This is an archive of past discussions with User:Diannaa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for your commentary about quoting. The original of the passage that I quoted was written entirely by me. So is it correct, based on your answer, that I don't need to do anything more? Please let me know.
Diannaa you had edited my contribution citing that the references from a particular publication of https://www.jstor.org/stable/25207484?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. I am very surprised as you are accepting references of recent Indian historian who support Sanksrit based unproved and biased facts. I am sure you are aware of Indian caste system, and Tamil society do not have anything in common with Sanskrit based caste system. And recent archaeological surveys are confirming this history, especially proving all the historian from north indian origin with Sanskrit backgound to be biased and made up without any facts. If you are not accepting the a particular journal reference, please do validate other references that repeatedly refers Paravars as a caste, instead of a community and referring them in a caste ladder of Aryan civilization and their Sanskrit Caste system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaduraiSelvam (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The material you added and later re-added was copied from Simon Casie Chetty's 1837 article Remarks on the Origin and History of the Parawas. You copied material from that source and pasted it into the Wikipedia article as though it was prose you wrote yourself. The additions were reported by a bot as a copyright violation. Technically it's not copyvio because material written on 1837 is now in the public domain, but pasting it into Wikipedia as though it was your own work is not okay. It's plagiarism. Material from an 1837 article is unlikely to reflect the current scholarship on the subject, so I took it out. Since you have now re-added it, I have added quotation marks and made it clear that these are Chetty's exact words and that the material is from long long ago. (Nearly 200 years ago in fact.) However I did make a mistake when I said Simon Casie Chetty was British; he was not. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately if you had known the situation in India which is dominated by Sanskrit based caste system will not approve things that do not reflect their caste based ideology. So it is better to look at international references that reflect the truth. Regarding Plagiarism, I will try to rephrase the content, I was under the impression that, we should quote exact the same way as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaduraiSelvam (talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dianna. Would you mind taking a look at this section. It's appears to be clearly WP:C-P from www.ssclibrary.co.uk/aboutus. There might be other content from the page which has also been C-P'd from an official website/source as well.
FWIW, I've been trying to help Djc Thomson with other things on their user talk and at WP:MCQ, but every post I make (any post any editor makes) to try and do so is seen as patronizing. Perhaps you might be able to explain things to them if this is a copyvio. I was going to try and re-write the section, but didn't want to create any more extra diffs which might need revdeleting after I noticed the C-P. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the copyvio is foundational. :( I have removed it and done revision deletion. There could be additional copyvio from the books he's citing, but I have no way to access those. If you have time to tackle a re-write, let me know if you want me to send you the removed material via email. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. I also saw you posted something on their talk page. This seems to be a fairly new editor, but they are also a WP:SPA whose focus on this one particular subject matter might explain the WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:EXPERT type reponses received by those who try to help them or point out relevant policies and guidelines to them. They also might not quite understand WP:COPY since they have had issues on Commons.
As for the rewrite, I was going to try and rewrite that section, but the source is primary and it's not clear if the content is relevant. I'm also not sure how much if any of the other content (particularly the lists) added by this editor is WP:C-P'd since the sources aren't online as you point out. I think I'll wait and see for a bit so that I can see how the editor responds to your revdels and see if I can find some different sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog has gotten involved and is helping sort the COI issues and is also working on the article. However, you might want to look at was just posted at User talk:Djc Thomson#Copyright problem on Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland because it appears to be a permission email for the content you revdeleted. I'm not sure why it was posted there. Maybe it was just a courtesy to let you know what email sent to OTRS said? Maybe Djc Thomson assumed that posting means email verification is no longer needed? Regardless of the permission aspect, the editor has a COI and may be even a WP:PAID editor. The lists and other content similar to what you revdeleted was removed by Jytdog for questionable sourcing, etc.; so, it's not clear whether any of it should be automatically assumed to be OK to re-add just because the SSC has given their permission to do so. I'm not quite entirely sure that Djc Thomson understands that the SSC's official website and the Wikipedia article are not one and the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The user now states that he is a volunteer, not being paid. The permission on the user's talk page may or may not be a copy of an email; they describe it as a letter; "By this letter..." so it's not clear whether or not a permission email has been sent. We have to have that email; posting on a user talk page cannot be considered adequate, as it does not provably come directly from the copyright holder. He's already said that he realizes the content can be edited, but he may not be aware that material copied directly from the corporate website is unlikely to suit our needs. I will add a note to that effect. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The original text is obviously in public domain dating to circa 50 BC.
The text used is a translation which appears to date to 1940.
The first question is whether the translator has a copyright in the translated text. I have previously worked on the assumption that the answer is yes, but I glanced at copyright and Berne Convention, which were less definitive than I had hoped (unless I missed something).
I also looked at translatorsbase, Which sort of says yes but not as clear as I would've hoped.
For example: Does the work of translators and indexers meet the requirements for copyright? The matter has been debated among indexers and translators for years, and the answer may not be the same for translations as for indexes and may differ for various types of either.
And In 1976 UNESCO recommended that member states ensure through legislative action that translators be given copyright protection ... The United States has not generally followed this recommendation.
On a more positive note:
There are translations that definitely would meet the originality requirement--for example, a new translation of an ancient Greek play or epic poem.
I come down on the side of "yes", but what I thought was fairly clear is a little more muddled than I had realized.
Of course, the editor isn't purporting to be the author of these words; there clearly marked with a block quote. So if we conclude that the material is copyrighted, the question is whether this is usage is acceptable.
I'm troubled by the length of the quote. It is 347 words.
I'll also note that when I look at recorded material I often look at the size of the quote relative to the size of the overall article. The overall article is approximately 962 words so the quote itself makes up over a third of this article.
I'm troubled by both the absolute and relative size of the material.
It is often the case that an overly link the quote can be "cured" by rewriting a portion of it in one's own words and using a shorter excerpt.
I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing this but I didn't see in obvious way to do this. I suspect it could be done but I don't feel comfortable doing it myself.
I'm interested in your views on whether the translated material is subject to copyright, and if so should we insist on a shorter excerpt (or any other observations you might wish to make)S Philbrick(Talk)15:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
My general assumption has been that translations enjoy copyright protection, because any given translation of a PD work will be unique, with word choices and grammar selected by the translator. Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works is the only guidance I could find on this matter, and it's not a policy page.Our non-free content guideline does not specify a percentage of a text that should be imported as "fair use" but only states that "excessively long copyrighted excerpts" should not be used. I agree that having one-third of an article as non-free content is too much. The non-free content criterion #1 states that "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." In this case, the freely available equivalent would be a summary that we write ourselves. The policy does not address the question of how difficult preparing such a summary might be in some cases.Perhaps it's my interest in military history that makes me find this particular quotation to be not very useful, as the structure and functionality of the scorpio does not seem to be very different from any other catapult. You will have to make your own decision about how to proceed, but I think it could come out without damaging the article. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I added the quote from Ammianus Marcellinus for several reasons: 1.) it is the one of the most extensive pieces of writing from the ancient world that describes the construction of catapults of any kind, 2.) I originally wanted to clean up the very same quotation, which already existed in a mutilated and annotated form in the Onager article, and since it says that onagers and scorpions are the same thing, I thought it should be quoted in the Scorpio article too, especially as it contradicted many of the wild claims made there. I have no opinion of copyright issues; not at all my area - the quote was, as I say, already (mis)quoted at Onager. If the proportion of original content to quotations is a problem, then it's the article that needs to be lengthened, not the quotation removed. If some part of Ammianus's description could be omitted, I'd rather that than have the articles both totally lack quotation from ancient sources. If the description sounds "not very useful, as the structure and functionality of the scorpio does not seem to be very different from any other catapult" then that's a POV that both Ammianus Marcellinus, and the fact that there are multiple Wikipedia articles, as well as a general article on different torsion siege weapons, would seem to disagree with. If the scorpio is no different to "any other catapult", how does a trebuchet, a springald, a ballista, a mangonel differ? Should we collapse all these article into a single 'Catapults' article. Surely not. If in the late 4th century AD (not 1st century BC) scorpions and onagers could be considered overlapping or identical categories, that needn't mean that was a universal view. But from the very limited evidence available to us on this complex issue on which next to no technical literature survives, the few quotations that can be gleaned from historical sources are essential to understand the reconstruction of these machines. GPinkerton (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Copyright is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter or copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. The reason for removal of the quotation was because while the original material is public domain, the translation is not. It's a really big quotation, which is a violation of our non-free content policy. If you think there's some worthwhile info in that quote, it would be better if you summarized it in your own words. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I only mention my opinion because that was what I was asked about. It was not me that added the quotation to Wikipedia.GPinkerton (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the page Pilgrim State (book) was deleted due to copyright infringement. I accept it wasn't appropriately written when it was published and I was working on the page to fix this.
Can you please restore the page with just the summary section removed which was the reason it failed copyright? (i.e just critical response section with the attributed quotes, and the first sentence of the release section included). Tanbircdq (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not going to restore it, because it looks to me like the book is not notable enough for a standalone article. All I could find were the Guardian piece and a short blurb on the BBC website. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Also note that I offered to restore the noninfringing content and the infobox to the draft space, and they seem to have decided that running to "the other parent" as it were would work better. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the "History" and "Innvestigation" sections from the draft, as it's still a copyright violation, being extremely close to the source webpages, same urls as the deleted article. Content must not include any wording at all from the source material. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure and wording of the sentence is preserved. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. The draft was declined for reasons other than copyvio (one user described it as "a non-notable or marginally-notable event" on your talk page; the user who declined the draft described it as "a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia"), so perhaps it's time to move on to a new topic. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
India Census
There are a lot of reports to copypatrol relating to the India census site.
For example
I confess I've tended to ignore them in the past but I'd like to discuss them with you to make sure we are on the same page.
It seems clear that it is expressing a full copyright. I poked around to see if there are acceptable licensing terms but haven't succeeded. For example the link to "terms & conditions" leads to a 404 page.
I'm slightly troubled by a link whose name includes "census2011" has a copyright statement:
Copyright Census Population 2015 Data
Which is it? 2011 or 2015? However, I'm getting distracted, as the main issue is copyright, and it seems clear that it is subject to copyright.
The remaining challenge is that many of these edits are about a town X while the link returned by copypatrol is about town Y
For example, this link is about a city named Phagwara, while the edit is about a city named Theog.
I suspect this is true because the census site uses the exact same format for each of their entries, while merely changing the name of the city and the various counts.
I assume that the data itself is not subject to copyright, so I suspect our answer ought to be that the text description is subject to copyright and we should insist that while the editor can use the numbers, they must rewrite the text.
www.census2011.co.in is not a Government of India website; it's a copycat website that repeats copyright information presented at the actual Govt of India webpage, which is located at http://www.censusindia.gov.in/. Searching the actual census for Theog pulls up http://www.censusindia.gov.in/pca/SearchDetails.aspx?Id=27251. Here's how I handle this: I remove the entire block of copied stuff with an edit summary of indicating removal of copyvio (I use the general url www.census2011.co.in if I can't find the actual page for that municipality; you are correct when you state they are all built the same), and I notify the user with the following custom blurb:
"Hello, I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. www.census2011.co.in is a copyright website, and therefore it's not okay for you to copy their material to Wikipedia. It looks like a government of India website, but it's not, and even if it were, it would not be okay to copy, because the Government of India copyrights their material as well. All material you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please."
There's no problem with people adding facts from the census to the articles, but the wording seen at www.census2011.co.in must not be part of what they add, as it's copyright. P.S. the most recent census of India was conducted in 2011. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa,
I wanted to created a draft article for Brasstracks, and saw that in 2017 it was already created, flagged as having copyright violation and deleted. The content is written as hidden, and I couldn't find information in the logs. I'm not sure if the page is about the same topic (I assume yes, but want to check just in case), or what was incorrect in it. Would you have any advise on how I could retrieve this page to assess this?
Thank you. Besenok (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The page was deleted as being an advertisement, not for copyvio, though I did remove some copyvio from it. The draft was about a musical duo consisting of Ivan Jackson and Conor Rayne. The reason you can't access it is because deleted pages are only accessible by administrators. The musical duo does not appear to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about not mentioning the borrowing of material from "History of Bitcoin" for Bitcoin. I wanted to redo the whole history in both articles, e.g. integrate the old material with the history of price volatility (pretty much done now) and then explain some of the causes of the volatility (30% done?) with some of the technical history (mostly there already)- in the bitcoin article. At that point I could move most of that back and add it to the History of Bitcoin article without much problem and edit the Bitcoin article for length. Since, I believe, the "History of ..." article was forked off of the bitcoin article, I didn't see much problem with attribution. But obviously, I bit off more than I could chew in a few days. So your attribution certainly helped, and I'll probably need 2 more attributions when I finish by the end of the week. Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk)01:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Smallbones. Yeah, the material was probably split off from the parent article at some point; I didn't actually check for that. On the other hand, it was likely altered at least somewhat in the meantime, and anyone who did so is entitled to attribution. Best to leave a nice audit trail as it were. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
About copying
Hi Diannaa. It was the first time I ever did an extensive copying of from one article to the other, so apologies I wasn't aware of the rule you referred to in my talk page. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers! AdaCiccone (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Please note that a short time ago Modernist was warned by User:NeilN about using invective like this to characterize ongoing content disputes [1], a warning Modernist has repeatedly disregarded. This comes out of a longrunning content dispute regarding the use of nonfree images of visual art, where Modernist is among those who strongly reject NFCC policy (see, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Under attack, and the related deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 18 (where many of the disputed uses that Modernist advocated for have already been removed). The underlying issue is whether certain articles on the visual arts are exempt from (or subject to much more relaxed application of) basic WP:NFCC, WP:V, and WP:RS policies. With his side not prevailing in the dispute, he is again personalizing the issues rather than substantively addressing serious policy concerns. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the report. It's a static IP, and he's had it for a coupla weeks already. I have blocked for 3 months. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Actually it was not copied. I do volunteer work with the "In Limbo Project". I worked with one of the editors Dr Véronique Martin on the text of the page and I have approval from both Dr Martin and the founder of "In Limbo Project" Mrs Elena Remigi, to submit this wikipedia page for the book: "In Limbo: Brexit testimonies from EU citizens in the UK" (ISBN-13: 978-1548026080). For your information, Byline who published the 2nd edition on 3rd December 2017 are no longer authorized by the "In Limbo Project" because they have not fulfilled their contract with the "In Limbo Project". Today, the "In Limbo Project" only promotes the first edition published on 12 June 2017 by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Please note that the Byline second edition has a different ISBN from the first edition.
If it is at all possible please would you would kindly provide me with a copy of the deleted page?
I and the "In Limbo Project" team will be very grateful to you.
I am not going to do that, because regardless of the copyright issue, the draft is unsuitable for publication, because there's no evidence that the subject meets our notability requirements and the draft is devoid of citations. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for information and links to our policies and guidelines on these topics. Regarding the copyright issue, 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 that would be done. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I do understand what your request was, and I said no, because the draft is useless to us for the above stated reasons. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Government of Luxemboug copyright?
Hi - do you know if Luxembourg government website texts are copyrighted? There is nothing on Commons for Luxembourg and I wasn't able to find anything on Google. In most cases government texts are public domain, but not always. I don't want to mark Emergency.lu as reviewed without confirming. Seraphim System(talk)19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is the current copyright law of Luxembourg, and it does not state that government works are public domain, so therefore they enjoy copyright protection in my opinion. This information page on the Luxembourg govt website states that that portal and "all the elements contained therein (including the layout), and the information and services are protected by the relevant intellectual property and copyright laws." The webpages of Emergency.lu do not contain a copyright notice, but under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So for these reasons my opinion is that the material at http://www.emergency.lu/about/ and related pages the enjoy copyright protection. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine
Hi! I see that you've deleted all of my changes to the English version of the page of the university I work for ( National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine). Could you please guide me what I did wrong? I did not copy anything from the source you have listed. Never even knew it existed. All of my edits are my personal translations of the Ukrainian version (also done by me). I would really appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Світлана Жаркова (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. In addition to appearing at the webpage noted on the report, the prose I removed is very similar to that found here and here. These are all copyright web pages. I removed quite a bit of other content because you didn't provide any sources.A 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) 11:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation! I see the overlaps, and the reason is, I've written all the above mentioned sources. And I run the LinkedIn page for the University. You can easily check that on the LinkedIn page. I've got the part about COI too. Just want to check, if I disclose that I work for the University officially on my page, you'll publish back the changes since they are mine? Thank you once again for being so helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Світлана Жаркова (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 July 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. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material under a compatible 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) 18:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mark prj. I didn't review your draft; My only reason for visiting the draft was to remove the copyright violation. The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. It's back in the queue and someone will review it soon. They have a big backlog right now, so please be patient. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Tohana – CR – also seems to have copyvio issues, although the apparent sources don't have archived versions to ascertain their dates. It seems that the copyvio material originated from this book, which is also seems to be present on the net in PDF format. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
An IP added a memorial poem ostensibly written by some commenter here Special:Diff/850012188, and it was reverted by CBNG. It appears to be copied from a here. I assume this is copyrighted material and should thus be revdelled, but am not sure. 00:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)~
Would you mind looking over Laura A. Dickinson again and tell me if the problem is resolved for now and you are satisfied with the notability issue. Per the notice on my talk page, I created the article while I was adding some content from old papers of hers I found while cleaning out my desk drawer - I'm more or less done with that now, and have a bunch of off-wiki stuff I need to get done so I'm going to be taking a break for a couple of weeks to focus on all of that — I just want to make sure the article is COPYVIO free before I log out. Seraphim System(talk)01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Pl note, I written the article based on book: Keralolpati; which I have been refereed. It may be the sentence/ words came in many blog spots and or other article. Pl refer this.. Kerala. Pl reply. -- RajeshUnuppally 13:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I did notice that some of the material was copied from Kerala, but the content I removed was not. I checked and could not find it on Wikipedia, which means it must have been copied from an external website (the prose appears at multiple locations online). Copying from other websites or books is a copyright violation. It's not allowed. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, that book is out of copyright, being published in 1868. But it's in Malayalam. Where did you get the translation? The English words are mostly identical to the prose found at this site. here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate report link to view the overlap. The original document is in the public domain, but the translation is not - it generates a new copyright. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Pl do understand some of the name and sanskrit words will be remain same. Nevertheless let me try to do some other way. I know well about copy write in Wikipedia; I have review rights in wiki-Malayalam. -- RajeshUnuppally 12:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there value in creating a page listing CopyPatrol Case Studies and best practices?
I like to discuss whether it would be worthwhile having a page somewhere with CopyPatrol case studies.
In another role (OTRS agent and admin), I've taken the lead on putting together a sequence of case studies related to inquiries handled by OTRS. Unfortunately, it's not public so I can't use it as illustration, but the main point is that it is a discussion of how to handle situations using real-life tickets as examples. In that particular situation, I found it helpful to start with easy situations and move on to more complex — the intention is that brand-new OTRS agents might walk through the cases and learn how typical situations are handled.
As I have spent more time working on the entries identified by CopyPatrol, I've come to realize that some of them fall into reasonably well defined categories with common handling. While some straightforward cases may not need in-depth discussion, as a few type of examples where it's not immediately apparent what to do. A few months ago, my approach was simple — skip it and let Diannaa take care of it. However, I don't think that's a good long-term solution.
I'm sure you've noticed over the last couple months that I've raised some of the situations with you and after your feedback, I felt that I no longer needed to skip over them but could handle myself. It occurs to me that others might benefit from a centralized discussion of these examples. Obviously, while anyone interested in dealing with copyright issues can read your talk page and I'm sure many do, that doesn't seem like the right repository for case studies.
I know there's a feedback page for CopyPatrol, but that doesn't seem like a suitable repository.
I know we have a lot of copyright advice pages some of which I've undoubtably not even seen. This one:
Wikipedia:Spotting_possible_copyright_violations
Is related to my goal but it's quite generic and extremely short of examples.
The types of things I'm thinking of our issues, some of which are broad and some of which are quite specific such as:
Lists (With sub- issues such as cast lists, lists of references, specification lists)
India census
New South Wales State Heritage Register
One obvious concern with using real-life case examples is the possibility that we unfairly highlight an editor who made a good-faith error.
I anticipate that this page, in addition to highlighting best practices, might also include some useful standard language for communicating to editors, such as the template you created and the India census standard wording I've borrowed.
I think it's a good idea. Perhaps start in userspace and move it to Wikipedia space once it's ready or nearly ready. There's some header thingys at Category:Wikipedia header templates (is it an {{Information page}}? {{Wikipedia how-to}}? a {{Supplement}}?). Examples could be generalized, so as not to point fingers at any particular mistake-makers. I've pasted a copy of my current open sandbox into User:Ninja Diannaa/sandbox (if you open it as if to edit, you will be able to see what's in there a lot more easily). There's some more boilerplate in User:Diannaa/Copyright. I use these all the time - no reason to re-invent the wheel each time, it's the same questions and concerns over and over, and these give the impression of a hand-written custom note, which of course they were the first time I used them :). Some of these blurbs might be useful. As you probably know, there's also instructions for copypatrol at meta:CopyPatrol. We should put a link there to the new page and of course in other apropos locations. Here's a list of a few of the common tasks found at copypatrol that could be covered:
steps for cleanup of unattributed copying within Wikipedia
steps for cleanup of unattributed copying from compatibly licensed external websites (Wikia, UK government)
steps for cleanup of unattributed copying of public domain material (US govt and military websites, PD-old material
steps for copyvio from www.census2011.co.in, www.onefivenine.com, other similar copyright pages about Indian settlements
There's probably more topics we could include. Please let me know if you decide to get the page started and I will help. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
copyright material questions re: draft about artist Karyn Olivier
Hello Diannaa, thank you for your message and edits on the article draft about Karyn Olivier. I am hoping you can offer me some advice on how to more successfully integrate the information that has been removed. I understand you removed the material on the basis of copyright infringement (from the Tyler School of Art website). I hope you can offer me some suggestions to help bring the writing in line with copywriter rules and guidelines, both for this article and the future. I am a new to wikipedia editing and welcome help!
I believe it is important to include information on exhibitions and awards for this artist because it illustrates the relevance of this artist, helps place the artist in context with other artists and institutions, and through the links/citations included offer the reader access to visual documentation. I am confused on the way plagiarism/ copyright infringement applies to this kind of information, because it is basically another way of listing the items of a curriculum vitae. It is not a sentence through which grammar structure or word choice communicates an idea (intellectual, poetic, or otherwise). How do you rewrite the list with other words? Is that necessary in this case (due to nature of content)?
The paragraph that was removed was not a direct copy from one site, but an aggregate of overlapping information from a number of places as well as citations to specific institutional documentations of the exhibits included in these longer, overlapping lists. With this in mind, could you help me understand if it was it the wording (i.e. carrier) or information (i.e. content) that was at issue?
Additionally, the removed paragraph contained information NOT from the Tyler website. I am still learning to navigate this end of the site, but it looks like the older drafts have been deleted. Is it still possible to review/retrieve this information? (especially information and citations additional to Tyler source?)
Hello Mob712. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. While it's list-like material, I think it's over the line as far as copyvio is concerned, as it presents exactly the same material in the same order using the same wording. It doesn't actually matter how many places online the identical wording can be found; the artist has likely submitted the same blurb to several publishers; this doesn't mean it isn't copyright any more.A secont problem is notability. You need a separate citation for each award. Right now you don't have a citation for any of them and they don't appear to be major awards, rather grants and scholarships. I don't think being a grant recipient is enough to establish notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the notability guideline that applies. I am sending you a copy of the deleted version via email. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mr Jensen. Thanks for the report. The same content is also here. I have done revision deletion to remove the material from the page history. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Copyright issues in relation to the Cherub (dinghy) article
Thank you for your feedback on the article on Cherub (dinghy). Even though I am the original author of the material at www.cherub.au, I have sought and gained specific approval from the Cherub National Council of Australia, the publisher of the website to use the material contained in each of the "Fact Sheets. The permission email has been posted to OTRS. I am in the process of seeking permission from the UK-Cherub.org. While I have an old permission from Cumberland Newspaper Group to publish the Felton article from Power Boat and Yachting in 1963 on the internet, I concede that this approval would not cover the use of Felton's text in a Wikipedia article. I will therefore redraft the section of the Cherub (dinghy) article that draws from Felton's work.
Fivestar3145 (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Fivestar3145. Once the email is received and processed the content can be restored. They have quite a backlog right now so please be patient. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Copyright
Hi, Dianna. I just saw you nominated the article i posted for speedy deletion. I would like to confirm that whatever is posted on Wikipedia we are donating it to Wikipedia and all rights belong to Wikipedia of the article biography posted by me. Aleemzafar.com/about Kiranhaq95 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 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) 14:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You've 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. - CorbieV☊☼20:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Electromagnetic Radio Frequency Convergence
Hey, you had notified me that the page for Electromagnetic Radio Frequency Convergence was taken down due to copyright infringement. I'm rewriting the article to remove the copyright infringement and want to upload the article again. This is my first time contributing to wikipedia and I'm not sure what the next step is to upload the article. How do you suggest I proceed?
Hi. I hope you are well. Recently, I saw a few articles speedied for copyvios. These articles were created a few months ago. That incident made me wonder: if we find identical content to the word between a website, and not so new article, how to find out who copied who? Sometimes wikipedia can be copied too. Kindly ping while replying. Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk)13:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Usernamekiran. As you know, almost as soon as content is added to Wikipedia it is copied onto mirror sites and re-used in other ways. There's a couple ways to investigate who is copying who. The longer the content has been present on Wikipedia the harder it gets to provide a definitive answer.
Compare the date the content was added to the article with the date the material was published elsewhere. News stories often include a publication date, and you will sometimes find a publication date or copyright date on other webpages as well. If the date a specific passage was added to Wikipedia is not obvious, you can figure it out using this tool.
Determining the age of a webpage that doesn't show a publication date can be done in a few ways. (1) Check using the Wayback Machine to see if there's a copy online that predates the addition to Wikipedia. These next three tools require a bit of finesse and guesswork and should not be considered as definitive: (2) Sometimes this tool will give an accurate date for the creation of a webpage. But sometimes it will just give you information on when the page was last archived by the Wayback Machine. (3) Sometimes this tool will give you an accurate date for the creation of a webpage. (4) Sometimes you can determine how old a webpage is using this tool. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the explanation. You forgot to ping by the way Thanks again. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk)03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I was just joking about you not pinging. and you have a sock lol. oh wait I have like a sockfarm and my socks have more edits than your socks Regards, —usernamekiran(talk)04:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Diannaa: I am afraid that I have been forced to reduce my WP activity for some time now and I am sure that I have missed many things. Could you explain your revert (as spam) the two references on the ICRC site? Both Hermann and Palmieri are experts re: the ICRC. True the second reference is broader than is perhaps necessary, but the contributers are all trained scholars and the reference is not unuseful in understanding the ICRC. I do hope that I can become more involved in the near future. Joel Mc (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but no. I don't have any recent experience in assessing requests for permissions. Please wait until one of the regular patrollers has time to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Revision deletion was done to hide a copyright violation added by a different person. Revision deletion was done on the entire series of edits from the point of addition to the point of removal so as to remove the copyvio completely from the page history. Sometimes it means that, like in this instance, innocuous edits like yours are hidden. Sorry about that. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but anyone reading the record will see that I am recorded as responsible for the copyvio. Your action did not remove my edit from the body of the article, its just I get all the blame! Eddaido (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The earliest edit that is struck through is the one where the copyvio was added. That's the one timestamped at 11:56, July 20, 2018 added by user:Marine3800. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
No. What I'm complaining about was correct but you seem to have changed something because previously Eddaido came up as the perpetrator and I cannot repeat that. I am still struck out in the revision history. Eddaido (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
At the point where you edited the article, the copyvio was still present. That's why your edit has to be hidden. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Please understand — my edit has never been hidden!! What I whined about was 1. the edit being struck out on revision history then later after my first note on here when I investigated further I could see that 2. in your admin? records I take the blame for the copyvio. If the matter comes back to bite me we will have this correspondence to show what happened won't we. So please no more worrying about it. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jeff G. Will do. When you have a minute please place data regarding the ticket on the draft's talk page. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, Diannaa is not an OTRS agent so cannot review that ticket. I am and have just looked at it.
There is a chance I missed something (because there are 14 entries back-and-forth), but while I see permission statements for images I haven't yet seen anything covering text. Please help me out if you think I missed it.--S Philbrick(Talk)23:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, on the above article, pretty much the entire page history has been nuked due to a copyvio in a plot summary. I understand why this had to be done (copyright) as well as the fact that you're only using the revision deletion function written by the Wikimedia Developers, but there has to be a better way. For edits that were to page sections, only a single one was made to the plot section while a majority were to other sections. The fact that all other diffs become hidden due to a edit in a completely different section is ridiculous. This hampers editing as well as spotting vandalism that was inserted into an article. For example, one of the edits "Removed Kanji and Romanji titles"; now to add them back I'd have to locate them myself which might not always be feasible for all kinds of information (such as offline book citations). Not having the page history available defeats the purpose of a wiki. Personally I'd say this is a case where simple just blanking the plot is enough as no one else ever goes into revisions. Yes, I get that you're an admin and that Wikipedia is hosted in the U.S. so it's a slave to copyright, but we should also be thinking pragmatically. Maybe the developers could also do something to make the revdel tool more granular or perhaps have a user right that allows viewing copyvio diffs and not suppressed ones. Opencooper (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Opencooper. Each time an editor makes an edit, the revision is saved as a new webpage. The entire article is saved; sections are an internal division and do not exist as a separate entity, even if the edit performed as a section edit, so performing revision deletion on only one section of an article is not technically possible. The copyright policy and copyright law are not set up for the convenience of editors. Saying that we should only follow them when it's convenient to do so is not gonna happen, so sorry. I can provide to you the content of the deleted revisions if that's an actual question and not a hypothetical. The edit summary for the removal of the Kanji and Romanji titles implies that they had no references so I suspect you would have some hunting for citations regardless — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured there was a technical reason behind it... And of course copyright isn't for our convenience, but Wikipedia doesn't make it any better with how its compliance is well beyond what is actually required, such as with fair use. And sorry, I was just asking hypothetically because I've had issues in the past. Thanks anyway! Opencooper (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Your recent reversion of a large block of text for an alleged copyright violation was not only counter-productive, but also very unhelpful as the text is a very relevant part of the law but you chose to delete even the revision history. It could have been tagged to correct and the copyright issues could have been avoided. Also, since when is the law copyrighted? Pretty sure it's there for the public to be able to see. Please try to be not over-zealous and just delete things in the future please. You are not helping Wikipedia or the publication of correct information this way. Reading the above comments, it also seems you have a history of deleting a lot of information without actually being at all helpful.
What I did was remove copyright content copied from this document. Source page is marked as Copyright, all rights reserved. What I didn't notice is that the page is also marked as being released under the Open Government license. Sorry for the mistake. I have re-added the content and added the required attribution. It's okay for us to copy material from a webpage that is available under an Open Government Licence, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Am I off base?
Hello D. A ew editor who is well versed in wiki editing has added all of this to the List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). To my eye it is copy/pasted from the articles for the various awards. If so there may be a need for a lot of r/d'ing. If not then I will wait for the discussion on the talk page to run its course. I know this is a lot of edits to look at so if it takes you some time to get to it no worries. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk19:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution, but it's not a copyvio per se but a violation of the terms of the CC-by license, which requires attribution. So there's no revision deletion needed. If descriptions of awards are copied from the respective articles, each instance needs attribution. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks D. I know many of us lean on you for your knowledge in these areas. I hope everyone else appreciates the time you take to explain things as much as I do. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk19:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair use quote question
Hello, I recently removed part of a quote in an article because the quote contained almost all of the source material pertaining to the subject (and I judged it promotional but that's neither here nor there right now). The material was reinstated by the article's most recent major contributor. I'm wondering if I've misinterpreted fair use with respect to quotes? I'd appreciate any guidance you can offer. Thank you! Ca2james (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's excessive for a quotation from a review, but the segment you removed is not a review but a description, which is easily replaceable with prose that we write ourselves. So I think it should come out. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the clarification! I see you've removed part of the quote as well - thank you for doing that. Ca2james (talk) 02:22, 23 July 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. I have removed your email address and phone number from the above post. It's not a good idea to post that kind of information on Wikipedia. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed the copyright thing from the article, I also opened an AFD. If the article is deleted, can I put some of the info into the Rogers TV article (about BodyFuel show)? She is too notable to be CSD A7.JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for the cut and paste. I got lazy. I only put it in the article as a placeholder (until i found secondary sources for it) but i forgot to remove it. I got wrapped up in the article. Thank you for your concerns. I will not do it again. Have a great dayJC7V7DC5768 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Please don't remove speedy deletion tags from an article you've created yourself. Wait for an admin or experienced patroller to assess please. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Questionable deletion tag
I'm curious about this deletion tag. You've tagged Rita Catolino with db-a7 (doubt it would pass A7 given the amount of coverage) db-g13 (abandoned draft?? it's not a draft and it's brand new) and db-g12 (duplication detector scores it only at 29.6%). I restored the tag because it was removed by the author without proper discussion, but I'm going to go ahead and remove it because I don't think any of those criteria apply. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The G13 tag was a Twinkle mis-click. I'll take your word for it about the A7 - I'm not very good at assessing notability. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view, and I've done the revision deletion. Thanks for your help. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The author (a tad frustrated, I think) has opened an AFD on their own article, which I doubt will pass. But I think there's enough claim of notability to avoid speedy deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!21:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Dianna I apologize if i came off as upset. I don't blame you for A7 CSD tagging, sometimes it hard to tell whether to Prod, CSD or AFD or keep. Maybe we can help each other out in that department to make both us better at it. Happy editing. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
25 July, 2018
Hi Diannaa ! Please check an article Manglawar which has a content Shingrai Waterfall. This content needs separately article. Can I cut it from article of Manglawar ??? I will create it's separate article.
No no ! You can see there a Waterfalls content in which Shingrai Waterfall which needs separate article on Wikipedia. PakEditor (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Possible COPYVIO?
Hi - I've tagged this as close paraphrasing for now, but some of it is very close to the source so I wanted to run it by you also.
Some questions about update the content of the LiteOS, thanks
Hello Diannaa
I am an IoT engineer from China. This is my first time using Wikipedia, and I am not quite sure about the rules of Wikipedia.
I am trying to update the content of the ‘LiteOS’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiteOS) for the following reasons.
The latest version of LiteOS from University of Illinois was released in 2011 and has not been updated for a long time, speculating that the product may have stopped development and maintenance.
HUAWEI also has a open source product, the name is also LiteOS, and is constantly updated, the latest version is released in 2018, you can search ‘LiteOS’ in Google for more information.
I updated the ‘LiteOS’on July 19th and saw that were removed back to the original content because of copyright issues.
If I want to continue to update the ‘LiteOS’ content, add the content of Huawei LiteOS, and rearrange the content of the copyright issue, can I resubmit it?
Thank you for your reply and advise.
Hello Mumu 9001. Just rearranging the content is not enough. You have to re-write it completely using your own words. Use the source document as a source of information, but not of wording. I've placed some links to additional information on your user talk page. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thank you very much for your answers. I updated the content based on your advises. The main content was edited according to my understanding. There is no copy. For details, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiteOS.
Also, Could I transfer the previous content to LiteOS_(University_of_Illinois) to introduce the system of the University of Illinois?
It started out simple enough. A reader noted a citation needed tag in the section Radioactive detection of an article Western blot, and suggested that this source might qualify.
The source document doesn't specify copyright information. My default assumption is that unless something is specifically identified as freely licensed, we should presume it is subject to full copyright.
However there are a couple complications. It is not just that paragraph that matches, whole chunks of the Wikipedia article match. Furthermore, note the existence of Wikipedia listed as a reference in the list of references at the end of the paper.
The paper is dated 2009. The Wikipedia article at the end of 2008 looks like this.
My current thinking is that the 2009 paper borrowed heavily from this Wikipedia article and several related ones. I would have thought that Wikipedia would not be viewed as acceptable source for this sort of paper.
My easiest next response is to inform the reader that the paper borrowed from Wikipedia so cannot serve as a source.
The article still needs additional citations but that's outside the scope of what we do in the context of a copyright review.
I'm thinking of suggesting that if the reader wants to help find a citation they will have to find something that predates the roughly 2006 and 2007 time period when they article was being put together.
The article has a publication date of January 2009 so anything that overlaps with our content as of that date would have been copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Comparing revisions from that period shows that the paper copied from Wikipedia. The paper mentions three Wikipedia articles: Western blot, Southern blot, and Northern blot, and appears to have copied from all three. There's nothing we need to do here from a copyright point of view. This paper is unacceptable to use as a citation obviously. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the text. I thought it had been adequately reworked. I'll give it another shot. Any feedback is invited. Cypresscross (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dianna, Please revert all the changes you made to the International Institute of Islamic Thought page. All the information was factual and had sources. You cited it as "copy right" when it came directly from the company's website and employees are the ones trying to put that information there. The page is already biased so we need the factual information right from the website on there. It was also giving more additional information that people may not know about IIIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.213.4 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with copying material directly from the organization's website. 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) 17:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
How is their a conflict of interest? Why would employees write about terrorism and violence on their own page! You are mistaken and need to revert changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.213.4 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
If you are affiliated with or work for the organization, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
No, was just trying to write the factual information on there and add more information as the page was pretty blank - didn't even delete the biased pieces. The page already has a disclaimer at the top so thought people should know more about what IIIT does, just like would do the same on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.213.4 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but copying material directly from the organization's website is not okay, because it's a copyright violation to do so. That violates the copyright policy of this website and violates copyright law. If you work for the organization, you should post suggested edits on the article's talk page instead of performing the edits yourself. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help. (Note for talk page watchers: according to WP:Copying within Wikipedia, the edit summary is the most important piece of attribution when copying or moving content from one article to another.) — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering if one could use an actual release of a film DVD or VHS as a reference to explain the summary of a film like I did in Yellow Faced Tiger also known as Slaughter In San-Francisco
My citations goes as followed: Slaughter In San-Francisco. VHS. Embassy Home Entertainment. VHS 7645. 1985.
Let me know if it's OK to do so. Also is my format right.
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) 04:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Gabbar Singh
Hi.
So. Please let me know how could i create an article about Gabbar Singh Dacoit.
What you need to do is write the material using your own words, not copy and paste from newspapers. Doing that is a violation of our copyright policy and it's against the law, too. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
District Education Rankings copyright notice
The DER 2017 report is a publication produced and owned by my organization. We are copying sections of the report to provide concise information and guide people towards the full report. Especially the index tables cannot be reworded/rephrased. Please let me know how we can go about proving copyright ownership and keep the edits made to the page. Rai888 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)rai888
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) 13:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Could you revdel the last talkpage message please? It's a copypaste from a trade magazine (TAVF Magazine), link at [3] (or google for "The delightful 1 Km shopping area"). Page numbers in the magazine are 17-18. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the text of the article Iglesia de San Esteban is a copyvio of content translated in raw form from http://www.jdiezarnal.com/valenciaiglesiadesanesteban.html. I'm feeling rather angry that I've wasted a good bit of time fixing the English and rewriting the text with minor alterations. I should have checked the article's earlier history when I first saw the username Vvven, who has been blocked by you; then I would have taken notice that the article was created by him, which is a red flag in itself. Perhaps the article should be deleted entirely? Carlstak (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
So sorry this happened. I wish there was time to clean all an editor's contribs when they're blocked, but of course it's not always possible because there's only so much editing time available.. I suggest converting the article to a stub using material from the lead, or adding a paragraph to the article about the town and redirecting the article to there. Either way, we will have to do revision deletion back to the first edit. Please let me know which course you think is best and we'll proceed. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather make it a stub using some adjusted non-copy-vio content. Perhaps when I'm feeling better about it I will rewrite it, as it is an interesting subject (at least to me and a few others). Man, I wish that serial offender had not been been so prolific; no telling how much of this nonsense is still hosted by WP. I'll make it a stub right now. Thanks for your time and for all the work you do, as always. Carlstak (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Since the image was previously published elsewhere online, we need proof that you are the copyright holder. This is done by providing evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. There's full instructions at Commons:OTRS. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I've done some further modifications to the content and some revision deletion and posted a comment on the talk page. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, and thanks for stepping in. I am inferring that you agree the text was a COPYVIO and the redrafting inadequate, and also that my view that the COPYVIO concern mandated that I should have removed it (as I was going to when I was beaten to it!). In your rev-del, you removed three edits of mine immediately after SWL36 removed the text (timestamp 21:44 1 August 2018 when logged out) and before Bastun restored the text (22:09 1 August). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those three edits contain no COPYVIO? If so, could they be restored? They are linked from the talk page in my question to Collect and contain a form of words that mentions the family connection in terms of potential support for her campaign but without naming names, and I think could be the basis for a compromise formulation that I would like to explore.Also, is the proposal on the talk page a problem in that it contains the COPYVIO as well? If so, should I remove the proposal as a COPYVIO and mark the proposal as failed, adding that an alternative proposal which is policy compliant can be made, or should some other action be taken? Or, is the talk page section unproblematic from a COPYVIO perspective?I hope you don't mind my asking further questions, my post at ANI got little response (though I appreciate your noting the actions that you took) and I know you have experience in dealing with COPYVIO issues (I recognised your name when I went looking at the pages on dealing with COPYVIO cases). I have an academic background so view plagiarism issues and close paraphrasing as well as direct copy-and-paste seriously but have little experience of them in publications like WP rather than in student work where the steps to take are different. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
PS: Was my own quoting of the paragraph from The Times a problem in this regard too? I attribute the whole quote and used it to highlight the commonalities, so I think it is allowed, but recognise my post also includes the same proposed text that is a COPYVIO in the article. Thoughts? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits such as yours have to be hidden. Regarding the material on the talk page, the excerpts are obvious quotations (limited quotations are permitted under our fair use policy), not a copyright violation per se, so the material does not have to be removed or revision deleted. It's obvious that the RFC as worded has to fail, because the result of an RFC cannot override the copyright policy. Perhaps a new RFC should be started with a new suggested wording? That's not an administrative decision but one that should be undertaken by the editors of the page. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice on the talk page. As far as my edits on the article page go, I understand the reasons for the intervening edits needing to be revision deleted, but unless I am misunderstanding, they do not apply in this case. SWL36 removed the copyvio content (edit summary says "Removed disputed section. In addition to WP:BLP concerns, EdChem has pointed out that this section is lifted nearly word for word from copyrighted work and is thus a WP:COPYVIO.). My three subsequent edits do not, then, contain the copyvio content. The edit after that, by Bastun, re-added the content with the summary "Restore. There is an RfC ongoing, You CANNOT remove material during an RfC." and was followed with an edit summarised as "alleged copyvio (lol!) addressed". So, my the revisions / pages with my edits should be ok, shouldn't they? I'd like to get at the final form I had and modify it based on Collect's feedback, which is why I would like it restored if possible. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra clarification. I've now removed the revision deletion from those three edits. Sorry for not understanding you properly the first time. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That's perfect. Thanks. The template doesn't have to go in the spot where you removed the copyvio; we normally place it at the top. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not necessary right at the moment. I have it watch-listed and will protect if the situation gets worse. Thanks for your concern. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Marlo Hampton
Thanks diannaa,
You also deleted some part of my draft:Marlo Hampton I will like you to help me and check if it is okay now. Because I will not Like my draft to be deleted again when I want to submit it as article. Ziggy 2milli (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa, But Why did you cleaned it can you explain so I won't repeat the mistake.
Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. 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. 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 or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much diannaa I really appreciate your time and care, is the Draft:Marlo Hampton okay now
As you probably noticed, I am new in editing wikipedia pages and am eager to learn how to properly do it. When you deleted my updates to the "drinking water directive" page, I lost my original contribution. Is there some way to recover it in order for me to modify it by taking into account your comments ?
Moreover, your deletion mentionned the fact that I made some copyright violation from http://ebcd.org/event/revision-of-the-drinking-water-directive/. As a matter of fact, I used information from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/review_en.html, which is provided from the European Commission. As mentioned in the "Decision of 12 December 2011 - reuse of Commission documents" : Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged. Now, I do not remember whether I did provide the source or not at the time, but if I didn't, it was a gross involontary omission on my side.
Finally, the final contribution on the chapter "Planned revision" on the transparency requirements was an original contribution from myself (using figures that I provided reference to) and I do not understand why it has been deleted. Could you care to elaborate for me to comply with all the wikipedia rules ?
Thank you very much for your help and I look forward to reading your answer.
My watchlist shows the quoted material below from you, but there does not appear to have been any changes to the actual article. I am in middle of working on improving the article and then filing a Good Article nomination. I have been adding blocks of text, but my check, using one of the copyvio programs, shows only fragments of sentences that are verbatim worded from the references, including that one. I am willing to further rephrase, but for the moment, looks as if what I wrote has not been deleted. David notMD (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi David notMD. It looked like you accidentally copypasted some material in from the source and immediately removed it. Here is a link to the bot report. You can click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. You're right - none of the material is still present.— Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I copied in so I could work on my paraphrasing. In future, I will do my draft work in Word rather than my sandbox or articles. David notMD (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I made a few new pages/ articles that was on my hero academia, because the show is in its third season and the list at List of My Hero Academia episodes, made the info long. But I don't know how to add the WP:SPLIT by season, and add the info there; similar to
==Episode list==
===Season 1 (2014–15)===
{{main|List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes (season 1)}}
{{:List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes (season 1)}}
===Season 2 (2015–16)===
{{main|List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes (season 2)}}
{{:List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes (season 2)}}
===Season 3 (2016–17)===
{{main|List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes (season 3)}}
{{:List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes (season 3)}}
Hi Tainted-wingsz. I don't have any experience working with these templates, so it might be best to wait for a reply from the wikiproject. Or you could ask at the WP:Teahouse - perhaps one of the helpers there will know how to do it. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Woodlot and thank you for the report. Similar content also appears on the websites of several other Texas counties. Regardless of the ultimate source of the prose, we can't host it here unless it can be proven to be in the public domain or compatibly licensed. I have removed the overlapping material and done some revision deletion. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, could you revdel the recent addition please (copypasted from source site)? I believe, that a SF park organization is not under any of the US government Public Domain exceptions, but it would be great if you could briefly double-check this assertion from a non-American. As always, thank you for your time and help with such matters. GermanJoe (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I reverted an edit made to the above article yesterday, but I double-checked today and realised it was copy-pasted from the source given. GermanJoe's message above is about another edit by the same editor, and this edit was before they had any messages about copyright, so I think it's likely this will need revdel as well. Could you take a look? Thanks, Marianna251TALK08:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Marianna251 and thanks for the report. We don't need revision deletion for that edit, as the source webpage is a publication of the US Government, and is thus in the public domain. It shouldn't be copied without attribution, because that's plagiarism, but it's not copyvio per se. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Dianaa,
Recently, a draft of mine was deleted due to copyright infringement and to COI. I need to mention a couple of things and please help me because I really want to upload that draft entitled The Spectrum of Teaching Styles
1. I used in my draft certain sections of the book Teaching Physical Education. The book was written by Muska Mosston and Sara Ashworth. Mosston is now deceased. With Sara Ashworth, I have collaborated many years on research issues concerning that book. Recently she asked me to write an overview of the theory she and Mosston proposed years ago. She wanted me to publish it in wiki. That theory is fully described in that book. So, I uploaded the draft but that was a COI as notified by you. Now, I am prepared to follow the directions that you give in a case of COI.
2. Sara Ashworth is prepared to donate the copyright of that book to wiki so that I can use certain sections of it (as well as some images) in my draft. In this case can I use these sections as they appear on the book?
3. In the deleted draft I used as references basically peer reviewed articles puplished in renowned journals (including articles written by me and published in peer reviewed journals) to support my claims. Is this acceptable by wiki?
Hi Constantine Chatoupis. Two editors have already told you that your draft would not be accepted for publication because it's not the kind of content we are looking for. Please consider publishing your material elsewhere, at a venue where content requirements are not so strict. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, I see you have already commented to Jhv.wilder(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) regarding copyright etc; on the Wallingford, Oxfordshire page. I have just spent more time than I really should correcting a mass of "typos" on material they have inserted. I am also concerned that some of the tone of the new contributions read more like a travel guide, which Wikipedia is certainly not. Unfortunately, I do not have the time at the moment to take on a rewrite Whilst I appreciate they are a new contributor, do you think another intervention from yourself or another admin might be advisable? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately the copyvio work consumes pretty much all my editing time, so I won't be available to assist much. I see you've already commented on his user talk page; I've added a note about sourcing and links to some other resources to his talk page. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, can I ask for some help in respect of copy-vio at the above page. I tagged it as CSD g12 earlier today as it seemed to be pretty much a direct lift from here. The page has not been deleted (I would think it has probably not been looked at?). It has subsequently been edited, by a user whose account name may indicate a COI, but according to a later 'Earwig' search there is still a fairly substantial amount of copy-vio. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The article does not qualify for G12 speedy deletion, because there's old versions in the page history that are clean. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course... I managed to confuse myself there. Some of the copy-vio has been added back by an IP and then edited a bit. Some more revdel might be required? Eagleash (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
If you think your draft is ready to go live, submit your article to the Articles for creation by placing {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} at the top of your draft and an experienced user will assess it. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Diannaa,I'm a registered user and I have done more than 100 edits is it advisable to use AFC submission.
Creations by JC Bills
User JC Bills has made a bunch of recent page creations regarding prisons in Punjab, India that appear to be copyvios [4]. They're obviously copying from an Indian government site; I don't believe that India has similar laws to the US for government copyright and there's no statement on the site listed. I've tagged a few of the articles (which may have already been deleted - note my CSD log), can you check the others? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Still full of copyvio, including copyvio replacing sourced text, leaving the source supposedly backing the copyvio. Earwig shows up more.[5] See User talk:Srnec#Omani Empire. I'd say nuke the lot. It certainly shouldn't be merged. And what to do about the editor? Doug Wellertalk12:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I've removed the recent batch of edits - see his talk page for the book source. The current version shows up clean on Earwig's tool but there could be additional copying from book sources for all I know. I've posted a final warning on the user's talk page and will monitor their contribs. The article was a redirect to Muscat and Oman until a few days ago. Perhaps we should revert to that version? — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Although there's a merge discussion, I think that's the only safe option. I found copyvio from one source Earwig didn't find. Doug Wellertalk15:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
YNW Melly
Hi Diannaa please I will like the article YNW Melly to be seen by everyone both those that are not Wikipedia users or editors. Please how can I do that you’re an administrator I know you can help me out. Thanks Ziggy 2milli (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I already said I would not; please submit through the Articles for Creation process and wait your turn for a reviewer. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Awards and decorations of the National Guard
My addition was deleted because it was thought to be copyrighted material. However, the information that i provided is directly from the Indiana Code (statutes) which is public domain and does not require a cite. It seems strange to me that material is deleted first without making an inquiry from the editor, as a subject matter expert. Will the information once again be added?
Sorry but unless proven otherwise, material produced by individual states, including legislation, is copyright and cannot be copied here. Works of the US federal government are in the public domain though. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Pedavi Datani Matokatundhi
I came across a new article on the film director T Guru Prasad, created recently by user Namanshoni, who I take to be an undeclared CoI editor. The only feature film he has directed is Pedavi Datani Matokatundhi, and putting that article into Earwig, the whole plot section appears to come direct from IMDb. I was going to remove it as a copyright violation but then observed that the person who had added the plot summary to IMDb was called "Naman" and is probably the same person as the creator of our article. I don't know how to deal with this, apart from putting a CoI tag on his talk page, which I have done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, thank you for your guidance in regards to 'Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth', I have taken on board your notes and created a piece of content that I have inserted into the 'Causes' section. I would appreciate your confirmation of that content. Once again many thanks
Done. Thank you for taking copyright seriously and thank you for all your work on the encyclopedia thus far. Happy editing, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. If you could please clean or add tags to the one's you've located so far that would be great. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at the content added by Llj221. The first edit made by the account was a pretty major expansion of the McKissick Jr. article, including lots of detailed content which might have come from somewhere else. I reverted the edit and encouraged the Llj221 to discuss things on the talk page, but there might be a possibility of a copyvio. I tried Earwig and got a 55.6% result, but I'm not sure if that's an indication of a serious problem requiring a revdel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The large blocks of unsourced prose had to have come from somewhere, likely directly from the subject of the article. But I couldn't locate any copyvio using Earwig's tool or manual spot checks. The high result using Earwig's tool is from the lists of awards and job titles so I don't think revision deletion is warranted for this case. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Lots of content added to an BLP article completely out of the blue with the very first edit made by a new account did seem suspicious to me, but I couldn't track down where it came from either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Possible copyvio
This needs to be suppressed.
Article text: Western intelligence sources have told The Guardian that the Saudi monarchy has paid for up to 60% of the cost of Pakistan's atomic bomb projects and, in return, has the option to buyfive to six nuclear warheads off the shelf.
Source: According to western intelligence sources ... the Saudi monarchy paid for up to 60% of the Pakistani nuclear programme, and in return has the option to buy a small nuclear arsenal ('five to six warheads) off the shelf if things got tough in the neighbourhood.
A user re-added the first violation, stating that "quotations are allowed", so I made the content identical to the source and added the required quotation marks. For the second instance, I kept two brief quotations and removed the surrounding copyvio prose. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
Dear Dianna,
We appreciate your interest in our additions to the Wikipedia articles on the fovea, foveola centralis and Stiles-Crawford effect and the rapid processing of our contributions.
We did not realise there would be a problem with copyright on this information, as “Interested researcher” is the corresponding author of the Peer J article. We checked with Peer J and were informed that:
“All PeerJ articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (see each article for the exact CC BY version used). With this license, Authors retain copyright, but allow any user to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing to provide additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.”
Our article is published under CC-BY 4.0, which we see is a licence compatible with Wikipedia.
If we understand it correctly, the licence means that we can submit the information as we did originally? Or do we still have to paraphrase it – despite it already being in our own words.?
Hi Interested researcher. I have checked the source webpages and found you are correct; the articles are released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is a compatible license. I have restored the three edits and added the attribution. In the future, when copying from compatibly licensed materials, please be sure to include this legally required attribution as part of your citation. This can be done manually like I did here, or you can use the template {{CC-notice}}. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dianna,
Thank you very much for restoring our three edits. We were not well acquainted with the Wikipedia copyright and licencing rules, so this has been helpful for us. We know now to check in future if our articles are compatibly licenced, and also to include the attribution in the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interested researcher (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that BMK. Just arrived in Canmore, no access to teh tools, or I would block for a while. If you could monitor and report at AIV if the activity continues that would be great. I will be back Friday night, — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 23:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you blocked User:Algchris for copyright violations. I've been looking though several of the images this editor uploaded, and most are likely from Google streetview. I added a speedy delete to an obvious one, but others appear to have had some sloppy photoshopping to remove the Google watermark. There are only a few images. If you get a moment to look at them and possibly delete it would be appreciated. Or would you suggest I just tag all as speedy delete? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Bwcooper02.jpg: Building was torn down in 2014. File:Fischer Projects.png: Building was torn down in 2004 at the latest. These might be okay to keep. I don't think they're Google street view copies. I have nominated File:Bandalg1950's.jpg for F11. File:Mardigrasind4.jpg is not a Google Street view image. I deleted the lower quality copies of that one and the blurry pixellated images that are very likely screen shots of Google Street View. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
If we don't know who the author is or when it was painted, we can't keep it, because it's impossible to determine the copyright status. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks. How very ironic. We have to treat it as if it were painted by someone on a certain date, in case it was? But after Jan 1st 2020, no-one will care? If it had been certified as a genuine work by Nicholson, who would hold the copyright? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No one will care?? the funny things you say. The copyright expires on that date if the work is genuine. Current copyright holder is the heir(s) of the original copyright holder if the work is genuine. Please see the Commons:Hirtle chart. We can't host the image at this point whether it's an anonymous fake or a genuine work. If it falls under the category "Never published, Never registered works" by an unknown author with an unknown date of death it does not become PD until 120 years after its creation. (Have a look at Commons:Publication for how "publication" is defined in various countries). We don't even know the creation date for sure, or the citizenship of the artist if it's a fake, which makes it impossible for us to host this image for many years to come. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Diannaa, I pinged you from the DYK nomination template Template:Did you know nominations/Spyridon Louis a short while ago because the nominated article has a number of passages that are identical to those in a copyrighted source, olympics.com. What complicates matters is that the material has been in the Wikipedia article since its creation on June 9, 2004, over fourteen years ago, and I don't know whether the International Olympics Committee website has been around that long, or (at least) that their article has. I have links on that page to the Earwig copyvio report of the current article against the current olympics.com source, and to the Wikipedia article as it stood back in 2004. Thank you for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but I am unable to give a definitive answer as to who copied from who, as the oldest version of the source webpage saved by the Wayback Machine is dated 2016. One solution in cases like this is to presumptively remove or paraphrase the overlapping material just to be sure. Sorry I couldn't be more help. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this, it's far more than I could have done. Your advice to paraphrase or remove the affected material makes a great deal of sense. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Undoing an image deletion
Hello Diannaa, I ask if you can help me undo an accidental file deletion from Wiki. Another editor kept removing a valid file, and after the last one the Wiki deleted it before I could restore. If you are not the person, please point me to whom I should ask. Thank you. Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. Someone else removed image link in article, and then it was removed automatically 7 days later (I thought it was 30 days) I read Admins are undo the delete, so looking for someone with that power to undo deletion. Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Explicit:, not replaceable, otherwise it would be replaced long ago (Film frame of Dornier Do 17Z from KG2 mounting a 20mm cannon. Film taken in mid 1940.). The argument BilCat posted is flawed. I am going to replace it with a better quality image from a new scan, but the entry was "deleted", although I think just hidden or archived. Thanks for helping. PS, should we move conversation to your talk page? Flightsoffancy (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Flightsoffancy. The problem is that we don't accept non-free images where a freely licensed alternative is available. See WP:NFCC for details on the non-free content policy. In this case, there's already several high-quality conmpatibly licensed photos in the article, so we can't add a non-free image for that reason. Sorry, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Diannaa: you are making an incorrect assumption on the image status, in several ways. I have said I am replacing/updating the image several times, and I am saying it again. Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I got a long note signed by you stating that content I added was removed because "as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder"
Huh? What was it copied from?
The history page for the article has the edits slashed out, so I have no way to look at them to see what you are talking about.
139.88.195.244 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I saw you were editing the page Glima. I was looking at it a couple of months ago and reverted to an 2014 version of the page because someone had rewritten to fit a certain and very un-mainstream interpretation of Glíma. I missed it when they reverted back to the dubious version. I would like some help to protect the page from these edits. I explained my reasons on the talk page but the person who reverted my changed neither replied there nor explained their change.
--Óli Gneisti (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I fixed it earlier this year and it was reverted. I didn't see when it was reverted but I've repeated it. The page has had issues since 2014 when somebody started changing it to fit a very unhistorical philosophy of someone teaching something he calls Glíma. I can't keep going in a tug-of-war over there. The page needs protection so it can be updated and fixed.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, could you revdel the latest addition by User:Achumbachijiokee based on [7] please? A copyvio from a job portal. Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
am i to understand that i may not use obituaries as citation source or only that i must paraphrase content. additionally i used books for citation which you deleted whether i paraphrased content or used a small direct section or quote. i am re entering content as you have gutted the page and it now makes no sense whatsoever. i will add duplicate citations for each line is that is your requirement. Anarchistemma (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Anarchistemma. It's okay to use obituaries as sources. The problem is that you've copied material directly from your sources, which is a violation of copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. Some of the material was removed for that reason. A second problem is that you added material without providing supporting citations; I removed some content for that reason as well. Please provide citations for everything you add, at least one citation for each statement. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
martin and lewis
im afraid i dont understand. it is permissible to copy directly from a source, in a small amount with quotes as long as you cite the source. everything cannot be paraphrased. how else would you cite a quote. are you saying i can only paraphrase from a cited source? (somehow i don’t think the author would find that permissible.) if i cite something you remove it and if i don’t cite it you remove it for no citation. there doesn’t seem to be a way to win. Anarchistemma (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchistemma: Wikipedia articles are not a series of quotations. Our non-free content policy only permits quotations if absolutely necessary. You shouldn't need quotations at all to improve this article. If you don't understand, you need to stop editing until you have read our copyright policy and non-free content policy. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
the rule at WP:NFCCEG is Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. the words "absolutely necessary" do not appear there. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." That's what was happening here, in my opinion. But I see what you mean. The "policy only permits quotations if absolutely necessary" is not correct. Thanks for pointing that out. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, Can you please take a look at the Copyright violations on Pakistan Coast Guards at this version ([8]). I have reverted the version but it might need deletion from history. I have also left a warning on the editor's talk page. Please check if I missed something.
Also, can you check this image File:Pak Serzameen Shaad Baad music sheet.jpg where the editor has claimed CCAS-3.0 but there are no such permissions under the Copyright of that website expect this "This file may be printed and performed freely, but should not be digitally copied, shared or reproduced without permission.". Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Adamgerber80. I've completed the revision deletion on Pakistan Coast Guards. Thanks for the report. The image qualifies for F11 speedy deletion so I've gone ahead and got the ball rolling on that. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It's too much detail. Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your addition has been challenged twice. Your next step is to go to the talk page to try to make a case as to why these trivial awards and honors belong on the list. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok understood. Some sentences could be verbatim copy from this source. There is a lot of text in the pervious versions, where are not verbatim copy, but written in my own words. I need this text to rebuild the article, specially the structure of the document and some of the citations etc. Some of the text is based on current developments, which I got from many other sources. I have not saved the text anywhere, so can you provide text so that I can copy it to the sandbox. Or can you send it to me through private messaging? Tharikrish 20:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
You can't copy it to your sandbox, because copyright material is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. I have sent you a copy of the material via email so that you can work on it online. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The Wayback Machine shows that the external webpage had the content first. There's content added from other websites as well. I will clean it now. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Copyright law is not the same in all countries. In the United States, works of the government are in the public domain. I checked the copyright law of Israel and found that government works appear to be protected by copyright. Regardless of the copyright status of this legislation, we don't normally copy laws in their entirety into our articles - we summarize. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Possible revdel needed
Would you mind taking at look at Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018? There were numerous instances of creative language copy and pasted from lots of different media sources. I've tried to reword most of it and indicate the sources in the edit summary. At least some of these seem to have been added by the article creator, so I'm not sure how far back the revdel needs to go. There is also a large match with Quora but I couldn't figure out if they copied from us or the other way around. Seraphim System(talk)16:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
As said article creator of said article, I frankly find the suggestion of "a revdel" frivolous, and I find the insinuation that I would have copied text from Quora insulting. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I just removed the same COPYVIO here from another article [9] - there may be more, I haven't gone through this one as thoroughly as I did the other one. There was a lot of creative language that was direct copy and pasted 'infused" "plummeting lira" etc. These were obviously copied. Most likely it will need a rev del but I'll let Diannaa decide.Seraphim System(talk)02:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the report. The text from Quora was copied from us rather than the other way around. I have done some further copyright cleanup and revision deletion back to 23 May. I will check Conspiracy theories in Turkey as well. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my copyright issues with Draft: Matthew A. Waller. I updated it with more sources and would appreciate if you could take a look at it again.
The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. You are in the queue for your draft to be assessed. They're experiencing a large backlog, so please be patient. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at this article? There is some text copied from this source (starting on "Congress passed a law in
1935 creating a separate fund for the Secretary of Agriculture"...). There are also large chunks directly copied from [10], surely this article needs some kind of attribution? Regards, RetiredDuke (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The FRAC is not a government agency, and therefore their document enjoys copyright protection. So I have removed/paraphrased the content copied from that source. I added the required attribution for the USDA material. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed the revision deletion to double check. I removed one sentence from the article. The sentence I removed is identical to the source article in Time magazine and was thus a copyright violation. Your edit was not removed, though it was hidden in the history. This is because in order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of an article
Hello Diannaa,
I have published an article Medicine Club which has been deleted for 2 times. I don't know why. I gave references from newspapers & their website. Medicine Club is a voluntary organization in Bangladesh volunteered by medical and dental students of Bangladesh. They do a lot of charitable works. They arranges emergency blood donation for patients in hospitals throughout Bangladesh. They also aware people about Thalassemia. So it is important to have an article about them on Wikipedia. Many people wants to know about them. They are working in Bangladesh since 1981. I'm a new contributor so i may have some mistakes publishing the article. So please help me to publish the article, I'll be very much grateful to you. If you do I'll be encouraged to contribute more to Wikipedia with a proper way.
The article was deleted in 2011 as the organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medicine Club. The reason given in that discussion still applies: the organization does not meet our requirements for a standalone article. In addition, content for the version you added on August 29 was copied from the club's website. That's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Diannaa, First of all, I would like to inform you that the modified text to Fritz Harnest alone can be deduced from the definitive reference publication of my father Joseph Harnest. Joseph Harnest, Stephan Harnest, Peter Schunda: Fritz Harnest – Das eigene Ringen um die Kunst., Übersee 2007, ISBN978-3-00-020719-8.
My father had the desire to make the life of my grandfather accessible to all the interested. I will always stand for it!
Benezit Dictionary of Artists actually commits an apparent copyright infringement. I can not will not prevent that.
On the contrary, I am grateful that my father's text about my grandfather has found its way into the literature in this form!! User:Minervator has certainly done the processing with the best of intentions, although I understand your reminder of the "discipline." If you want and you want to send me an e-mail (possible about your german account Carlomartini86 de) with your address, I would like to send you a copy of the small German-language publication of my father as an original. (Of course free). Then you can really convince yourselve of the source.
It would be forward-looking if the global Wikipedia would be a "helping together". Deleting is easy, an alternative solution is ingenious! To leave a text as a torso is destructive. Nobody deserves that, not even my grandfather. With that in mind, with kind regards, Urheberrecht Joseph Harnest --Urheberrecht Joseph Harnest (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Harnest. I was not sure definitively whether the Benezit Dictionary copied from the German Wikipedia article or not. I can't prove it either way because the webpage was never archived, and the full article is not available to me without paying for it. So I removed and paraphrased the portion that a user reported here and added attribution the the German Wikipedia, which has had a version of the same material since 2007. I am unable to parse the meaning of some of your remarks, so if you have any further comments or questions please let me know. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
dewiki (article written in 2007) took from the Benezit Dictionary: the edition I own in my bookshelf was published in 2006 (but it's possible that the content appeared in older editions). --Carlomartini86(Knock-Knock)19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
If you don't mind helping, could you please remove the parts that were copied? Or tell me what to do and I will do it. Then I will perform some more revision deletion. German Wikipedia will have to do the same. If someone who speaks German report the problem to German Wikipedia I would appreciate it. Thank you, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not the page Fritz Harnest cleaned up, but a page and the artist willfully destroyed. that is vandalism! The proof of the avoidable copy is deficient. There are no traceable documents. Praescriptum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
—usernamekiran(talk) 03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Your recent reversion of a large block of text for an alleged copyright violation was not only counter-productive, but also very unhelpful as the text is a very relevant part of the law but you chose to delete even the revision history. It could have been tagged to correct and the copyright issues could have been avoided. Also, since when is the law copyrighted? Pretty sure it's there for the public to be able to see. Please try to be not over-zealous and just delete things in the future please. You are not helping Wikipedia or the publication of correct information this way. Reading the above comments, it also seems you have a history of deleting a lot of information without actually being at all helpful.
Done Carlstak (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
