User talk:Diannaa/Archive 67

Which copyright content?
Hi Diannaa, can you please show me which content was used from "http://www.aina.org/ata/20170503173511.htm"? I got this message last time, and i made sure never to use that webpage for Wikipedia again, both sources I used come from different webpages. Thanks again. Ramsin93 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay thank you, unfortunately your bot is attributing the article to aina.com, when the article is actually taken from Presbyterian Record, and posted on aina.com, they don't own the copyrights Ramsin93 (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant aina.org sorry Ramsin93 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you own the copyright? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, no, I believe Presbyterian Record owns the copyright, but it's been attributed to aina.org because they have reposted the article on their website. Presbyterian Record is no longer in operation as of a couple years ago so I'm not sure where this stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you can't copy that material to Wikipedia, because it's still protected by copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that, the issue is your bot is attributing the copyright based on it's presumption of the copyright being owned by aina.org, did you even visit the webpage to see what the website looks like?

It clearly states that the article is taken from Presbyterian Record, right on the aina.org webpage your bot is attributing it to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the job of an administrator is to investigate false positives like this, claiming that aina.org owns the copyrights by confirming what your bot concluded based on an algorithm is incorrect. Consider further investigation before incorrectly attributing the copyright to a website based on what a computer program has presumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The content also appears in https://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/columnists/new-lamps-for-old-the-assyrians-settled-near-the-battlefords-more-than-100-years-ago-1.18136043, which is the source you cited for the content I removed. That page is marked as "© Copyright 2019 Glacier Community Media". I think perhaps you are not clear on which material I re-worded. The section I re-worded was "Reverend Dr. Isaac Adams organized two resettlement projects of Assyrians from Urmia, one in 1903 and 1906 of which, unlike many other ethnic groups at the time, composed of families and not just men. The Assyrians, led by their minister, were the first Presbyterians in the region", which I re-worded to say "Reverend Dr. Isaac Adams organized two groups of Assyrian immigrants from Urmia, one in 1903 and 1906. Unlike many other immigrant groups at the time, the settlers were composed of families and not just men. They were the first Presbyterians in the region." That's all I did. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The material has been reproduced in several places online, and that's why I listed an incorrect source. Sorry about that. The source you cited was the News-Optimist, which is © Copyright 2019 Glacier Community Media, and that's apparently where you actually copied it from. Source says:


 * Your edit (overlapping content is highlighted in bold):

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Great thanks

Ramsin93 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on C. Bruce Littlejohn Page
Afternoon Diannaa -

The wording for the C. Bruce Littlejohn article came from the finding aid for his collection at South Carolina Political Collections at the University of South Carolina, where I work. The finding aid is not copyrighted and is free and open for public use at any time. I have no vested interest in Littlejohn looking good on a Wikipedia page, but I did want to add in information that would link him to other pages that would help discovery. I can reword if necessary.

Annieca

Annieca2016 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are incorrect; the material enjoys copyright protection. 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. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. You are welcome to re-write the content using your own words.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Seeing a connection
You might check the edits of:

Both have used aina.org, both edit in Assyrian articles, and both have plagiarized from aina.org.
 * 16:25, 15 April 2016‎--Cirflow
 * 01:53, 1 November 2019‎--Ramsin93

The Editor Interaction Analyser shows 14 similar articles edited, excluding your talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * wrong country. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)



Except further investigation would show you that aina.org is actually the one plagiarizing copyright content on their site, that's why the bots are alerting you to copyright infringements. In some cases you aren't looking far enough to see that aina.org is using content from a seperate source that, when used in Wikipedia, is assuming aina.org is the copyright holder due to the program you guys are running to come to these conclusions, and not doing the proper investigation. Ramsin93 (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)



I've never actually used aina.org directly as a source, your program is assuming that aina.org is the copyright holder of the content and you aren't doing the proper investigation required, very unprofessional! Ramsin93 (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Julian Assange Guardian
Thank you for your comments. You can check that I report citations between "". https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-charges-press-freedom-journalism

So if you have solutions to report citations without "", I will apply them. I would like report exactly the comments of these academics and campaigners to drop confusions. Again, thank you Rebecca jones (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In the article, the journalist reports their comments between ""

“Many of the allegations fall absolutely within the first amendment’s protections of journalistic activity. That’s very troubling to us.” Among the phrases contained in the indictment that have provoked an uproar are: “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States.” It is a basic function of journalism to encourage sources to provide information in the public interest on the activities of government. “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks.” Protecting the anonymity of sources is the foundation stone of much investigative and national security reporting – without it sources would not be willing to divulge information, and the press would be unable to fulfill its role of holding power to account. “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the ‘Jabber’ online chat service to collaborate on the acquisition and dissemination of the classified records.” The indictment similarly refers to a dropbox. Both Jabber and Dropbox are communication tools routinely used by journalists working with whistleblowers.
 * The material was directly copied from this article in The Guardian. That's a violation of our copyright policy. Please don't re-add it, even as a quotation, because that would be too much non-free content and thus a violation of our non-free content guideline.P.S. The part the original author included in quotation marks is actually copied from this document prepared by the US Federal Court, and would be okay to include with proper attribution. When copying from public domain sources, please include the template as part of your citation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Elephant Research Foundation
Thanks Diannaa, for removing some text, which may have gone under the copy radar. Took it from the uni, and maybe I should have rewritten better. Anyhow, I guess noone will ever ask for more info on the subject, so good you removed the text. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are of course free to update the article, using your own words, with citations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request
Hi, you previously removed and revdel'd copyright content from R.U.N. (Cirque du Soleil); could you do so again? has twice added promotional material as content to the article; it is a word-for-word copy of text that is here. Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Article content templates by Ephert
Hi, I've been working on reviewing the templates from Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 16 and have dealt with all the ones I'm confident about the copyright status, however I'm unsure how to handle very close copies of tables from copyright protected works. I've done some searching and found some things that discussions that says it's not a copyright violation such as Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/October and discussions that indicate it isn't such as User talk:Ephert. There's also the following quote from Image use policy: Technical data is uncopyrightable, lacking creativity, but the presentation of data in a graph or chart can be copyrighted, so a user-made version should be sufficiently different in presentation from the original to remain free. The question then is whether this conversion to a MediaWiki table is "sufficiently different in presentation" to be free. Any help or pointers where to go would be appreciated! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The first one I checked is Template:He2012Table2; according to the terms of use on this page, it's available to use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is a compatible license, so it's okay to keep, as long as proper attribution is added.
 * That being said, I think I would delete any tables that are identical to the source documents and are not simple lists of alphabetical or numerical data; for example, the second one on the list (template:Lee1965Table12) in my opinion contains enough copyright content to enjoy copyright protection. The table is pasted at the bottom of the article without any commentary or analysis, so I would delete that one. It's a judgement call obviously— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take another look at them considering your advice. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Trialpears, thank you for dealing with these; I should have been the one doing it but I've been busy lately. However, was the deletion of Template:He2012Table2 justified? Its source was under a CC license as far as I can remember. Nardog (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I deleted it after merging it with the parent article in this edit. That was the consensus at TfD. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. That's of course entirely justified. Thanks again for taking care of it. Nardog (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too Trialpears for taking on this big task. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done most of them now, but am a bit uncertain about the last few. Could you or take a look at them? If possible I would also appreciate an explanation of your reasoning so I can learn. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

These first seven are copied unaltered from the cited sources; these are scientific study results which are pretty esoteric measurements that the general reader will not care about or understand, so it's not worth our while to try to convert the data to prose.


 * : okay to keep. A report of self-reported survey results.
 * : Delete; data copied unaltered from the source document. It's not a simple chronological list, as the items have been selected from the multitude of potential court cases for a reason

My opinions are within the collapsed section. Sorry for the delay in replying. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks! They're all dealt with now and I'll hopefully be a bit more competent in the future. It's been a pleasure working with you! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Little help (if possible)
Hey, Diannaa. First all, I'm terribly sorry to disturb you, but I need help from an experienced admin. On July 27, 2019, I came across an article without a poster. As I always do in these cases, I upload in low resolution to comply with the fair-use policy. On November 1, 2019, another user uploaded of the same poster and edited it into the article. He removed "my poster" from the infobox and put it into the "cast" section. An admin came across the article and he saw both images, realizing that this is against the fair-use policy he nominated "my poster" to deletion. It is my understanding that the older image should be kept and the newer one should be deleted, since (in my view) the newer image should not even have been uploaded. Since the article already had one poster uploaded under the fair use policy. I tried to contact the admin without success. Now, the same user who uploaded the newer version of the poster came to the image I uploaded in July and uploaded a new version of the image (the same version he uploaded on Nov. 1) with a high quality, which in my view, don't comply with the fair-use policy. It seems a mess right now. I don't know if I was clear, but I need someone to look into it (if you can, obviously). Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no rule that the older image must be kept. There is however a rule about size, and the most recent upload does not meet that requirement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:DavideVeloria88 for a summary of what I did to resolve this issue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The image File:Romulus & Remus, The First King (2019) Film Poster.jpeg don't have the size because this user uploaded a new version to replace the original version. I revert to the original version which I uploaded on July 27, 2019. My point this user should not have uploaded a new poster, since it was unnecessary.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you, I think :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Anant Parekh's page was not a copright violoation
Hello, you recently removed content from Anant Parekh because of a perceived copyvio. However, the text copied is available under CC license as per: "“All text published under the heading 'Biography' on Fellow profile pages is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.” --"

Although this copyright notice does not appear on the page at https://royalsociety.org/people/anant-parekh-14114/ it is available under a creative commons license if you read the text at https://royalsociety.org/about-us/terms-conditions-policies/ under the heading "Intellectual Property Rights" Duncan.Hull (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Even in cases where the content has been released under a free license, it's not generally a good idea to simply copy-and-paste or even too closely paraphrase large blocks of it into related Wikipedia articles simply because most content found on external websites tends to be written in a style that might not be really suited for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV or WP:TONE; it's fine for the external website, but not really what Wikipedia is striving for. Perhaps the best thing to do would be summarize the content as neutrally as you can in your own words and then cite the page as a source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks the text was not just copy-pasted, it was modified to meet wikipedia standards Duncan.Hull (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the prose. Sorry for the mistake; when the page states "Copyright © 2019 The Royal Society. All rights reserved" there's really not much impetus for me to look further but I guess I should have in this case. By the way, the material was not modified to meet Wikipedia standards, as you can see via Earwig's tool. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

South Australia Act 1834
Thanks for your note about South Australia Act 1834. I'll have another go at it, but if you look at the highlighted text, you will see that what Earwig has picked up consists in many instances of the same text used repeatedly, in particular the long name of the Act "An Act to empower His Majesty to erect South Australia into a British Province or Provinces..." (which actually I now see that I should have used the Z version of the spelling of colonisation there, which will make it match even more closely!) and repetition of "Province of South Australia" (unavoidable). There's a bit of factual reproduction such as "South Australia thus became the only Colony authorised by an Act of Parliament" (repeated on many other sites too) - but not a lot of actual paraphrasing. Anyway, I'll attempt to reduce the matching word count by having another go later... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Requesting revdelete at Dominican War of Independence and Parsley massacre due to massive copyvios. 185.213.21.15 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, the IP is a sock of serial nuisance Krajoyn. His latest MO is to remove large chunks of text from articles heavily edited by his previous socks, claiming copyvio. It may or may not be correct, but I would not count his word as a reliable source for the wetness of water. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Favonian. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright
"If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license."

The text I imported at The Assyrian Tragedy is in the public domain, therefore permissible under Wikipedia's rules. Ramsin93 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the source webpage http://www.atour.com/Annemasse.html is marked as being in the public domain. Sorry for the mistake. In the future, when copying from public domain material, please add the template after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that patrollers as well as our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Review
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg Article
I very carefully paraphrased and did NOT copy the sentences from Vox Media and The New York Times. I avoided WP:Synthesis, since I know that's important. Previously you showed logs of bots calling information possibly guilty of copyright infringement. Please show those logs for the additions I made. A good wikipedia is of life or death importance to me, so I do not want to see worthwhile information deleted. DouggCousins (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I detected the issue manually by watch-listing the article and comparing the source material to your edit. Regardless of the copyright issue, you have not yet visited the article's talk page to make a case for why general crime statistics are appropriate in an article about the mayor; two people object to the addition of this content, and it has been repeatedly removed for reasons other than copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I read that edit. There was no copyright issue. Paraphrasing is an effective way to avoid synthesis issues. And there's consensus now that the crime stats should be added, especially given no reasonable counterargument to the fact that hundreds of homeless families who lost their homes led to the spike in crime. Given no copyright issue, your decision to repress the edit is an abuse of admin power. 172.58.227.230 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DouggCousins (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's okay to edit while logged out, but to do so in order to pretend to be someone else is not allowed. You've done it both here and at Talk:Pete Buttigieg. Don't do it any more, or you risk being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ASM copyright and plagiarism
Hi Diannaa, thank you for leaving the detailed message on my page. I actually work for ASM, so copyright and plagiarism is not an issue. What type of documentation can I provide to prove that I have permission post this content so that it won't be deleted again? Also, I can't remember exactly what was deleted at this point since we made so many changes. Is there a way for me to access the version that I created before it was deleted? Here's the URL to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_Microbiology Thank you! Tyniahcm (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2019 (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. That said, content copied from the corporate website is seldom suitable for inclusion, regardless of whether or not it is compatibly licensed. I can email you an old revision of the page, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, thank you for the clarification. I activated my Wikipedia email. If you could please send me the old revision of the page that would be great. Thanks! Tyniahcm (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Email sent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Faith school Article
The part of the Faith school article that you removed for copyright I actually copied from the Wikipedia page on Catholic Education Service, I didn't realise it was directly from their website. I'm wondering if it's not allowed in the faith school article, why is it allowed in the CES article or should it not be there either. FormularSumo (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will have to remove it from the other article as well. It's been there quite a while. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Pluralone Single
I have never gone on that website in my entire life. The only websites I used for that Wiki page was the Pluralone official website. When I was reading that you said I copied off of it, I was like "What the hell?". That's kinda like just assuming I copied info off of it, instead of going to the source where I got it from and confirming what I said on the wiki page was true. Also, if it does seem like it is copied off of that website, it was 100% accidental and again, I got the sources from the official Pluralone website detailing the single release, which is here:https://pluralone.merchnow.com/products/v2/294600/io-sono-quel-che-sono-bw-menina-mulher-da-pele-preta-7-black Midcey —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the misidentification. But you can't copy off https://pluralone.merchnow.com/products/v2/294600/io-sono-quel-che-sono-bw-menina-mulher-da-pele-preta-7-black either, because that page also enjoys copyright protection. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

MIRROR?
Hi Dianna. Maybe you can help sort this out? It looks like a WP:MIRROR but I can't be for sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

is this ok
this is the source cc by 4.0 (you have to scroll to the bottom) and this is the edit giving attribution for the screenshot, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that is okay — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Good luck to be admin, do not use your count up to misuse subjective "flawed tools"
May be a good hearted editor trying to get some counts up. Stop User_talk:58.182.172.95. Not tagging you with bad stuff. If filter or tool is flawed, not an excuse for any editor to BLINDLY use it, you arfe guilty for using it as misuse if you blindly used it. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not understanding what the problem is. On your talk page you indicate that I removed some content, and I did not actually do that; all I did was add the attribution as required by the terms of our license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Wang4106
Hello Diannaa, this could be a bigger mess - could you check the edits of this user please? It seems like most/all of them are copypastes or plagiarizing their source papers (just searching random keywords and unique phrases reveals numerous clear hits). I looked through the listings of 3-4 of the sources and none of them seem to have any CC license or something similar, but I am not entirely sure. The speed of some of these edits also indicate a copypaste job. I have left the user a copyright notice for now as first information about this possible issue. GermanJoe (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the report and the clean-up assist. Great to catch it early like this— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the quick help with this. I hope the user notices the talkpage messages, but will keep an eye on it. GermanJoe (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Stelios Ioannou Learning Resource Center
Hi, I have removed text added on 27 February 2019 which appears to have been copied from https://www.ucy.ac.cy/techsrv/en/building-facilities/university-campus/projects-under-construction/20-en-articles/top-menu/building-facilities/136-learning-resource-centre-stelios-ioannou and https://www.metalocus.es/en/news/emerging-earth-jean-nouvel-completes-stelios-ioannou-learning-resource-center. Please can you see if I have missed anything and revision delete. I have posted a message to the user. TSventon (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Current version looks okay. Revision deletion is done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright guidelines
Re NY Times and portland mercury deletions. The large guidelines left on my talk page are not very helpful. I already thought I only quoted a small amount of the sources, and properly quoted them. I'll try to use even smaller quotes, but without specific definition of "small" this is obviously a guessing game. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The material I removed included a short quotation, but the whole paragraph was copied from here. You need to write the content in your own words, while citing your sources. The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeat of copyright issues at Bhaiseena
Heads up that the edits you revdel’ed for copyright issues have been re-introduced by the same user,. The same looks to be true at Bhusawar. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Earwig's NYT-reading tool
Hi again, Diannaa. You mentioned that Earwig has a tool for reading New York Times articles without reaching the newspaper's article limit. Since that would be handy for checking sources, would you mind giving me the link? Thanks and all the best,  Mini  apolis  03:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just use the usual Earwig's Copyvio Detector. We appear to have unlimited views this way.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Jesse110121
Hi Diannaa, can you please address the history of this page which has significant copying without attribution. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Improper Suppression at Pete Buttigieg
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 216.130.236.20 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The link you posted points to a discussion claiming you "don't have an opinion" on Pete Buttigieg? Seriously? 216.130.236.20 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please drop the stick S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please help
There is an editor using bot software to find female scientists and remove their pages, can you please help prevent this on the article Kate Killick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs)
 * You have presented no evidence to back up your assertion that the nominator is acting in bad faith. Please don't make accusations without evidence. If you think the article should not be deleted, please participate at the deletion discussion. Please note, the AFD template needs to remain in place until the discussion is over. Please don't remove it again; besides, to do so will not affect the outcome or close the discussion. Please make your case at Articles for deletion/Kate Killick as to why the person is notable enough to qualify for an article.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issues follow-up
Hi Diannaa!

I hope you're doing well. I appreciate the notification and the links that you have sent me on my talk page. I'm currently reading through the links to learn about how to avoid copyright issues. I just wanted some more information on what section was removed so that I can make sure I don't make the same mistake moving forward. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikderadiba8 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Sikderadiba8! The content I removed was a plot description of the HBO documentary Bleed Out, which was a match for content found here. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Brooklands Museum
Thanks for your helpful guidance. I will have another go (possibly not today) at putting the information in, but in an acceptable manner. Perhaps you could keep an eye on this and let me know if I have resolved the problem? Many thanks, JamesHT1967 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I had included a quotation from the formal objects of a registered company, which are a matter of public record; would it not be misleading to do anything but quote them exactly? Or did I need to word my citation in a particular way, to show that this was what I had done? Many thanks, --JamesHT1967 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There was one quotation, which was a statement of objectives of the organization. Regardless of the copyright issue, we don't normally include vision statements, mission statements, or corporate goals. See Avoid mission statements for more information. So that's why I removed it at the time I did the clean-up. Also, it's better to write the content in your own words, while citing your sources. The organization's own website is not a very good source for Wikipedia's purposes; it's better to use sources independent of the subject of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Lee's infobox
Hi Diannaa,

maybe this question is technical. But there is either a glitch, or I completely miss the mark on this one.

I am currently working on Bruce Lee's page which is full of odd and poorly cited info.

Now the info box is odd because aside from the profile picture there is a second photo was added which I would gladly keep in the article. I have never seen two photos in ones inbox section. Also his infobox is huge and that would be a way to reduce it.

I need a senior member to look at this because I can't find anyways to remove it.

Thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The photo is being pulled in from Bruce Lee's Wikidata entry as part of the child infobox template:Infobox martial artist. I don't know how to make it go away. Perhaps User:RexxS can help? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute~! I found a solution. Adding an empty parameter prevents the image from Wikidata from being imported. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Charles P. Roland
Hey there Dianna!

Could I please have a copy of the deleted page linked above? I'll be sure to clean it up well before it gets posted to Draft:Charles P. Roland. I guess it had like 11+ sources, so it sounds like it'd be notable.

Kindest Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do that, because many of the sources are offline, so you will have no way of knowing which parts are copyvio unless you have access to the books. Also, there's a break in the attribution if you work from the deleted article, and that's a violation of the terms of our license. I've copied the infobox, citations, etc to User:Diannaa/sandbox. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dang! Well, thank you for providing what you could. { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverse glass painting history strike throughs?
Hi Diannaa, I am wondering why my recent contributions to Reverse glass painting are struck through in that page's history. I note that most or all of my actual edits, by my recollection, are still included in the article.

Since only you have edited the article after I did, I assume that you are the one who can explain this to me. I hope that is so, because otherwise I find the process of determining who to contact to uncover this mystery (to me, anyway) to be inexplicable. Thanks! Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Larrykoen. There was an edit that added copyright material a bit prior to yours, and in order to completely remove the material from the page history, I did revision deletion. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Link to deleted portal?
Why did you try to restore a link to a portal which was deleted by consensus?

And why did you not leave an edit summary explaining your reason? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this must have been a mis-click. I don't remember making that edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. We all make mis-clicks from time to time.  I just wondered if there was a substantive reason, but thanks for clarifying.
 * It threw me initially, because the list of backlinks I had been cleaning suddenly grew significantly, and I wasted 10 minutes trying to figure out why. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Workshop for the creation of new Portal Guidelines
Hello Diannaa. There is currently a workshop going on about the creation of a new Portal Guideline: User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Your insights and ideas would be appreciated. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for article review
Hi Diannaa, Thank you for reviewing the article- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yasser_Hareb previously. The article has been pending for more than 8 weeks in the draft. Please, could you review it as all credible citations have been added. (Salmabadrmaged (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)).
 * Sorry but I don't normally review drafts. My only reason for visiting the page in the past was to remove some copyright material you had included. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Linking to enacademic.com
Hello Diannaa, could you offer some advice about the copyright aspect of links to enacademic.com please? A list of all currently used links is here, per cross-Wiki linksearch. The site consists of copypaste extracts from various encyclopedias and dictionaries (some reliable, some not like Wikipedia). See Jogendra Singh for a recent usage. While convenient, such links contradict WP:LINKVIO (most of the republished information on enacademic.com seems to be under copyright, and the extensive copypasting of large amounts of content is beyond any reasonable "fair use" claims, even for US standards). Should such links be deleted or maybe the domain be blacklisted to avoid further good-faith misuse? GermanJoe (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not be linking to this cite or using it as a citation. You might consider posting at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and gathering additional opinions before cleanup starts; the issue does not appear to have been raised there before. Thank you for noticing this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Re:2020 Oklahoma Democratic primary
Hello, I saw you reverted and revdel'd a revision that added quotes from state documents. I'm a bit confused as, for all I can find, states can't copyright rules and laws. Thanks, Kb03 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Kb03. Works of the US Government are public domain, but the only states that have placed their works in the public domain are California and Florida. The document here states that legislation will not be accepted by the copyright office for registration. But under current copyright law, documents do not need to be registered to enjoy copyright protection. So my understanding is that the legislation does indeed enjoy copyright protection. Regardless of the copyright issue, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so adding instructions as to how a candidate would file to get on the ticket for that election is outside our purview. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Marilyn White
I saw you deleted a bunch of content on Marilyn White for copyvio. Could you direct me to the source the copyviolator used so I might put it to use. Trackinfo (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Trackinfo. It's typically found in my edit summary, or else you can check the logs for that page; if I'm not the one who removed the material I will place it there. For this article, it was https://pepperdinewaves.com/hof.aspx?hof=63. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you!— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hey there, thank you correcting my edits, I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and wasn't aware of the rules in question. I will keep those in mind for the future.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 

Rev deletion of BLP violation
If you can,. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but in my opinion that doesn't qualify for revision deletion as it is not a serious BLP violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay; you won't mind if I take it to the BLP noticeboard, I trust. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No of course not. :)— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know it's not egregious, but unsourced speculations of a love triangle are really inappropriate. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Egregious is when they say they murdered someone or are a pedophile etc. If you see something like that, you can report it directly to the oversighters at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Dynasty
Our friend Ilija zmikic seems to have ignored our messages on his/her talk page and restored the copyvio text to the Dynasty season articles here and here, at the same time reverting interim edits without explanation. I've reverted, but did you previously attempt to erase the copyvios from the edit history? Also I believe Ilija zmikic created Dynasty (1981 TV series, season 3) without following your instructions re: attribution. If this editing behavior continues I suppose I'll got to ARV. thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 01:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello TAnthony. The episode summaries were moved from List of Dynasty (1981 TV series) episodes into the newly created articles. If they also appear on the DVD packaging or other websites, it's unlikely Ilija zmikic would even realize. I see that in Season 1 the DVD packaging is cited as a source, but there's no evidence that the prose was copied from there. It appears to have been created by Wikipedians as far as I can tell. I see some of the episode summaries on Wikia but I'm not finding them elsewhere. Failing to provide proper attribution is a violation of the terms of our license, but it is not a copyright violation per se. What I normally do is tell the editor how to do it 2 or 3 times and if they fail to comply I start undoing their edits as a blunter instrument to get the message across. But I would not block for this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the actual packaging for S1 and while the first few episode summaries here were rewritten, the rest of the season was lifted from the DVDs. All of S3 was lifted verbatim from the cited web review. Ilija zmikic just restored the S3 copyvios even though my edit summary made it clear that they were copyvios, but I've reverted. I also reverted his/her creation of an S4 article, since he has ignored all of our comments (no attribution, no fixing broken citations copied from the main article, no addition of more content to assert notability for a standalone article). Reverting is my new tactic but this may be an exercise in futility.— TAnthonyTalk 18:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case there may be further messes to clean up on the parent article. If you find any others let me know. What was the source website for the Season 3 plot summaries? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it. I have done revision deletion on Seasons 1, 2, and 3, but not the parent article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I just pulled out my DVDs and will check all of the seasons against the main list. So far S4 seems to be original so that's good.— TAnthonyTalk 15:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright? I'm confused.
I don't quite understand your copyright notice and the message you left on my talk page "... policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing." When you removed my changes you used a link to prove that the content I added was copyrighted. But in that link this text appears:

"Copyright: © 2013 Toronchuk and Ellis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc."

So, as I checked the copyright of the article before I posted the list I must have read the copyright notice differently from you. I could write the author and ask about it? Or write the journal itself? But either way I'm a bit confused about this. I also changes their wording a bit, but not much. JurijFedorov (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello JurijFedorov. I have checked and the paper is indeed released under a compatible license. I don't know why I missed that; I do check, because lots of articles are compatibly licensed nowadays. Sorry for the mistake. I have re-added the content along with attribution. In the future, when copying from licensed material, please add the required attribution after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that patrollers as well as our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright spam
Excuse me but I don't think the removal of my edits are justified. For instance, the autapomorphies of Austroraptor were copied exactly as the original paper, and yet, they are still being shown without any kind of warn, and I'm pretty sure that more pages are in the same margin without notice. If this has to do something with the papers being accesible or not, Turner et al. 2012 is currently accesible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleoNeolitic (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because something is accessible online does not mean it is in the public domain. They're not the same thing. I have downloaded the source paper and it is marked as "Copyright E American Museum of Natural History 2012" and therefore it's not okay to copy material from that document to Wikipedia. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Note
Considering the amount of disruption caused over the past year I fully agree with your block of BHG. The lack of courtesy shown you (professional or common) in the absence of consultation concerning the unblock is very unbecoming. The fact that the reasoning behind your block, in the unblock notice, was not even acknowledged shows a lack of understanding of our block policies, and again, is sub-optimal of what we expect in our admins. I for one applaud your efforts to reduce the disruption here. — Ched (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your supportive comment. People are watching her, that's for sure, but no one is stepping up to deal with the PAs. It will likely end up at Arbcom. I can't do anything further. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about poem included in an article
Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at St Martin's Church, Bladon? Is it OK to include an entire poem (or this much of an extract) in that particular section? I can't find out any information about the poet and have no idea whether he/she is still living; so, there's no way to know when the poem was written or whether it might still be eligible for copyright protection. The source cited in the article does say that a poem by Avril was read, but it doesn't give the entire poem and only states where the poem can be found in a supporting footnote. It's probably the poem, but I'm not sure if it's licensed in a way that allows it added to Wikipedia (either in it's entirety or as an extract). Moreover, I found this via Google Books which seems to say that the poem was written specifically for the occasion, and gives three of the four stanzas appearing in the Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The poem was written by Avril Anderson in 1965 to honor Winston Churchill, who died that year. So yeah, the poem still enjoys copyright protection. That appears to be the poem in its entirety, not an excerpt. I will look after it.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for checking. I thought that might be the case, but the cited source(s) state Avril Anderson's was alive during WWII so it didn't seem like the same Avril Anderson since that person she would've been only eleven of twelve when the poem was written. The article also spelled the name as "Avril Andersen" so wasn't sure whether that was correct. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the age 11 - I think I will remove that wikilink, does not appear to be the same person. This book says the poet was a teacher born in 1908. "Anderson" is the correct spelling according to that book. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you, Bagumba!— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

new item
Just wanted to let you know about a new request for arbitration. The request is at Arbitration/Requests/Case. please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Hi, thank you for the changes and marking apparent copyright violations on my work on Dr.Reza Dana's page. However, I received these images directly from the subject of the biographical article i.e. Dr.Reza Dana's office. What should I do to prove that I am legally allowed to post these images from the subject himself? Thanks! User:Texan1984
 * Hi Texan1984. This is regarding several images you had uploaded at the Commons, a sister site. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to that website. There's procedures in place for this purpose. What you have to do is ask the copyright holder to provide 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) 21:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexander von Humboldt
Hi, I don't understand why you have removed the information I placed (and referenced) on the Alexander von Humboldt page about his influence on educators. The information comes from my published research in a peer-reviewed journal. None of the wording violates copyright, because the wording is paraphrased and the source is referenced. I'm not paid to write this, nor will I receive any financial benefit from providing this information. Am I triggering a copyright notice simply because I haven't created an account? Is that necessary? Can you replace the deleted text? Thanks for considering the questions.
 * Hello, I removed it because it was copied directly from the source paper. You can't do that without releasing the material to Wikipedia under a compatible license (there's more on this on your user talk page, or see WP:donating copyright materials). The second time it was removed, the edit summary was "Per WP:RSSELF by promotional IP ", which is Wikipedia-speak for "please don't add content to Wikipedia and cite your own paper". So regardless of the copyright issue, the decision was taken by a different editor to remove the material on that basis. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dianna, the information was not copied directly from the source paper--I used my own words to explain the information. This is not a self-published source -- the paper I cited was published by Taylor and Francis Publishers. Again, I respectfully ask that you reconsider removing the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.100.61 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true the second version you add was not copied directly from the paper. But that's not why it was removed the second time. It was removed the second time because you, as author of the paper, should not be citing your own paper or adding your own research here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dianna, can you please provide the Wikipedia policy that states the author of a published secondary source cannot add information to Wikipedia and cite his/her own work? I just haven't seen that anywhere. I'm having a hard time believing that, for example, Kip Thorne, who won a Breakthrough Prize for the discovery of gravity waves, couldn't add content about gravity waves to Wikipedia and cite some of his own published work. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.100.61 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy is No original research. Citing your own research violates our policy against original research. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dianne, Wikipedia's policy defines "original research" as self-published work. Here's the wording: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a]" A reliable, published source is an academic journal or scholarly book that requires peer review, and these are the sorts of sources I am citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.100.61 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Also, here's Wikipedia's language on "citing yourself": Shortcut WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.

My references conform to the content policies. I'm not citing self-published work. My citations are not excessive, and they are not in third person.
 * If you add it again, it will likely be removed again. I suggest you post on the article talk page and try to get consensus for your addition. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diana--I didn't realize I could do that, since I'm new to Wikipedia. All the best.

Arbitration
Hi Diannaa. I've added you as a party to the Portals arbitration request for your block of BHG. I think this is relevant to the case as BHG seems to be a central figure and your input would help resolve the dispute. I hope this doesn't cause you any stress. In real life I'm an expert witness and am routinely involved in a dozen lawsuits at a time. For those not used to such procedures, dispute resolution can be nerve wracking. For what it's worth, you do not appear to have done anything wrong. Jehochman Talk 04:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the case might focus primarily on the behaviour of BHG. If so, I could prepare a timeline of events surrounding the block, but I'm pretty sure I don't have to be named as a party to participate in the evidence phase. I'd rather not be named as a party. Could you remove me please? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding your name causes you to receive notices about the case. Whether or not you are named, your actions may be scrutinized.  I aim to be agreeable so I'll remove your name for now. Jehochman Talk 14:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Intelligence Command
Hello Diannaa, thank you for your recent post on my talk page in relation to a potential copyright issue of my addition to the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command. My apologies for any misunderstanding on my part but I was under the belief that adding information from Public domain content is acceptable as per Copying_text_from_other_sources? The source of my addition is the Canadian Government website for the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command which is therefore information in the public domain. Could you please clarify this for me - my apologies for my ignorance about this matter. - Jacarandacounsel (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pages produced by the US government are in the public domain, but the same is not true in Canada. The Terms and Conditions page states that "Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from the copyright administrator." That's not compatible with Wikipedia's license, which allows re-use for any purpose, including commercial use. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mea culpa
If you can bear my bringing up something which probably seemed to be over, I have reconsidered my recent unblocking, and decided I was wrong. It may be debatable how much I should be blamed for not searching through the page history, but I now think I have no excuse for not consulting you. I have had previous experiences where a block seemed to me completely unreasonable, but I went through the courtesy of consulting the blocking admin nevertheless, and it turned out there was more justification than had been visible to me, so I should know better. I honestly cannot think why I didn't do the same this time. (However, things have now moved on to another forum, and it may be that both the block and the unblock will have made little if any difference in the long run.) JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness, both for this post and for taking the time to re-think events. I made mistakes too; I realized later that of course it would not be obvious what the sequence of events was and why I decided to block, because of the size and complexity of the talk page. I should have posted a summary of some kind at the bottom of the page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Hi Diannaa, sorry to bother you - could you cast a quick eye over File:CadmusStamp.jpg? The uploader attests that it's copyright-free since it's a 1901 stamp, but it contains an embedded copyright watermark, and has obviously been copied directly from this website. I'm going to remove it from the article it's used in (since it's obviously an image of a different ship), but should I flag the image file in some way? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  21:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It can't be a 1901 stamp, since it states on the corner "Ships of WWI", which took place later (1914-1918). (The photo of the ship was likely taken in 1901.) this website states the stamp was issued in 2015. commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Liberia says that government works in Liberia are protected for 70 years from publication. So we can't keep it. The watermark is not relevant to the copyright issue, since they are not the copyright holders of the original stamp. The best way to go is to list it at WP:FFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * : Indeed this stamp was issued on 17 December 2015 per this webpage (near the bottom of the page) and this Flickr image is the same one used for the stamp. It is possible the ship image is in the public domain, as crown copyright considering it is in Royal Navy Log Books of the World War 1 per this webpage showing the same image. The additional text seems too simple to obtain a new copyright. ww2censor (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes - slightly embarrassed now, should have spent a bit more time thinking about the dates, less thinking about the name of the ship - of course a 1901 stamp wouldn't have mentioned WWI. I shall list at FFD, thanks. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

SPA NOTHERE
Hi Diannaa, would you please review this report and consider acting it. Thanx, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't have time. There's 87 copyright reports to assess. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

113.29.230.199
user:113.29.230.199 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The blocking admin has already dealt with this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Orbit Logic Page
Hey Diannaa, Can you elaborate on what attribution template to use on which sources in the Draft:Orbit Logic
 * I already added it: It's — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

License?
Is there a proper license for ? I can't find it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the YouTube video, click on "Show more" and scroll down a ways; you will see "Licence: Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed). Click on that link to go to this page, which has a link to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I came to you, I clicked on the Show more but didn't scroll down far enough. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know right? It used to be right at the top. Happy to help.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your messages on this subject. I was the sole author of the prose that I copied in the two instances that you have cited. Corker1 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then my notification was not needed, sorry to have bothered you— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Ciraparantag
Thank you for the heads up.(Angunnu (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC))

Cardinal Kevin Farrell page
Hello

Can you please explain why you removed references to Mary McAleese, Camerlengo and Bishop Michael J Bransfield from his Wiki page. All content was linked to reputable sources and no infringement of copyright. I would be grateful if you could explain why this important and relevant content was removed. Lucs Rossi (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the material was copied from The Catholic Herald; their copyright notice says "We are the owner or the licensee of all intellectual property rights in our site, and in the material published on it. Those works are protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved." This means that you are not allowed to copy from that website to Wikipedia. I also removed a small amount from here, which is "Copyright © 2019 phongtraogiaodan.com All rights reserved". Your new addition contained material copied from here, which states their copyright policy here. Adding copyright material to Wikipedia is a violation of our copyright policy. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply to: Diannaa
I am the owner of the copyright material you removed from my pages: Pet and Alexander D. Henderson Jr. articles. I have sent an permission email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I have also posted the WP:COIDEC on my user page and placed a notice on the source material with the following disclaimer: The text is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Please restore the content when the email is received and processed by the OTRS team. Thanks, Greg Henderson 18:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Greg, if you could let me know when the OTRS ticket is in place I will get right on it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution - user: sahitya.work had made changes on Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition)
Hello, sahitya.assist is also my user,so now what is the procedure for giving attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahitya.work (talk • contribs)
 * You include a statement in your edit summary . There's more information at WP:Copying within Wikipedia — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dworkin's Intercourse page
Intercourse (book)

Hi Diannaa! I saw a recommendation from you via my phone but don't see it via my laptop on the Intercourse discussion page. That's a head-scratcher. I've read over past discussion arguing for and against long/longer/too long quotes (from the book in particular). Before I engage more on this topic, is there a single place/page where your recent comment on the subject and any reply by me, and other recent discussion, all appropriately co-exist? I'm still learning (a lot!) about what goes where, re: discussion. Thanks. And I love the Imagine artwork. :) --PaulThePony (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi PaulThePony. I see there was some discussion with another user on the talk page, but that's not what prompted me to remove the material. It was actually picked up by our copyright detection system; hence my visit to the page. We have rules about quotations, and what we're supposed to do is use only short quotations, and only if there's no alternative. There's no set limit on the size or number of quotations. That said, Wikipedia articles should for the most part be written in our own words, and quotations used only when absolutely necessary. For a book, it would be more appropriate to provide a few short excerpts (one or two sentences) from reviews rather than extensive quotations from the book itself or from an interview with the author. Non-free content says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea"; "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."  Please see Non-free content, especially Non-free content, and the essay Quotations for more details.In  there's 633 words of article and 1202 words of block quotes. That's far too much non-free content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That's good news, Diannaa, as I just added two passages that I think meet the criteria but please let me know if they don't. --PaulThePony (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

H & F Harvey Brothers
Thanks Dianna For clearing up the copyright and plagiarism content from my page A & F Harvey Brothers. Looks like other editors have added contents to the original page which I had created. Thanks a lot for notifying me.Glittershield (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You too added copyright content copied from that same source. Please don't do that any more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure ,I realise my mistake, form next time I will be more careful.Thank youGlittershield (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

AFI Catalog of Feature Films
Hello Diannaa. Is this content under the copyleft license? Puduḫepa 17:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Puduḫepa No it is not. It's marked as © 2019 All Rights Reserved. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you, Diannaa. Puduḫepa 07:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and Proposed deletion of CMR Central
hi Diannaa i changed all the data which is copied from Hyderabad Central article and i updated proper reference for this CMR Central article but now article is facing problem that proposed for delete could u please help me. Jeevan naidu (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted text
Hi Diannaa. I have left you a message on my talk page regarding some of the text on the article Jacob O. Meyer. Thanks In Citer (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored it and added the legally required attribution (that's the "attribution" part of the license; you have to provide attribution either manually, or using the template we have for that purpose (Template:CC-notice). Please do this yourself in the future to avoid having your material deleted. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Diannaa. Thank you for the work you have done on the article to make it a bit more neutral also In Citer (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request
Could I bring this to your attention? Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Dorsetonian. That diff doesn't qualify for revision deletion in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for looking! (I was concerned about the apparent outing of an assistant school principal's home address.) Dorsetonian (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to get a second opinion, please consider contacting the oversight team (see WP:oversight for details). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you - no, your opinion is all I was after Face-smile.svg . Dorsetonian (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixing an important article
Thank you so much for both the welcome and your feedback on the Human migration article. Even though I am a beginner at this, this page deserves to be a lot more up to date than it is and I will be working on improving it in the coming weeks. I just republished the regional paragraphs with a little less text, made sure the links worked to the public domain document, and straightened out citations. Let me know if you think it is still out of order.Ajs050208 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ajs050208: The document you are copying from is not in the public domain; it is marked as "© 2017 International Organization for Migration (IOM). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher." So please stop re-adding it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, I read somewhere you are the person to go to with Copyvio questions
Hello! So, I am looking at one particular user's contributions to search and destroy copyvio. And, I came across this article: Kodava people. Earwig says it's a massive copyvio, and the flagged content was added by the user I'm investigating. The report is here. The first one (sorry, spam blacklist blocked the url) looks like a source that copies from wikipedia and the website sounds like one which would host public domain content only, and yet it says copyright 2019 at the bottom of the page (my thoughts on this were before I knew it's spam blacklisted, IDK what to think now). This one looks like a proper copyrighted material and it says it was written by someone with a PhD in 2004 but I am wondering if it is hosting something from 100 year old book or something which would have copyright expired. Any thoughts? TIA!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 15:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * gutenberg.cc is a Wikipedia mirror site. But the page they copied is Kodava language, not Kodava people. We've had that content in the latter article since 2009. So not to worry. Regarding the other site, the content was added back in Feb 2010. The source article is marked as 2004, so I have removed that part as well as content from https://www.boloji.com/articles/878/unique-independant-kodavas-of-kodagu. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Now Earwig's tool is showing a different assortment of Wiki-mirrors — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Diannaa. The CCI on the user has been accepted, so those will hopefully get a systematic look by more experienced editors. I'll try to help where I can. I have one follow-up. Why didn't you revdel the history? I have never had a revdel request declined, so I was unaware that it wasn't always required. Thanks again, cheers!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I considered doing it back to the 2010 insertion but when I noticed that the material was actually removed in February 2010 and re-added later that day, presumably by the same person, i changed my mind. It was originally added way back in 2008. This would mean rev-deleting over 10 years of edits.  in case you want to file a rev-del request. It's within policy to do it but I am not going to do it; I think it's too much. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the user. I had got there earlier today and had the same thought: Over ten years, hundreds of editors, thousands of edits. NTMU!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Review of SAFAR (Indian Pollution Monitoring System
Thanks for your review of Draft:System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting (SAFAR). I was wondering where can I see the diff of changes? In revision history the revisions seem to be deleted. MayankBomb (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MayankBomb, I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can see what was removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Understood the changes, you can delete the revisions now.MayankBomb (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

addition to Lalita Sahasranama has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder.
i don't understand, the copy from http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Lalitha_Sahasranamam is not copyrighted,  the disclaimer and the privacy policy are empty. That does qualify it as public domain as its defined to be the state of belonging or being available to the public as a whole, especially through not being subject to copyright or other legal restrictions. where did this go wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarns (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sagarns, 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. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Please have a look at some of the links I placed on your talk page for more info.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Only You (2018 film)
Hi, Diannaa. How are you doing? It seems to me that the introduction ("Elena and Jake meet by chance on New Year's Eve, arguing for the same taxi. However, instead of going their separate ways after sharing a taxi, they start a passionate relationship. Within weeks they are living together, and not long after they talk about starting a family. But, as the seasons pass, reality catches up with them. Falling in love was the easy part, but can they remain in love when life doesn't give them everything they hoped for?") of Only You (2018 film) is a COPYVIO. Can you check it out? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi SirEdimon and thanks for the report. The material appears at several locations online, including Facebook and Rotten Tomatoes. I have removed it. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diannaa. You're great.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Mohyal (caste)
Hey Dianne, I'm new to wikipedia and believe that I made a mistake when citing on this page. I understand that one of my added sections has been removed for this reason. However, when I go back to old versions of the page it looks like its been permanently deleted - could I access these pages again so that I can cite them properly? I had some good material there which I only saved on the Wiki domain (as I didnt save it to my laptop). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by English Singh (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi English Singh. The reason the content is no longer visible is because it was copied from elsewhere online without the permission of the copyright holder. That's a violation of our copyright policy. The sources are not considered reliable ones for our purposes either, because SikhWiki is a wiki, and the other source was a blog. I can send you a copy via email if you like, but we can't use it in the encyclopedia without it being completely re-written and properly sourced. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and please send :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by English Singh (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sent— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Real copyvio?
Thanks for your recent input. An expected outcome, I think. But you might want to also have a look at this. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I smelled socks too; I just didn't know who. Jim Morrison: Cleaned. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we can be sure it's not actually Jim. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why the hell is that article only C-class? Asking for a friend. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess no-one has noticed as it's become such a battle ground. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cleaning up an article tends to make that kind of crap stop. It worked on Hitler, even on Fegelein, now stable and meme-free for several years! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's "great" to hear the original words occasionally. Very sorry if you have to rev-del this as a coyvio. Please try not to block me. Derek Hitler 123 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RE: Mission to Zyxx
Hi, thank you for pointing out my copyright violation on the Mission to Zyxx page. I didn't realize the episode descriptions were copyright but that totally makes sense. Hope you have a great rest of your day. Brsmith19 (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
The full citation is being removed. I recommend the edit history be deleted.

The content is license under CC BY 4.0 according to the journal.

See discussion. QuackGuru ( talk ) 13:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why have you removed the template? Is this journal/website considered to be a reliable source or not? Is the material released under CC-by or is it public domain? Attribution is required either way, but a violation of the terms of the CC-by license and a copyright violation are not the same thing, so revision deletion is not appropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found the article elsewhere online and linked to that copy instead of the potentially predatory journal. The article does appear to be compatibly licensed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is released under CC BY 4.0 but editors are arguing it is under the public domain. A full citation is still required. There should be a bot to flag articles when the CC-by or P-D template is removed. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Only two of the three authors work for the CDC. Regardless, being a CDC employee does not automatically release the material to the public domain. CC-by 4.0 is the correct license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought all three authors worked for the CDC. One worked at the Office of Smoking and Health and the other two worked at the Tobacco and Volatiles Branch division.
 * EranBot or another bot needs to flag revisions when the templates are removed. Others don't seem to understand the purpose of the templates. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Public domain does not appear to be the correct license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles need to be flagged when a template notice is removed. I started a new discussion. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Harry Stack Sullivan edits
Hi Diannaa I have just been reviewing my back email and realized I have not replied to your email below...

"Hello SwannanMan, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Margaret Rioch have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues."

I am actually the author of the copyrighted material from my book on Harry Stack Sullivan and personally hold the copyright. What can I do to restore the page material for the Sullivan wiki-site?

Many thanks for your assistance.

Best

SwannanMan (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

SwannanMan
 * SwannanMan, the source found by the bot was this obituary (not your book), and the copyright holder is shown as the American Psychological Association. I'm not finding matching content within the book. Regardless, if you think the copyright holder would be willing to release the material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyright materials for instructions as to what to do. There's a sample permission email at  WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please undelete
File:DBs-TheSoundofMusic.jpg. Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The Grudge (2020 film) copyright violation
An IP editor has added plagiarized material to The Grudge (2020 film) page:. I believe it is the same information you had previous deleted. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is the same. The person is editing from a place where his IP is changing each time he accesses the site. So I am going to protect the page for a wee while to try to get the message through. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jason Simon
Thank you for the message Diana. I will make an effort to write more on my own. Although I did not realize I had submitted the page for review. I had meant to just save as a draft because I wasn’t finished working on rewriting. How can I simply save it as a draft ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlinnert (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nlinnert the page is a draft. But drafts are subject to our copyright rules, same as any other page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Requesting comment on matters regarding external links and citations with links to pages containing scanned documents
Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights Hello Diannaa, I have previously pinged you on this matter. I have moved the discussion to Copyright talk page. I would appreciate your input, so it can be of future reference. Graywalls (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved it back, because I think it's probably not great to copy-paste 25K of old discussions into a new location, and then invite comment. I'm unsure where the original discussion was; I think the lion's share was at Talk:EMD F7 and User talk:Sphilbrick. Sorry for the static, Mackensen (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like I did respond in that thread, back in November. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I do see your response to Sphilbrick. The ambiguity that I want to settle in the new discussion on the copyright talk page is how links to matters such as entire scanned books, technical service manuals, academic journals, and all sorts of things that are not specifically marked "copyright" produced prior to 1977. Some editor(s) have rebutted that things I have removed under the color of WP:ELNEVER wasn't justified, because the contents in question was before 1977 and lacks affirmative evidence of infringement. Let's someone scan the entire factory service manual for a 1975 Mustang and upload it to their Google Docs, or Mustang fan site. If the manual does not have "Copyright" printed on it, is Wikipedia considering it open to link to cite like: "page 385, 1975 Mustang shop manual, (URL link to a page that has a boat load of scanned manuals)", because it's pre-1977? How do we go about checking if those things were registered? Are we going to go by let it fly until proven to be registered? thank you Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing to do is to start with the Hirtle Chart: commons:Commons:Hirtle chart. Works published in the US from 1924 to 1977 that were published without a copyright notice are in the public domain due to failure to comply with the formalities that were in place at that time. These would be okay to link to, as they are now in the public domain. Documents published in the US after 1978 with or without notice may or may not have had their copyrights renewed. I think it would be up to the person who wants to link to a document to prove that the copyright was never renewed. There's an information page on how to search for copyright renewals at s:Help:Copyright renewals . — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That certainly didn't become clear in the last discussion. Any idea why a lot of journals and manuscripts from organizations such as American Society of Mechanical Engineering prior to 1978 are offered for public viewing on Google Books as they do for 1923 and before materials then? What about industrial facility or locomotive service (not operator) manuals that were probably not meant for the public? Are those published, or are those works "made for hire (corporate authorship)" ? I'm hoping more editors will comment in the copyright page. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope these additional questions are rhetorical ones, as I don't know the answers and I don't know where to find out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, I'd like to see us have guidelines like "uploading or linking to Google Docs to scanned books in their entirety prior to 1978 is ok if there is no copyright marking" or "this is a gray area and should do this and that" in part of the official Wikipedia policy. Thank you for your insight. Graywalls (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Revdel
Hello: could you please scrub some copyvio from the history of page? This diff contains the copyvio'd material, from the New Yorker, which I removed. Here is the Earwig comparison to the New Yorker article. Thanks as always!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are one of my favourite Wikipedians! Always helpful. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ThatMontrealIP! Sorry things went all weird for you at RFPP :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, everyone is under continuous scrutiny! That is just the nature of the game. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Confusion related to compatible licenses
I see you've asked to Bogong56 to not copy and paste from this website, but it appears to be released under a license that seems to be compatible. Am I missing something or is the license not compatible? 15:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * CC-by-NC 3.0 is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. Please see FAQ/Copyright for a list of compatible licenses. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

charles james
I will just add a section that has a spelling correction Helper to Hepler. Thanks for your comment >Binary Photon

A & F Harvey Brothers copyright removal
Hello Diannaa, You had removed the entirety of the edits to A & F Harvey Brothers under claim of copyright, the reason in your edit history being "copied" from a website. However I did not directly "copy" the text, besides a handful of quotations which were marked as quotations.

Instead, I spent several hours rewriting the entire thing to be to the point, and researching additional information. There were multiple sources from other locations. The photograph was public domain as copyright expired.

One of your comments on my talk page was that I must "put all information in (my) own words and structure". --Which is what I did, having re-written it from scratch, removed some irrelevant details, etc. It was impossible to change EVERY word as some appeared to be technical terms relating to the industry and I did not wish to change them without full understanding.

As for the image added, it was of one of the two founders, who lived between 1850 and 1905. The man was in his 20's or 30's, which dates the image approx 1870 or 1880. This puts the image at around 150 years old, and well within public domain.

I feel that instead of simply blanket deleting an entire article, small edits or removals could have been made to specific problem areas.

Can you please either revert this revision, allow it to be merged into the current version, or provide some further insight as to your reasoning for the revision? cheers syn ❀  01:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello User:SL syn. I've temporarily undone part of the revision deletion so that you can review the comparison provided by our copyright tool: This is what the report looked like before I cleaned the article. Not all of the copyright material was added by yourself; some was there from the initial edit. That's why the amount removed was larger than your own edit might indicate was necessary. While I do occasionally paraphrase the copyvio material myself, given the volume of copyvio reports that are filed each day (anywhere from 75 to 100 reports; I personally do 40 to 60 per day, every day) and the amount of time it takes to assess and clean the articles and notify and/or discuss with the editors involved, it's not possible for me to perform re-writes in each instance. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyvios in Women's rights in Iran
Hi Diannaa, I'm currently doing a GOCE c/e of this article and I've come across some text that was directly copied from here, complete with an obvious error I was checking. The website is all rights reserved and doesn't credit Wikipedia as a source. I notice you've rev-deleted lots of historical versions (thank you) but I'll be asking you to do some more revdels once I've done my c/e and checked the history, which may already be hidden of course. There might be more sources involved but I can't check them all. Thanks,  Baffle☿gab  02:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dianna, I've now finished working on the "Education" section; you've already rev-deleted some of the historical versions of this material, which is in the "Education --> Khatami era" sub-section (renamed from "At the time of Khatami"). I can't pinpoint its introduction, it isn't in the latest pre-nuked versions I can access. The material is present in all revisions since your recent mass rev-deletion; here. I'm sorry for the extra workload. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  03:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I found another one; two sentences in "Sports" running from " In 2006..." to "...volleyball matches" that were copied from this NY Times page and removed here. It wouldn't surprise me if there are more copyvios but I'm done for now. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  05:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Baffle gab and thanks for the report. I've done revision deletion up to the point where you cleaned the Sports section (04:45, December 11). Please let me know if any more problems are located that require revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, will do. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  18:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know I've finished my c/e and didn't notice any more copyvios there. Thanks for your help, much appreciated. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  03:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted edits for copyright
Hi,

It appears you that you handled the edits I made to the page anti-communism

I added thousands of characters worth of content to the page, and I regret that I did not more thoroughly put things in my own words.

Is there any way I can review the text? I would like to make future modifications to the article based on the earlier edits I made that got removed. Mmmmmpizza (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can send the deleted material to you via email if you like, but you'll have to activate your Wikipedia email first. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Dianaa, I just set up my e-mail address. Can I please get the text sent to me? Thank you.Mmmmmpizza (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Content was actually removed by another user, but I did the revision deletion. Email sent— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences
F.Y.I. It looks like the copyvio you removed in October is back and the editor doesn't understand what is wrong (they left a msg on the article talk page). MB 14:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored the October version and protected the page and let the editor know about our copyright policy. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried to get in contact with Diannaa telling that the information I put on the ICAS Wiki page is the correct one and open to the public, so I cannot see any problems with copyright issues. Nevertheless I'm blocked out of this page now and the information on it is toatally wrong. But since I'm blocked out I cannot correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo1958 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bo1958, "Open to the public" and "in the public domain" are not the same things. 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 and can't be copied to Wikipedia; it's against our copyright policy to do so. Have a look at some of the links I placed on your talk page for more information.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, how can I assure you that I'm working for this organisation and every information I put online has no copyright by ICAS? If you study our website you'll notice that all of our material provided is free to read for every user. Only if an person want's to use some of the content from the papers we publish we ask them to contact the respective authors directly. But again, all information about ICAS is totally copyright free. And I don't see any problems with the informaation I put online, e.g. all the congress data. If that would be a copyright issue then the information about congresses which is presently online would have the same problem. I thought Wiki is made for making information public to everyone. And since we are a non profit organisation we do that as well. But it would help if users get incomplete or totally false information about us as it is right now. So I ask you to please unblock me from editing this page and putting the information which was on there before the latest change also back online. If that would be a technical problem I could do that as well but obviously only if I'm unblocked. ThanksBo1958 (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but we can't accept material that's been previously published online without the express written consent of the person who wrote it, whether there's a copyright notice on it or not. It's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. Please see WP:donating copyrighted materials for more information. Are you being paid to edit the page? If so, you must put a notice to that effect on your talk page or user page. Please see Paid-contribution disclosure. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Copyright - Aleem Zafar
Hello Diannaa, hope you're well. I just got a notification that i have added copyright material. Would like to clear this issue out. 1) The article & the biography posted here was initially posted on Wikipedia but the article was taken down due to less references probably an year or two ago. Therefore the article was on wikipedia & it got copied to a lot of different websites. I can write down a copyright thing for wikipedia by taking permission from the the person himself. Requesting you to please revert the article back 2) The pictures are a public property & they don't have copyright issues. I have the permission to use them 3) I'm adding more references w https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aleem_Zafar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiraali87 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you don't have the right to use the content from the old version of the page, as you are not the author. The page was removed as "A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)" as well as "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and the new draft has already been declined once. A second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about yourself or a client or someone you know 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) 15:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just to clearify i'm not directly or indirectly linked with the person. The reason i got to know was becuase its copied on a lot of websites moreover about the pictures i said because anyone can get in touch with the person & ask for the permission its not a copyrighted material as far as i know. Can you please send me the or atleast revert the article back so i can edit it & submit it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiraali87 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to do that; the article was deleted as the subject is not notable, and the draft was declined for the same reason. There's no point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The user User:Nikhil Srivastava is consistently vandalising some pages.
This user was previously blocked from editing some pages. He's again started to vandalise pages Kayastha and Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha by either adding poor content with no source or citing dubious sources, poor formatting and non-so-nuetral tone which has resulted in significant drop in readability and overall quality of these articles over past few days. OMG! When I undid his edits he happened to report me. I am a new editor so I don't know what to do in such scenarios, please look into the matter! Any suggestion from your side? Sattvic7 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Sattvic7. I only visited the page to examine a potential copyright issue. But I can offer some general advice when in a disagreement about content. Your first stop should be the article talk page, where you can discuss which material you think is low quality and why you think it should be removed. If you wish to pursue it further, please see the steps at WP:dispute resolution for some other things you can try. Also, please don't use the word "vandalism" unless it meets the Wikipedia definition, which is intentionally doing harm to the encyclopedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You informed me on my page that "Historical facts" are copyright???
You wrote: "Your additions to Indian National Congress have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. "

Source: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/copyright/historical-book.htm

IN MY OPINION YOU WANT TO HIDE FACT THAT "IT WAS BRITISH IDEA TO FORM CONGRESS PARTY". HENCE IF ANYONE TRIED TO WRITE TRUTH IT IS IMMEDIATELY DELETED DUE TO VESTED POLITICAL INTEREST. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU DELETE WIKI CONTENT HISTORY & TRUTH CANNOT REMAIN HIDDEN. INTERNET IS TOO BIG ...BIGGER THAN WIKI. Prashanna01 (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The material was copied from another website, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Review ICAS Wikipedia site
Dear Diannaa,

I'm working for the International Council of Aeronautical Sciences so I can assure you that the information I put on is absolutely correct and does not create any problems with copyright issues since 95% of that information is public knowledge. If I unederstand it correctly public information like "1968 American moon landing" cannot be a copyright protected information. The information which was put on the ICAS site after my work over at the beginning of the week and which is online now is completely wrong, so I ask you to please not put it online again. I can't correct anything since you blocked me out. Bo1958 (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) All the information I put on the website is online at the respective ICAS homepage. So I cannot see any copyright issues. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo1958 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Bo1958. If you're working there you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article at all. I've placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Andy Gipson
Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the Andy Gipson article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cleaned. User will likely return, so I will watch-list for a while. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
- FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 00:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Replied— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers watchers welcome
pls see Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson.-- Moxy 🍁 06:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Moxy, it looks like the copyright issue was mostly sorted by the time I got there. I've done a little more cleanup. Everything in this article needs meticulous checking, as some of the citations provided do not support the claims made. POV and unencyclopedic language needs to be fixed as well.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

People when citing AV media
Hi Diannaa,

How are you? A question when citing AV.

cite AV media |people= |date= |title=|trans-title= |medium= |language= English|url= |access-date= |type= |time= |location= |publisher= |id= |isbn= |oclc= |quote= |ref=

When asked people= do we put the name of the star over the title or the director. For example I did some work on the page of film star Chuck Norris. For 3 of his films I use a package called 5 Film Chuck Norris Collection. For some strange reason there is a romance film in the package with and the fifth one an episode of a Tv show from the 1950s with Charles Bronson.

When I use this package a citation on people I use Norris, since the box set represents his action film persona. Also, to keep it real, I don't want to type all these directors' name. It keeps it simple.

cite AV media|url=|title=5 Film Chuck Norris Collection|date=2013|people=Chuck Norris|type=DVD|language=English|publisher=Echo Bridge Acquisition Corp LLC|trans-title=|location=|time=|access-date=|ref=|id=09600922143|isbn=|oclc=|quote=|medium=

In the case of a film which has actor Stuart Whitman among three other leads who had their names over the title and is not necessarily a signature role I just put the director's name, or many various they're horror sets with over 15 titles.

cite AV media|url=|title=Sandman|date=1997|people=Eric Woster|type=|language=English|publisher=Third Coast Entertainment Inc.|trans-title=|location=Hollywood, California|time=|access-date=|ref=|id=601243601230|oclc=|quote=|medium=VHS

If for some reasons the director's name isn't on the box but would have several stars with their name over the title. I would put all the stars name or any highlighted name which is sometime the cases with producers.

Anyways this how go doing this I either put the most highlighted on the cover or the director when there is several. In the future if I use a box set with over 7 titles I will put various. Let me know if it's ok with you.Filmman3000 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The documentation page does not give detailed info on what to do when using the "people" parameter. However "people" is an alias for "author". So for instances where you wish to list multiple people, you could use  and so on in the usual way. It's okay to do it as best you can; perfection is not required— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Diannaa,
 * cite AV media|url=|title=5 Film Chuck Norris Collection|date=2013|people=|first1=Michael|last1=Preece|first2=Michael|last2=Preece|first3=Eric|last3=Norris|first4=Gerald|last4=Meyer|first1=Richard|last1=Donner|type=DVD|language=English|publisher=Echo Bridge Acquisition Corp LLC|trans-title=|location=|time=|access-date=|ref=|id=09600922143|isbn=|oclc=|quote=|medium=


 * So if I understand above is the preferred format. I removed Norris's name from people and added all the directors in the order of the film billing as per the cover the package.

The two questions that comes to mind are?

In this package The first and second movie have the same director would I have to mention his name twice?

If I wanted to be precise to a section, like one of the specific film include, an audio commentary, a making of, or an interview. Where or what need to be added for a sub section?Filmman3000 (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) I would only mention the director's name once. (2) Identify the specific point on the media using the field  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Other questions just sprung up, I am sometime stuck with Av Media that doesn't have an Isbn so under ID I put the bar code or the catalog number. Sometime there I have both and I choose one or the other. Is there a preferable one under ID or should there be another section created?


 * In some case especially in the Hong Kong and B movie genre. The director sometime puts an Americanized name so on certain editions of a film you have the pseudonym, hence I presume I put that pseudonym when it comes to the edition?


 * Third question when I use time and name a movie do I need to name all the other directors?

Thanks for everything if there's anything I can do to help you personally feel free to ask.Filmman3000 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't know the answers to these questions. Please have a look at the Template:Cite AV media and see if you can decide what to do using the information on that page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright assistance at National Register of Citizens of India
I would greatly appreciate some assistance at National Register of Citizens of India; some of it is obviously a copyright violation, but it's unclear which websites have copied from Wikipedia and which haven't, so I'm unsure how much of the page is a copyright violation; also, I'm INVOLVED on closely related topics, and don't want to take any admin actions that aren't patently obvious. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Legislation in India enjoys copyright protection. However it's clear from the formatting that it's quotations, which are not a copyright issue per se. But that's a lot of non-free content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Hello Diannaa. Could you please check the recent changes on this page? Puduḫepa 18:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Found it: It's from this paper. I will do some revision deletion. Thank you for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The same pair also edited Jeitun and added copyright material. I've done revision deletion there as well. Thanks also to User:WikiDan61 for removing this material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as always. Puduḫepa 06:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that this page needs monitoring Puduḫepa 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also will watch Jeitun. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

About non-free content?
The Darkening Age

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria

It states: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

I underline: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available"

Are you sure that I cannot use this review as source?: https://www.thetablet.co.uk/books/10/11298/blame-the-christians

En historiker (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you've got a 36-word stub with a 295-word reception section (in the current version) and and 806-word reception section in the version before I made the trims. That's wildly disproportionate to the size of the stub, even if it isn't all direct quotations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Climate apocalypse page copyright issues
Hi Diannaa,

Thanks for the information about copyright and copy/pasting source content. I'll be more careful in the future. Is it possible to see the most recent version before my contributions were removed? I think I can tidy it up and edit it per the copyright guidelines and it would be much faster than trying to find the reports/studies and starting from scratch. I think it's a pretty poor page without the added sections.

Best,

--Ebenwilliams (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am disinclined to do that, because the overlap the two sources I mentioned in my edit summary (this one and this one was absolutely huge :( — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll start again.

Best, --Ebenwilliams (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers
Thank you MarnetteD ~!— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome D. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio at Circumstellar habitable zone
I'm sure that there must be a more appropriate way to report copyvios that via your talk page, so please forgive this intrusion. Regards --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Circumstellar habitable zone/Archive 1.
 * Hi John Maynard Friedman and thanks for the report. Reporting here is just fine, and a big time saver for the reporting editor. I've cleaned that particular issue. Thanks for the alert. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for dealing. I'm still in shock that 30 months' worth of edits by other editors have been caught in the collateral damage. (I do realise that you had no other choice, my anger is aimed squarely at the person who stole the material).
 * So next question: is there a bot that will check all other edits by this editor to see what else they have done? Although they have been invited to confess all and throw themselves at the mercy of the court, I will be very surprised if they do so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no bot to do it; it is done article by article, edit by edit even, by a dedicated crew of (currently) mostly just one person. The place to go if you feel a case is warranted is Contributor copyright investigations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

cheers

 * Thanks Onel5969! Edmonton stats today: Sunrise 8:47 MST; Sunset 16:15 MST. Hooray for solstice, the happy turning point!— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Phoenix stats today: Sunrise - 7:28 MST; Sunset - 17:42 MST. Onel 5969  TT me 10:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's a little more humane. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Further Copyvio in Nordic Model approach to prostitution
Hi, Despite your previous warning, there seems to have been a further copy and paste in the article Nordic Model approach to prostitution. Please see dif and Does decriminalising pimping further women’s rights?. Regards --John B123 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit to add and Real change for aboriginal women begins with the end of prostitution. --John B123 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well both of these had quotation marks, so I removed them, but did not do revision deletion. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

UK medical professor suspended
Hi Diannaa - You've deleted my update to Akhilesh Reddy due to 'unsourced additions.' Can you give me some pointers on this? The MPTS have suspended this physician for nine months as he was claiming a double academic salary. This information is in the public domain through the MPTS website. Do I need to include a link to the page that states this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargotLeadbetter (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MargotLeadbetter: Yes you do. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for some information on how to do it. I've placed some additional handy links on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding   to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you~!— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll fix it now if you don't mind, please don't delete yet (copyright, John Cullen Nugent)
Right away. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please follow the instructions on your user talk page as to how to proceed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought this was about the article I just created, not the Nugent article (i.e., Louis Riel statue).

ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the Louis Riel section in the temp space, hope this is enough. I wrote this, the Northern section and the main article all in one night, so I guess I missed the copyright flags as I did so. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please try to re-write the material in your own words instead of using a series of quotations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've pared down more and replaced more words and phrases.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks, — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Number 1 Northern

 * Okay I've had a look at No. 1 Northern and found some more violations. Please be aware that we have an automatic copyright detection system, and all edits over a certain size are being checked by a bot and flagged for attention of copyright specialists. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I take it these were less serious? I can barely notice what's different. Thanks for all your help.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My additions to Park Seung
Dear Diannaa:

You have raised potential plagiarism issues about my additions to Park Seung's page. I wrote all this update myself based on dialogues with Mr. Park and his biography written in Korean. I am his son and it is natural for me to have an intimate knowledge about his life and career. I did not copy anything in making these additions.

Also, you said the file I had uploaded(Seungpark2002.jpg) was missing permission information. Mr. Park owns the photo which he gave me so to add to his wikipedia page. There is no copyright problem whatsoever.

Please do not delete my additions and the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goyejoo (talk • contribs) 01:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The prose that overlapped was the descriptions of the speeches, in the bibliography. The content was previously published here, so we can't host it without permission of the copyright holder. Please see WP:Donating copyright materials for how the copyright holder can provide a release under a compatible license.The photo is on the Commons. If you are the copyright holder, please provide evidence of permission by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. There's full instructions at Commons:OTRS. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Generally, the person who takes the photo, not the person being photographed, is the copyright holder of the photo. So, if this photo was taken by someone other than Park Seung, then that person is going to be considered the copyright holder even if they gave a copy of the photo to Park Seung. In some cases, this might be considered to be a work for hire kind of thing where there was an agreement between Park Seung and the studio to officially transfer copyright ownership to Park Seung for some fee, but you're going to have to establish that. The reasons for this are explained in more detail in c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyrights, but basically Wikipedia only accepts free licenses which allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime for any purpose, including commercial purposes (i.e. to make money). No licenses which places and restrictions such as "For Wikipedia use only", "For non-commercial use only", etc. are going to be accepted by Wikipedia. So, the copyright holder of the photo giving you permission to use the file on Wikipedia isn't enough, they have to be willing to give anyone anywhere in the world permission to use the file for pretty much any reason. This is why Wikipedia needs to hear explicitly from the copyright holder of the photo as explained in c:Commons:OTRS. Wikipedia needs to make sure the copyright holder fully understands what it means to release their work under a free license and that once they do so they cannot change their mind at a later date. If Park Seung is the copyright holder of this image, please ask him to verify this and give his explicit consent for the file to be uploaded to Wikipedia by emailing Wikimedia OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!
Thank you Star Trekker~!— 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problems on Luke Jerram article
In May 2018 you sorted out copyright problems on this article, however it was added back by the same IP in June 2018. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you for the report. — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Charolais-Brionnais Country
Hello Diannaa, thanks for your edit and the detailed message. Wishing you a happy holiday and many more fruitful contributions for the new year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Baratier (talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Middle East content in two articles

 * History of nudity
 * Nudity

Thanks for your first edit. I admit to being lazy, cutting and pasting from a source; and I generally go back and paraphrase. However, your edit changing "heat, dust and sunshine" to "elements" is misleading, since it is the specific elements listed that make the clothes necessary. I cannot think of any alternative wording to accurately convey the meaning. I could say Desert climate, but that is also too general. People in the Middle East adopted clothing that is essentially a portable tent because of the particular combination of conditions they faced.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your version " heat, dust, and sunshine" is almost identical to the source "heat, dust, and blazing sunshine". Everybody knows what type of weather a person in the Middle East might face, so there's no call for a list of specific characteristics. My advice: If you can't think of a way to re-word it, leave it out.— 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "Everybody knows what type of weather a person in the Middle East might face" at the level of detail the source is describing cannot possibly be true for the typical reader. Rewording the details to the single word "elements" misrepresents the source.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to re-add material that's copied directly from the source document, and you shouldn't either. — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded again, with less clarity, by referencing "cooling by evaporation" and dust storms, which others might call a personal interpretation of the source. In ~13 years of editing, I have never encountered this strict interpretation of copyright policy.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio at First observation of gravitational waves
Another copyvio by u|Rowan Forest (former BatteryIncluded) in First observation of gravitational waves, reported at Talk:Circumstellar habitable zone/Archive 1, I'm afraid. "See the second paragraph of UniverseToday.com's article and compare with Special:Diff/705815813/705821268 (edit by BatteryIncluded at 19:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)"

- u|ProfessorPine, 08:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Time for a WP:CCI, do you agree? (I will do it next week, if you do). It is sad to see an apparently respected contributor make so basic an error of judgement.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CCI calls for you to have five examples - if you can compile that, a case can be opened. Thanks, — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

2 more sleeps - Ho, Ho, Ho!!
Thank you!— 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

 * Thank you! Seasons greetings! — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays

 * Appalachian Bewildered Cat.jpg (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)]]


 * This looks like my kitty, Ninja! Merry Christmas!— 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Diannaa and thanks for your great work this year.
Thank you! Best wishes for the holidays!— 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I second the above. Merry Christmas Diannaa and I also thank you for all your hard work this past year. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you!— 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Licensing of work
Hi Diannaa, I see you removed some material added by User:Greghenderson2006 to Pet, No. 9 and Alexander D. Henderson Jr.. He has emailed OTRS agreeing to CC-license his book; I see the book itself also says it's CC-licensed on its first page.

So what should be done about that? I realize there may also be notability and original research concerns, particularly for the boat. —Emufarmers(T/C) 00:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the license was added to the book the next day, according to the user's talk page. I've removed the revision-deletion from Pet, No. 9 - it doesn't look like I placed any on the other article's edits. — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはDiannaaたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Martine Fougeron
Hi, have removed some copyvio from this page, could you please give it another check, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All clean. Thanks for the report. — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for cleaning it up Atlantic306 (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Poem question
Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Tony Hoagland. It looks like it's the first stanza from this poem. There's really no sourced critical commentary of it though per WP:NFC so it might be pretty hard to justify if it needed to be treated as non-free content even as a representative example of Hoagland's work since there's nothing about the poem itself per se such as whether it won a awards or is the poet's best known work, etc. anywhere else in the article. Not sure if a stanza of a poem, even formatted as a block quote, is also OK per WP:COPY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure, so removing as a precaution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

COIN discussion
Hello! We have been having a COIN discussion about User:Biografer. The editor is a prolific creator of new bios. One of their articles was reported for COI but on further inspection we discovered that the user creates many, many articles that are thin paraphrases of medical journal bios and the like. Christian Borgemeister is a very recent example. Earwig shows it at 35%. This is after being warned at COIN by an admin not to copyvio anything. A few days ago they created Rodney L. Belcher, which comes in at 55.4% on Earwig. Granted, many of the detected items are standard hospital names and the like. But there is direct, albeit minor copying. Biografer's response in the thread was to say that he understands copyvio and that "I think that as long as the copyvio is not above 50% it should be fine." Is it acceptable, or should we take this to ANI... or do you have any suggestions? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is another from a month ago, Harold Koenigsberg, which comes in at 55% in Earwig and has a couple of direct match sentences.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And Earwig says 33% for Anu Bradford, with two direct sentences matching. I'll stop there as there are obviously plenty. We tried to advise the user that such close paraphrases are problematic. But no positive response there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the articles he's created have appeared on the listing at CopyPatrol but I have never had to issue him a warning. For example on both Harold Koenigsberg and Anu Bradford, the overlap is job titles and things like that, which are not possible to re-word. I don't agree with the statement that "I think that as long as the copyvio is not above 50% it should be fine"; obviously there will be many cases that are not okay even with a much lower result on Earwig's tool. Each case needs to be looked at carefully and not just using the percentage given by the tool. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight on this! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracies about a subject's death
Hi Diaana,

I have done recent work on both Bruce Lee (a bit) and his son Brandon Lee (a lot) pages.

A recurring that thing I read about while researching is something known as The Bruce Lee curse, a superstition along the line that every first male of the family will die a tragic death. Published rumors that it was the mafia who killed them, and all kinds of weird stuff.

It is not a subject I am comfortable with, and I will not over elaborate the conspiracy theories of their death on their pages. Even if these conspiracies are widely published.

The sad thing is that the so called Bruce Lee curse is notable enough to have its own page. And I think it is unavoidable to skip it on both their pages.

I have brought this to the attention of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, but the topic didn't gained traction. Since I intent to pursue the Brandon Lee article and it is not as central to him compared to his father, I think it needs to be said in passing.

Regarding Bruce Lee's death rumors, I wan't to note that I will not pursue on his page, unless one day (not the near future) I feel I can engage about this properly, nor will ever create a page about that.

Anyways between these two sentences about his passing I will add the following.

Attempts to save him were unsuccessful, and Lee was pronounced dead on March 31, 1993 at 1:03 pm. EST. He was 28 years old. The shooting was ruled an accident due to negligence.

Attempts to save him were unsuccessful, and Lee was pronounced dead on March 31, 1993 at 1:03 pm. EST. He was 28 years old. An investigation took place. It resurrected decades old rumours liking it to his father's death. The final ruling was an accident due to negligence on set.

I feel that the Brandon Lee article is my first significant collaboration to Wikipidia. I cited his whole career, most of the other sections are complete aside from martial arts and legacy. This is the only aspect of his life I will report before publishing, I do not think there is much elaboration beyond that but if there is and you don't mind... I will pass it by you.Filmman3000 (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't know anything about this topic and don't want to comment on your proposed edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Assistance Editing Animus Theatre Company
Hello Diannaa,

I am attempting to edit, so as to highlight/elevate notability of Animus Theatre Company but am encountering some difficulties, and your editing prowess is impressive. Are your notes simply meant to imply that I re-submit edits/copy in a different format? (ShoeSchool420 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are several problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.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. It may or may not apply to you.A third problem is notability. I'm not sure that the organization is notable (as defined by Wikipedia). The article as written does not give any indication as to why the subject is important enough or significant enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time. Hence the deletion nomination. Please don't remove the deletion nomination template; let an administrator assess and decide. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. The speedy deletion has been contested in detail as notability has been detailed in comparison to similar organizations. Any advice you might offer as to possible additional information to include would be helpful. If conflicts of interest are avoided, can the copyright issues be specified so they might be rectified? Many thanks. (ShoeSchool420 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Copying from the organization's website is not okay, unless permission is received by us in writing. Please see WP:donating copyright materials for instructions as to how to do that. For specifics as to what-all was copied, please see these two reports. Click on the iThenticate links to view the overlap.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Article has been moved to draftspace as an alternative to deletion: Draft:Animus Theatre Company. Please read the remarks at User talk:BeeKayPress for more info. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Portugal election articles
Hello, and sorry to be a bother, but it seems that a lot of the portugese election articles, under their Electoral system section have a great amount of content that appears to be copied from http://electionresources.org/pt/index_en.html#SYSTEM. The URL was online with that content at least in 2006, which is earlier than I can trace any of the offending articles. Thoughts? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just happened to see this. While I do agree that the copyvio issue needed to be solved once found, I do not think revdeling two years worth of revisions in such a large amount of articles is useful, essentially forbidding average users from checking any content from these articles between 2017 and December 2019; most of these edits are entirely unrelated to the issue at hand. This just exceeds the intended scope of WP:REVDEL, which is limited and subject to strict guidelines. Revdeling such a massive amount of revisions should have been discussed first. Impru 20  talk 17:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * SEVEN YEARS of revisions hidden at 2015 Portuguese legislative election. As per WP:REVDEL, RevisionDelete is mainly intended for simple use and fairly recent material. Text that exists in numerous revisions (e.g. on busy pages) or which has been the subject of many others' comments may not be practical to redact. Redaction of such material should take into account how practical and effective redaction will be, how disruptive it would be (e.g. to others' valid posts), and whether redaction will itself draw attention to the issue. No hard line exists; judgment is required. Administrators in this situation may wish to initially edit the page to revert or remove the grossly improper material, and then consult. There is a blatant misjudgment in such a large scale application of WP:REVDEL. Impru 20  talk 18:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a judgement call as to what to do. I decided to do all sixteen articles the same way. Please feel free to get a second opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redaction of such material should take into account how practical and effective redaction will be, how disruptive it would be (e.g. to others' valid posts), and whether redaction will itself draw attention to the issue. It would be nice to see your judgement on where and when did you take this into account before asking for a second opinion. Otherwise, it would not be a "second" but just a "first" opinion what I should get. If REVDEL intends for attention not to be drawn to the issue, you may have achieved the exact opposite. It is nigh to impossible for someone not to notice 400 revisions being entirely revdeled, when the affected content was in fact only added in one or two of these. Impru 20  talk 18:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'd favor simply removing the content, given that it has stood for a long time, and REVDELing would, in my view, be impractical. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Another copyright question
Hi Diannaa - a user has added content copied from this site (without proper attribution). The website does have a note saying "All copy within Programme Information can be used free of charge on condition that it credits the relevant BBC programme or service" at the top of the page - would this be sufficient to allow us to copy from it, if the user were to add a citation and attribution template to the article? Or, is this inadequate for our purposes, and should the content be removed and revdelled? Thanks in advance Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The page is marked at the bottom as "Copyright © 2019 BBC" so my opinion is no, it's not okay to copy, even with attribution. "Free of charge" is not the same thing as "public domain". It means you don't have to buy it, not that it's okay to copy.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , understood, thanks - I'll notify the user and revdel the revisions. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent image file uploads
Hello Diannaa. I wonder could you have a quick look as User talk:Charlton Malinga? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, will get to it in a few minutes here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Seems he is a new editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All four of his uploads have issues and three of them will have to be deleted. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

File:PartridgeMural.jpg
Hi Diannaa. Just making you aware of WP:MCQ in case you weren't already. Please correct any mistaken advice I might've given the uploader of this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's all pretty perfect. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Culture of Australia edit
Hi there. You removed a recent addition regarding dance. You said it was copied from somewhere but couldn't find the source. That puzzled me and thought I would check why you knew it was copied, if you couldn't locate that? It seemed to me like a useful addition. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It has numbers for citations but the citations themselves are missing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks hamiltonstone (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your edit on my draft page
Hi

Why are you reviewing / editing a draft page?.... Its not complete and therefore not ready for review - I'm well aware I've cut & pasted some information ... I assume that's how the whole of history works (referencing work that's come before) ... by the time I've completed the editing it will be in my words

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwise (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, plagiarism is never how it works here (or in academia, journalism, or literature, for that matter).  Summarize, paraphrase, and cite sources from the beginning because copyright violations could get us sued.  Here is a guide on how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - we can't host copyright violations anywhere - not in article space, nor in draft space or user space. If you want to copy text from sources before writing your own prose based on it, do it offline and only paste it here once the text is ready.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for page protecion
Hello Diannaa, How are you ? :) this is Sai Raghavendra Puranam aka Raghusri, can you please protect this film artcile Sarileru Neekevvaru temporarily why because some un-necessary edits by some non registered users and moreover as the film relase date is nearing vandalism also increases day by day, so that my humble request to you is : please protect the above film artcile temporarily till 31 January 2020. Thank you :) Sai Raghavendra Puranam 11:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The page is currently protected until Tuesday. If the problem resumes after that, please post a request at WP:RFPP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

World Bank documents
I rolled back a series of edit including one copied from this source

I have seen copyright issues with World Bank documents before, and I've always been mildly surprised that the World Bank doesn't make their material open source. In this particular case, the document had the following statement:

"It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. (emphasis added)"

I wondered if this was an exception to their practice or a change in practice. However, despite the reference to "open source", I didn't see specific wording with an acceptable cc license. Furthermore, the document identifies that it can be found at this site which contains a clear copyright statement bottom of the page. That said, I've seen situations where there is a formulaic copyright statement at the bottom of a page, and that page contains content which itself may be differently licensed.

I think I'm on solid ground arguing that this particular source is not clearly licensed in a way that we can use it but I thought I'd run it by you as well.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish people wouldn't use the phrases "open access" and "free to use", because they give the impression that the material is public domain or compatibly licensed when that is not necessarily the case. "Open access" actually means the material is visible and not behind a paywall, and "free to use" means you don't have to buy it. I am interpreting World Bank the same way as you; their stuff is not released under a compatible license and it's not okay to copy unless the specific document displays a compatible license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Good point about their use of the term. Thanks. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have repaired your cut-and-paste page move

 * I simply wanted to take a few seconds to thank you for the information. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Draft:Saltatory pattern of fetal heart rate
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Draft:Saltatory pattern of fetal heart rate. I do not think that Draft:Saltatory pattern of fetal heart rate fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because I am not seeing more than brief factual phrases common to the listed sites and the draft. I request that you consider not re-tagging Draft:Saltatory pattern of fetal heart rate for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I know that you are experienced in copyright matters, and perhaps there is something that I am not seeing here. I did mark the formal definition as a quotation. Is there more that is needed here, in your view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also quite a bit of overlap with a second paper, this one. It's behind a paywall, but the overlap is visible by using the iThenticate link. As you may know, potential copyright issues are being flagged by a bot and listed at CopyPatrol. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. I mentioned this fact on the draft talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)