline while doing so. Even then, chances are that the article would be speedily deleted as not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wilson Parking (Hong Kong)

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for your comment to the page. You are so fast and very effective while I was amending and re-collecting information to revise the problems. I’m sorry that it was my first contribution, so it’s great I can learn more here :) Just understood about G11 and G12. This time I’ve further source and looking for more information from 3rd party (e.g., from Bloomberg, HK Trade & Development Council, SHKP’s 2015/16 Annual Report…etc.) and see what’s more up-to-date. Would you mind to read again? I’ve already recreate the page Wilson Parking (Hong Kong). I wish this page can be a good start for Hong Kong region, it is because there’s just only little information of HK’s Wilson Parking. I think most car-lover would like to contribute via this new page. Some of the parking locations were deconstructed and most of them with long history for HK people. Hope this page can help to rebuild the history for this theme, cheers :) Please feel free to let me know if anything still wrong or violated the rule, thank you very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeiau (talk • contribs) 12:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks for your time, and I'm happy for the opportunity to this lesson. Cheers~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeiau (talk • contribs) 13:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC) --Tkeiau (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The River Flows.

Thanks, both. I've added to the Lucas page a reason for the inclusion of the book cover image (the cover was unknown even to the Hogarth Press researchers who wrote a book on the early Hogarth publications). The book itself is discussed in the Biographical section below, as a semi-autobiographical novel. Regards, 193.39.159.73. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic of the Female Musicians

I have forward the permissions (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License) from the Hellenic Society for Near Eastern Studies for the image File:Mosaic of the Female Musicians.pdf to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Thanks! Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niihau incident

I have been directed here (thank you Irondome)  :) this article is (apparently) a 94% copyvio of this Hawaii Reporter article from 30 June 2013. Thing is, I can't work out the point at which it was inserted to say whether the reporter has just ripped off WP or it actually is a violation. What would be handy is if Earwig could compare versions of our article with the paper. Can you advise? Many thanks! Muffled Pocketed 11:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source webpage is dated June 30, 2013, so we need to compare with a version of the Wikipedia page prior to that date. Comparing with revision 554905793 dated May 13, 2013, shows a 95.7% overlap. What this means is that the Hawaii Reporter article is copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. I have placed a {{Backwards copy}} template on the talk page of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. I thought it might be the case- it takes the piss a bit though! Imagine Woodward and Bernstein copying our stuff  ;) So how do I compare an old revision, if you don't mind my asking? Muffled Pocketed 13:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Select the old revision you wish to compare. Go to that revision and collect the revision number from the url. In this case we see a url of https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Niihau_incident&oldid=554905793 for the May 13, 2013 revision. The number at the end of the url is the revision number. Plug this into Earwig's tool in the box labelled "or revision ID:" and compare with the source web page. Et voila — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Thanks very much. I'll be stealing that then :) Muffled Pocketed 16:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See one, do one, teach one — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RETScreen article - your comments

Hi Diana - thank you for your messages regarding the article on RETScreen. I do not see that any changes have been reversed. There are no copyright violations as I work for the Government of Canada (Natural Resources Canada) and we own the copyright on the RETScreen software and all related text and materials. I am not very proficient with Wikipedia coding and usually use the visual editor. I'd appreciate any sort of online tutorial to help me better understand how and what to post on Wikipedia. Thank you for your input.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa&oldid=746516712"