User talk:Diannaa/Archive 83

GEM
Thank you for re-editing my contribution to the page. I understand that I might have used too much copyright content and honestly appreciated your inputs. That said, I do not fully capture why you restored the maintenance tags as I felt that my edits had taken care of those issues. More specifically: 1) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject: perhaps the original author did back in 2017, but I surely don't and apparently neither do you nor the other editors who contributed since that time. 2) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral: the website of the consortium was removed and references listed included universities and a very top academic journal like 'Small Business Economics'. I am sure there the web has countless websites listing the use of GEM data, but it becomes a matter of using the references appropriately. Do you think there should be a section listing academic studies using GEM data? 3) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations: I think the numbers clearly show the ongoing relevance of this project on a global scale (25 years of history, 115 countries participating, use of data by the UN, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the OECD) Again, thank you Mobinow (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Please post on the article talk page to discuss your proposed removal of the maintenance tags. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, done! Mobinow (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Iona College
Hi Diannaa-Thank you for flagging issues with the edits I made on the Iona College page. I am an employee of the College and have been asked to update the Wikipedia page. Can you let me know if the image was the only issue or if there were other issues with my updates? Thanks! Marcomgael (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There were a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. The problem involved prose copied from the school's website as well as the image.The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Some help
Hi, I'm new to Wiki so I was wondering if you could help me. I saw you reverted my edit on the England national page. I must agree, that I do feel my edit went over the top in the history sections. I was wondering, though, on how do you go around attribution? How do I copy content from other Wiki pages with attribution? If I go over the edits I made, such as trimming down my edit on the history section, and learning how to fully attribution, would you allow my edit to go through? Appreciate it. Woozworlduser (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I wouldn't favor adding all that content, as the main article England is supposed to be an overview of the topic. Details on different aspects belong in the sub-articles. That's why sub-articles were invented: to prevent the main article from becoming too large to read or edit comfortably. We start creating sub-articles when a page reaches about 10,000 words. England is currently 17301 words, even without your additions. You can see at the bottom of the article there's a set of templates that offer our readers links to our articles on various topics that they might like to read about further.Regarding attribution: While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,  . It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination.  — Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem on WIPO Lex
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/info/faq.html, which is not released under a compatible license. That's because their terms of use states "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO." Our license allows derivative works with no such restriction. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Diannaa. This is odd because all content produced by WIPO since 2017 is published under a CC BY 4.0 licence, as stated in the terms of use of their website . I have discussed that with WIPO several times, and except for situations where a report include elements copyrighted by other parties, all their websites and all their content are CC BY. I have tried to find what piece of text was an issue and I have tried to find where you found that section in the FAQ. And could not find any of those.
 * Can you please tell me in which section you found "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO. » And please tell me as well as which part of the text was problematic and removed from my edits please ? I’ll revert back to WIPO Lex team to find out if that piece of legal text you mention might be a leftover from before 2017 ? And if a sentence is a copy of something you believe to be copyrighted, then I’ll get them to send a permission. Please revert to me. Thanks in advance. Anthere (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am acting WIR at WIPO. Anthere (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The page you link to says "This is in line with the Creative Commons – Attribution (BY) 4.0 – license" which is not the same thing as saying that the content is released under that license, because they very intentionally go on to make a restriction that's not part of the license: "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO." The terms of the cc-by-4.0 license states that "no additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." So this is not actually released under license, because they've added extra conditions, which is not allowed under cc-by-4.0. — Diannaa (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They also state that "From November 15, 2016, new WIPO publications as well as other selected content are available for use under Creative Commons licenses and clearly marked as such." The particular page that was copied has no such marks or notice. So, that particular page does not appear to be released under license. For comparison, here is an example of the way they mark the specific pages/reports that are released under license. — Diannaa (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it makes sense. I’ll revert to them to ask them what they suggest. I suppose I can rephrase the sentences removed. Thanks. Anthere (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, we rephrased. Felt like the easiest option. But I now keep in mind that the website itself is restricted. Anthere (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

German auxiliary cruiser Pinguin
Could you have a look at the above article. It appears to be a near complete copyvio (96.8%) of https://web.archive.org/web/20090205181433/http://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/pinguin.html from 2010. Looks like it was picked up once but readded by the now banned editor Lyndaship (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the violation by restoring an old revision. I won't be doing revision deletion though, because to do so would hide 12 yrs worth of edits. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Question
Hello, guru of all things copyright. Here are 2 links to the same article:. The first is to the paywalled paper itself, the second I got via the WP-library>Proquest. Unlike say JSTOR, that link doesn't seem to expire/demand login later. To your knowledge, is it problematic to add the proquest link to a cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot view the ProQuest version in full, because I am not logged in. I don't know if ProQuest has the right to re-publish content from The Telegraph. Why not just link to the original article? Fun fact: Earwig's tool can view the whole article, even through the Telegraph's paywall. — Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason to add the ProQuest would have been because it would have been more helpful to the general reader, but if its not, that's moot (that is a fun fact). And now I see that ProQuest has kept me logged in, probably a cookie-thing, but if I log out I can't read it in full either. So not wrong in cite but also on the whole pointless. Oh well, thanks for talking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just confirmed your Earwig claim. That's hilarious. Have to test that on more paywalls. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Try it on the Washington Post, lol — Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Boston Globe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Miles Quaritch
Yeah I used as the basis for the biograpghy, same was done for Jake Sully's article Advofspec (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for both articles. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future.  — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have started using more attribution, thanks! Advofspec (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Longmont Museum & Cultural Center
Hi Diannaa - I work for the City of Longmont and the Longmont Museum & Cultural Center. The content currently on the Longmont Museum & Cultural Center wikipedia page is very out of date. I updated it last week to bring it up to date, but it appears all my edits were rejected. We have complete permission to use the content I posted because we wrote it about ourselves (i.e. the history of the Museum) and would like to share this information with the wiki community. Joanharrold (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio at Marie Claire
Hi Diannaa, looks like a revdel is needed at Marie Claire; the content was added with this edit with text copied from marieclaireinternational.com. Carlstak (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Diannaa. Carlstak (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

About the copyright advice
Thank you for the message on my talk page. I took the advice and I'm going through the copyright and policy guidelines. Skhofeni (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with broken references
Hi Diannaa, you recently removed some copyright violating content from the article German State Theatre Timișoara. Unfortunately this left a broken reference in the article, which I can't fix because I can't see the deleted revisions. Would you be able to repair the reference please? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Found it. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio, but I need help
I need this page deleted. I created the redirect, but misspelled Repository and have no clue how to make it go away. I made one with the correct spelling, which is fine. I am sure there is a technical way I can request this with some template or something, but I have no clue how to do that. Thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted. The way to request is via tagging .  — Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your "always willing to help" attitude. SusunW (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive feedback. — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright help
Hi Diannaa, hope you're doing well! I am having some issues with an editor at Endogenous retrovirus, where they copied text from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11423012 (CopyPatrol link) and have repeatedly reinstated the text after removal. At User talk:DanCherek, I am concerned by their statements and misunderstanding of copyright policy. Could you assess the recent edits and perform any removals / revision deletions as necessary? Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Sorry for the delay, I was away from computer for a while. — Diannaa (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Much appreciated. DanCherek (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At least I have Internet! Rogers network has been down all day, Canada-wide. I am on Telus. — Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, just saw it in the news! I had Rogers when I used to live in Ottawa (my hometown!), but that was a long time ago. Glad you're still online :) DanCherek (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Turnitin down for scheduled maintenance
There have been no new CopyPatrol reports since 22:19 UTC, as the service is undergoing scheduled maintenance. https://twitter.com/turnitinstatus. I don't know if the error message we are receiving when trying to view an iThenticate ticket is related or not. See ticket T309816 for my comments on that. It might be a separate issue, I don't know. — Diannaa (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Etruscan
Hi Diannaa. First, thanks for all the work you do here. Second, you noted that you took down some of the content on Etruscan and that I needed to pay more attention to copyright and plagiarism issues. I have tried to be fairly careful on the plagiarism front, but it would be great if you see somewhere when I fall down on that and let me know specifically, so I can learn. The issue of wikipedia and copyright is what I need to (and have started to) learn more about. It seems rather restrictive. I'll try to see if I can determine whether something is copyrighted or not in the future. Any hints on how to do that (besides the points made on the copyright page that you linked and that I have read now) would be helpful. In general, it would be great if you could indicate exactly what was wrong with particular deletions, again, so I can learn better, though I know this puts a burden on your already busy schedule. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! Johundhar (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlapping content. It should be pretty clear why I determined that there's too much overlap with the source, and had to remove it. If you are unable to rewrite this material in your own words, you will have to leave it out.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. That being said, the vast majority of print material and stuff you find online has its copyright status clearly indicated. The particular work that the content was copied from is https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118354933.ch14. The webpage is marked as "Copyright © 1999-2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved". When I click in the link to have a look at a pdf copy of the chapter, it offers to sell it to me, which is a clear indication that it's not available under license. The content is a book chapter from the book A Companion to the Etruscans which is marked as © 2016 John Wiley & Sons in its front matter. — Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hawala and crime
Hi Diannaa, I came across this while doing page review. I ran earwig and its report 92.5% from Hawala. Is that stringfixer public domain? That whole block from Post-9/11 money laundering crackdowns section is the same as that site. Any help is appreciated.  scope_creep Talk  20:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That looks like a copy of our article Hawala, — Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So it will be an attribution notice, if its not already present.   scope_creep Talk  21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did that on June 9.  — Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will check to see what it looks like.   scope_creep Talk  21:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sauk Siege
I ran the Earwig on this, came up with Earwig at 93.4%. I'm a on a fairly steep learning curve here. Firstly, I see a you've left a notice on the editors page, so now they are no longer using that url. It does seem from the Earwig, that the three urls the editor is using, constitute about 90%+ of the article. It looks as though the contents been copied across. That is one of the problems, its not referenced either. I would say it is close to "All of article violates copyright" from WP:COPYVIO. That would be assuming they are not public domain sources. How would you tell?  scope_creep Talk  21:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken a block out. It looked like copyvio, left a warning and moved the article to draft.  scope_creep Talk  22:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article history, I see that I had indicated in February that the content was moved to the new article from Al-Ma'unah back in February. Looking at the November version of that article compared to the new article accounts for all the overlap . So once again the purported source web page is a Wikipedia mirror. Please have a look at Earwig's report comparing the revision of the draft before you removed the content with revision 1054885865 of Al-Ma'unah and go back and reverse your actions please. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will do. Geez, how did I get it so wrong. Its difficult work. Talk about fumbling about. I'll issue an apology.    scope_creep Talk  08:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep: Here's an important clue. All the citations have old dates. It's the first clue that the material was copied/moved from elsewhere on Wikipedia as that's a lot of stuff to fake. Also, I don't think you had a careful enourgh look at the edit history. — Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say so. I never thought to check that. Is it often copied content from a WP source, for example a mirror? I was planning to go through the NPP list with the filter set to copyvio, try and do as many as I could, so as to take the load of the other reviewers, but its definently difficult work. I'm now planning to do another one, and maybe report to yourself what I think is needing down, then you tell me if i'm going in the right direction, before I do it.   scope_creep Talk  13:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's do that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say, there's usually at least 5 or 10 a day like that at CopyPatrol, where they copied from another article or moved content from another article. Looking at the page history sometimes helps, or if they've moved content, looking at the user's contribs will tell you where they got it, as you will see a diff of the removal. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never thought to look at that either. I'll watch out for it.   scope_creep Talk  14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Groosham Grange
Diannaa, I have this one, first one on the NPP list: [earwig]. It has block Groosham Grange reported by earwig to be copyvio. Examing the report it states, this as the url with the supposed copyvio text: https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4603253/normal_600257d391bdd.pdf When you look for  normal_600257d391bdd.pdf it comes up with "Groosham Grange - Two Books in One!", an edition of the book. So I suspect that block has been copied from the book.  scope_creep Talk  14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * But look at the bottom of page 5 and you will see the message "This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. December Learn how and when to remove this template message. AnthonyHorowitz- Return to Groosham Grange." So it looks like the portion picked up by Earwig was copied from Wikipedia. There's an article called Return to Groosham Grange so I am checking old revisions there to try to locate the content. It may not be obvious to you as you are not an admin, but the article Groosham Grange was deleted back in 2013. More to follow — Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at the dates on the citations, some of them are really old. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep: And here it is: . So our attribution needs to be as follows: "Attribution: text was copied from an old revision of Return to Groosham Grange on June 7, 2021. Please see the history of that page for full attribution. (See WP:RIA for more information.)" I will do that right now, and let the editor know as well. — Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Diannaa. I did notice one of the citations dates were old. So that is obviously an indication that content is itself old/older, indicating its been copied from another article. I was wide of the mark again. I don't know if you have the patience, but I'd like to do another couple more, see how they pan out, maybe in a week or so. Its details work. I'll take a look at the attribution notice.   scope_creep Talk  16:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would like to work through a few more that would be great. Happy to help. — Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Bmurphy380
I just left a third copyvio warning on the talk page for this user for misattribution of uploaded images. I don't normally do a lot with copyvios but since you left the first warning for this user and it doesn't appear to have sunk in, I'll call your attention to it in case additional steps are needed. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: one of the images was uploaded right before your initial warning, but the other was uploaded yesterday.  RecycledPixels (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The images were uploaded to the Commons. I can't block on this wiki for activities on a different wiki. Please contact the Commons admin team. I think the correct place to do so is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. — Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Images posted by the NTSB fall under public domain, and therefore are acceptable in the commons. There is no copyright infringement with using publicly shared photos from a government agency. Bmurphy380 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you label the images "own work" if they're from a government agency? What was the source of this image ? — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The image from the NTSB should not have been labeled as "own work". If such was labeled, that may have been a mistake on my end. The source of the image is NTSB Report# AAR89-02S Doc PB89-910405. Bmurphy380 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

DylanKB
Hello Diannaa. Thank you for the corrections and recommendations. I'll be sure to refine my editing appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanKB (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Diannaa - hope you are well. Thank you for dealing with the copyvios from Cornmazes' contributions.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Lugnuts! Hope you are well. Thanks for your interest as well. — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Neurofibroma and Schwannoma
Hi Diannaa, thank you for your effort i really appreciate that, but can i ask you to show me how i largely copied from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-012-0954-z i tried to see what you reverted but i couldn't so i hope to show me or explain to make it to me clear so i can re-edit it with all respect to the copyright for both articles if you don't mind, Thanks and hope you are well. Lanm-more (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * so if you can show me the content you deleted / hide to review it because when i reviewed the article i didn't see that i violated the copyright, i'm glad to get your help in that Lanm-more (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your additions were flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and were assessed by myself.


 * Here is a link to the bot report for Neurofibroma. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.
 * Here is a link to the bot report for Schwannoma. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. — Diannaa (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * i added the differential diagnosis section again in Neurofibroma if you want to check it again and cellular Schwannoma section, i tried to fix it Lanm-more (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have checked both of these using this copy of the source and found you have added the same content in the same order using very similar wording. That's a violation of our copyright policy. So I have removed both additions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No i just summarized it and write it with my own words and logic, i'm a MD so explain to me ? Lanm-more (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * and sure i'll summarize in the same order and when i edited again after you checked i changed all the sentences spotted by the bot to respect the copyright, there is a difference between summarizing and stealing the data, if you checked them by any plagiarism detector it will be unique 100% Lanm-more (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just reword phrases and substitute different nouns; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. Technical material is difficult to summarize. Closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression. If you can't figure out a way to re-write the material, you can't add it to Wikipedia.  — Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright WalkingRadiance
I want to add some material to the page for Vehicle Routing but I'm not sure if I am following copyright.

I created a draft based on the 2nd reference in Arc Routing and Bodin and Goldin (1981) at User:WalkingRadiance/draft changes.

I will not add this if is a copyright violation. WalkingRadiance (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The second reference is.
 * WalkingRadiance (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot check the draft against https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/net.3230110204 because it is behind a paywall. I have removed content copied from https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5362&context=etd from your draft. There's also a copyright problem with your addition at Gliosarcoma; I will clean that in a minute. — Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I've removed some content from your page as you seem to have taken it more or less directly from the Bodin source. Hi, Diannaa! I don't know if you have Wikipedia Library access (I imagine you do), but you may not have seen that Wiley has been added to the resources there. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do seem to have access. — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is my draft a copyright violation or can I add it to Wikipedia without infringing on copyright? WalkingRadiance (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do seem to have access. — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is my draft a copyright violation or can I add it to Wikipedia without infringing on copyright? WalkingRadiance (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Schindler's List edit
I am a little concerned about the edit you made here. It wasn't merely a refernce that was needed, but rahter context. What struck me about the writing was that it seemed as if the contributor to the article was making the claim as opposed to the source. With regards to the Rosner source, I've copyedited the statement to reflect that it is Rosner's opinion, not ours. Unfortunately, the Ligocka source is more problematic. Nowhere in the book that you added as a source specifically/explicitly mentions that the girl in the red coat featured in the film is Ligocka. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can view the Rosner article online, and it specifies that it is Genia-Gittel Hail's relatives (not Rosner) who believe the girl was their relative. I don't have access to the other source (Ligocka) and I am not the person who added that content. The content was already there when I made my first edit to the article in 2010. The content appears to have originated based on this 2004 article which states that Logocka is the girl in the red coat. This blurb shows that Ligocka might believe that she is the girl. What we have to realize is that there may have been several Jewish girls in Krakow who owned red coats. I am going to amend the text to reflect this. In the future, please note that this type of discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. I am not the only person maintaining this article - there's several knowledgeable contributors who do so. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I am aware of the regular practice of bringing discussions about content up in the article discussion space, but topics such as what I brought up are pretty emptionally charged, and it seemed prudent to make sure that no increased offense was taken at the edit; for example, someone freaked out over the removal of the carnage images in the Rape of Nanjing article a few years ago, or the emotional, nationalistic flame wars that erupted after the 300 was released. That sort of emotional investment is non-conducive to collaborative editing. That said, I am glad that we had a civil discussion about this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Gliosarcoma
I checked the article and edited it again with improvements that respect copyright with my own words so if you don't mind to check it again and discuss me without blocking me (because i'm practicing not violate the copyrights intentionally), Thanks for help Lanm-more (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether you are doing it intentionally or not. If you can't write your own prose, you can't edit here. — Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Massive copyvio at Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)
Hi Dianna, hope you're doing well. I want to alert you that an IP editor, apparently a sock of a user banned from editing the article itself, has added a massive wall of text (57,577 bytes worth) to the Talk:New chronology (Fomenko) page with text copied-and-pasted from here and here and probably other places as well. This editor has a long history of trying to add fringe conspiracy theory material to the article, adding ridiculously long walls of text to the talk page, and attacking other editors there. Carlstak (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Carlstak. I've done the revision deletion. Thanks for the report. If you have more IPs, I can see if a rangeblock is possible. — Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Diannaa. I'll let you know if I find anything. Carlstak (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio?
Hi Diannaa, I was a bit worried about this recent copy of an entire paragraph from The Economist. Following your copyvio block of its editor, perhaps you could deal with this too please. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding quotations to citations is not a copyright violation, but when done to excess it's a violation of our non-free content guideline. 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. I often remove quotations from citations, especially if the quotes are from readily available sources or the content is not controversial or the material is not likely to be challenged. The quotes are still available in the page history, and by viewing the cited source document. I have removed six quotations from the article Greased piglet, including the long quote from The Economist. — Diannaa (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and thanks for your actions. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Hi there, Diannaa. I've seen you frequently address copyright violations so I think you might be the right editor to ask: Did I get this and this right? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Robby.is.on. Thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. You are correct, that's a violation of our copyright policy. The template you placed on the user's talk page is a good one to use under the circumstances, as they have no previous copyright warnings and very little interaction with other users in spite of their length of service. I will do some revision deletion.  — Diannaa (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Non-arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy
Hi Diannaa, i finished my first article, I've checked via Earwig's Copyvio Detector to detect any copyright violation to see my progress in writing and summarizing, i hope to check it and review it and let me know if you see any necessary edits to be done. Thanks Lanm-more (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The draft has been deleted due to checkuser results and block. — Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Nova Scotia
I am getting many copyright violations at Talk:Nova Scotia am I missing somthing here? Moxy - 12:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of quotation of passages from the article itself that have been pasted to the talk page. Also in the collapsed section labelled "notes &refs" there are quotations from various sources/potential sources. — Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Kunsthall Trondheim - copyvio, and yet...
Please would you take a look at this. The prose is as near a complete copyvio as can be, but there is a great swathe of stuff that is not. Your expertise would be valuable here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the amount I am going to have to remove is quite large. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

ME123 CCI
I started looking at some others on the same page as autism, and copyvio is everywhere I look. How can I avoid pinging you every time I find one that needs to be addressed? Here's one, for example:. I've found quite a few, so have started only marking those that are clear, passing by those that have copyvio and need attn. For example, starting at Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 02, Jeremy Bamber is more than I can address, and at St Pierre, Monmouthshire is CC by 2 (https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/300002043-church-of-st-peter-mathern) acceptable? Is it OK to just add a note on those that need CCI admin attention so I don't have to ping you every time? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandy. Thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. If you find a violation, please remove it. If you think revision deletion is a good option, please mark it with the template . Removing the violation yourself and using the template (which places the articles into a category as needing admin attention) rather than asking me to do it will help spread the workload around among the several people who patrol that category, and will free me up to do more assessments of trickier cases, which is something I am good at. There's a script you can install to make adding the template easier to do. The script is located at User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.Please have a look at the guide that Moneytrees created - it's at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide. Quite comprehensive. I have to go to bed now so if you have any more questions tonight hopefully you will find the answers there. If you're not sure how to handle any of the cases, it's best to leave them for someone else to tackle. — Diannaa (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't suggest revision deletion of more than 50 diffs unless the additional diffs are all (or nearly all) by the same editor. I typically don't do revision deletion on an article that is about a current controversial event or on articles that are currently being heavily edited. — Diannaa (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, this helps ... I have been marking "need attn" on those that have copyvio, so I can revisit them now with this info. But will do that tomorrow; I have COVID, so this kind of mechanical work is good for my bored but befuddled brain.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've got it now ... will skip over any I don't feel sure on. Messed up the enterprisey script at Jeremy Bamber, so will probably add the template manually. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's not only copyvio I'm finding, but just a lot of really poor editing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the edits I checked would require way more than 50 diffs to be revdel's, so I could only request revdel on a few. I'm a bit shocked at how bad this is, and that it went on so long.  It's complicated in some cases by WP:CWW of the original copyvio, or CWW of other copyvios.  Sheesh. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  10:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Did I get this one right? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @SandyGeorgia: Sorry for the delay in replying. Where did you see that license? — Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hang on, will backtrack and check ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the About page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also did one of those at Cwm, Llanrothal. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * These are both fine. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saddned by all of this. I've always got on well with Martin and I like his sense of humour. However, even I've uncovered a frightening amount of copyvios from my relatively minor involvement in the CCI, and can't see any circumstances over which I would entertain an unblock at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It makes me very sad too. — Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Regulation and Development of the Financial Market
Hi Diannaa, you deleted the publication on the grounds that I violated copyright, although I prepared an article about a state organization and all materials and texts were obtained from official sources (decrees and laws) of a legislative, administrative nature, which according to the Law of Kazakhstan № 6-I "On Copyright" are not objects of copyright rights. You have provided a link to the site twice adilet.zan.kz which is only a collection of legal acts and laws from the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan. Can you explain in more detail the reason for the removal of the material? Ajgerim.batyrova (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The place where I found the matching content was https://2021.cyberpolygon.com/participants-and-partners/ (not a government webpage, marked as © BiZone LLC, 2022), and https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/Z030000474_ (not a government webpage, marked as "© 2012. «Institute of legislation and legal information of the Republic of Kazakhstan» of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan".) The original law in the original language appears to not be copyright (as well as official translations) but this page is marked as being an unofficial translation and therefore is eligible for copyright protection. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Addressing copyright violation
Hi Diannaa, thank you for your effort in checking my contributions. I would appreciate it if you can further explain what was copied when I merely referenced the information from the Xavier University website. I would appreciate a clear explanation, so I can re-edit it with all respect to the copyright but also provide the most accurate information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor1175 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Xavier University School of Medicine. You added a paragraph that matches text that was previously published here, in the section labelled "What will I learn in medical school?". While this website was not what you listed as being one of your sources, the prose you added was a match for their content. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hanan Issa
I'm concerned that the article Hanan Issa copies some whole sentences pretty much verbatim from the sources which it quotes. Furthermore, the article creator (and its sole contributing editor so far) already has a note on their talk page from you regarding copyright issues. You might like to take a look, and if necessary, clean up the article and/or discuss this further with the editor. Thanks. Dani di Neudo (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the report. I am cleaning it now. Sorry for the delay. — Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Addressing copyright violation: 1939 German ultimatum to Poland
Hii Diannaa, you deleted a part of an article I published and left a comment on my user page.

On your edit to this article you described how the part I copied was a translation (of a historical document) likely protected by copyright, citing the bottom on the website I referenced. However the website themselves cited an already translated document (German Library of Information, Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War. Compiled and Published by the German Foreign Office, New York, 1940, pp. 485–488). Am I wrong in assuming this makes the situation different?

If so, could this be resolved by me simply citing the document directly as well? Can one never copy a translation of a historical document verbatim? Do I have to translate it myself? Thank you. Narvwa (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1939 German ultimatum to Poland. Translating a document generates a new copyright, held by the translator. You need to know the copyright status of the translation, not of the original document. If the translation is copyright, we can't use it. Yes, you would have to provide your own translation, or perhaps as an alternative you could provide an external link to a website that is hosting a translation.That said, I have found the book in question at the Internet Archive and looking at its front matter I find that it was published in 1939 without a copyright notice. Therefore according to the Hirtle Chart it is now in the public domain, so the translation is available for us to publish.When copying from public domain sources, we have to provide attribution so that our readers will be aware that we copied the prose rather than wrote it ourselves, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. This can be done by including the template after the citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future if you should happen to again copy something that is in the public domain.  — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Pro-muslim bias examples from Criticism of the BBC
I am concerned about the rationale behind these deletions, particularly the Kriss Donald murder case. For Kriss Donald, Could you clarify what exactly was copied from the referenced article and why it required the deletion of the entire section? As for the Rotherham case, I could not find any articles from allowed publishers specifically naming the BBC but I could relating to other cases (the Telford Case being one example), I will write a more generic section relating to the Suppression of sexual assaults made by Pakistani Muslims. Chrisuk82 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Content was a match for prose found at this webpage. I removed the whole paragraph because everything was identical except for the first sentence. But now that I look again, I see the content you added is also a match for material in the Wikipedia article Murder of Kriss Donald. While it's okay to copy content from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is supplied by saying in your edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. Please have a look at  for an example of how it is done. Supplying such edit summaries as attribution is required by the terms of our license, and is an aid to patrollers as well. Sorry for the mistake. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Thanks,  — Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Re:Copyright problem on Mitja Velikonja
Hello, I just saw your message. Can you please just let me know which information in particular was removed as I am unable to see the latest previous version in page history? The current version (recalling now only from my deceptive from memory) seems to be almost identical to the article as I created it (which is now not visible in history), but if some relevant info was removed due to too close paraphrasing I would like to reintroduce it in different words if that's possible. Also, some transparency will help anyone interested in evaluating the extent of the issue which was identified and addressed with this action. I understand that you can not reintroduce the exact removed version, I just wanted maybe number of words removed and what was information contained (not someone's style). Best regards and thank you for your kind feedback and offer to ask for further clarification. MirkoS18 (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence about his research interests, as it was still the same as the source webpage, having only been rearranged a little bit. — Diannaa (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you maybe propose how this information can be inserted differently? It seemed to me like a simple/basic information (and my understanding is that there's no copyright on information itself really but only on style) but since I am not native English speaker I am maybe missing what would be alternative phrasing for the information in question.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am at a loss as to how "contemporary Central-European and Balkan political ideologies, subcultures and graffiti culture, collective memory and post-socialist nostalgia" could be paraphrased. It's word salad to me, like random words devoid of meaning. If you can't figure out a way to re-write the material, you will have to leave it out. — Diannaa (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for your feedback and patience. I will just add link for our exchange to the article's talk page in the interest of transparency if that's fine. Best regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

About my additions in Dennstaedtia
Good day! Diannaa. Your reason for deleting my additions is "the new version presents the same information in the same order with only minor wording changes", Please see my reply to Kevmin on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ping_an_Chang#Wikipedia_and_copyright, please read patiently, because the problem is a bit complicated and my English is not good. My new version is very different from my first version in terms of knowledge information. I heard that the edited text deleted by Wiki can still be found and can be compared. I can also re-upload my first version if necessary (when I'm free lately, I'm busy these days). All the misunderstandings come from I don't know the digital format for marking "Citations" and I sometimes have to use Chinese sources (when I can't find English sources). Can you please tell me the digital format for marking "Citations" on the page? I only know the format of "References". If I had known earlier, there would have been no misunderstandings of the past few days. Or I upload it again? if I mark "Please help to modify the format", I am sure I will get help (I know you are too busy to assist me). Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Good day! Diannaa. I will upload my "seconde version" when I have time these days, and I will ask for help in improving my additions. If there is a problem please do not remove it immediately and please give me a chance to clarify. Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Good day! Diannaa. Thanks for your message! When I have free time these days I will try to improve my "seconde version" with "my own words". Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Good day! Diannaa. Tomorrow I may have time to upload the "new version". I did my best in the time I had. To avoid unnecessary problems, I only used the English reference this time, and wrote it in "my own words" - as you said, it is not a translation of another reference in Chinese (that can be verified, there are automatic translations on the Internet, the URL of the translated page is too long, it seems inconvenient to list here, I can add it if necessary), which is a pity, because there is more information in the reference in Chinese. I can just upload photos as I often do, but this time it is about a description of the characteristics of a "genre", which is precious and should be the result of observation and research by many scholars. Since I learned, not long ago, about Flora of China on the Internet, I like to share its existence on the wiki when I have the chance - its content may not be 100% perfect, just like academic papers, it is difficult to be 100% perfect -, the articles about native plants of China seem to be lacking on the English Wiki, I think if more contributors know about the existence of Flora of China, they may be able to make more descriptions. At the same time, the "visitors" can also find more information from the Flora of China link. I tried my best, if there are any other questions about my "new version", please don't remove "my own words" immediately and let me know, I will respond as soon as possible. The photos about Dennstaedtia smithii are "my own work", according to the FRPS (http://www.iplant.cn/info/Dennstaedtia%20smithii?t=z), Dennstaedtia smithii is endemic to Taiwan. Thanks in advance. Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Diannaa:Good day! Because "Script warning: One or more cite web templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help)." appears on the "Preview" page, I can only put the reference "URL" in brackets, can you please help out? Or wait for other contributors to help. It seems common to see "informations" without reference sources on wiki, so please don't remove the paragraph. Thanks! Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have formatted the citation for you. It's easy to add citations if you use the RefToolbar. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for details as to how to do it.Please don't put comments into articles expecting to get help. If you don't know how to do something, please get help first . A good place to go to get help is at the WP:Teahouse.The template goes in the external links section please, not at the top of the article.  — Diannaa (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day! Diannaa. Thank you for these informations! it's precious to me. Regarding "Citations", I have tried to understand it more than once in the past few days, but I have failed completely. Everyone's natural ability is different. As for WP:Teahouse. and Commonscat, I'll try to read when I have time. Thanks a lot anyway! Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

About my additions in Plenasium banksiifolium
Good day! Diannaa. Some of my additions were removed due to misunderstanding. Please see my reply to Kevmin on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ping_an_Chang#Wikipedia_and_copyright, please read patiently, because the problem is a bit complicated and my English is not good. It is the same misunderstanding problem. If I knew the digital format for marking "Citations", it would not be considered an infringement. I will upload again when I know the format, because the deleted part is about the basic characteristics of Plenasium banksiifolium, it is good for visitors and easier to understand the part which did not delete. Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ping an Chang: Hello, it seems you have a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. The encyclopedia is not a collection of quotations from our sources; the content is almost exclusively written by Wikipedians, with quotations used only when there's no alternative. If you can't speak English well enough to write your own, content, you shouldn't be editing here. — Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day! Diannaa. Thanks a lot for your reply! It taught me more about how Wikipedia works. I use "Citations" not because of my language ability but as you say "quotations used only when there's no alternative". I am sharing the knowledge of plants i.e. "Scientific knowledge", and what I read is the description that research scholars have made in the most concise language, so using "Citations" seems to be the best way. There doesn't seem to be a lot of articles on ferns on the wiki, perhaps more use of "Citations" should be encouraged for the "Scientific Knowledge" category. (Please forgive my superficial opinion) Anyway, I usually just upload some plant photos, because the pictures can help understand the words. Thanks again for giving me the opportunity to make a little clarification. Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ping an Chang, I've specifically told you not to add a bunch of lengthy quotations to Wikipedia, so please don't do it. Everything you add here should be written in your own words. It doesn't matter what the topic is (whether it be science, medicine, history). — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day! Diannaa. Thanks for your message! Although this restriction on wiki editing is so special to me! Don't worry, I personally have no reason not to follow any of the rules. Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Diannaa:Good day! I just found out that your reason for removing part of my additions is "remove copyright content copied from http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Osmundaceae.pdf", I think it's a little oversight on your part: The part you removed is excerpted from the following webpage https://www.iplant.cn/info/Osmunda%20banksiifolia?t=focn, I have made a footnote. Since I'm completely new to wiki editing, I'm really sorry for the misunderstandings that happened recently. Could you please rewrite the reason for deletion such as "may cause copyright issues"? Or an easier way is to restore the deleted part and let me and other contributors improve it. Thanks in advance! Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't copy from that page either, as it is marked as copyright: "© 2019 Copyright State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences". — Diannaa (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa:Good day! Diannaa. I think I didn't make it clear what I meant. All I wanted to do from the beginning was "Citations", I just didn't know how. Now that I know how, I would like to ask you to restore the part you removed, which will save me time and be fair to me: I don't think anyone likes to be considered a thief. I believe you will be able to deal with it fairly. Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't restore it, so sorry, because it was copied from somewhere else, and is therefore a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa:I don't understand what you said "it was copied from somewhere else", please point out this "somewhere else". It's getting late here and I must suspend the conversation with you. Ping an Chang (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't restore the content I removed from Dennstaedtia because it was copied fropm  http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Dennstaedtiaceae.pdf.  — Diannaa (Talk) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa:Good day! Diannaa. The content of this URL http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Dennstaedtiaceae.pdf is copied from Flora of China (that is the source I provided), as stated at the top of the page: "This PDF version does not have an ISBN or ISSN and is not therefore effectively published...Flora of China, Vol. 2–3 (Pteridophytes). Beijing: Science Press...”. Maybe you are too busy! (Forgive an elderly person who likes to remind others to take care of their health). Ping an Chang (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I can't restore the content I removed from Plenasium banksiifolium because it was copied from http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Osmundaceae.pdf.


 * @Diannaa:Good day! Diannaa. First of all, the content of this URL http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Osmundaceae.pdf. is copied from Flora of China (that is the source I provided), as it says at the top of the page: "This PDF version does not have an ISBN or ISSN and is not therefore effectively published ... Flora of China, Vol. 2–3 (Pteridophytes). Beijing: Science Press...”. Secondly, the topic Plenasium banksiifolium is not mentioned in this page. I'm sure you will do a best deal. Ping an Chang (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There may be a language barrier here: either I am not understanding your question, or you are not understanding my replies. — Diannaa (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa:Good day! Diannaa. No language issues here, see my two Replies above. I'm sure you will do a best deal. Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Flora of China page is also marked as copyright, which means you can't copy from that page either. A translation of the page holds the same copyright as the original marerial. — Diannaa (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa:The problem is that I have made, every time, a footnote to state the source: "Flora of China...", just like the two pages you presented are http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Osmundaceae.pdf. and http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Dennstaedtiaceae. pdf., they are all copies of "Flora of China", but there is no copyright problem, because they have the source on the page, which is exactly the same as my situation. There is no translation problem here either, because Flora of China is a translated version, although the content is not exactly the same as the original. I hope you will do a best deal. Thanks in advance! Ping an Chang (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already told you this, so that's why I'm starting to wonder if there's a language barrier. — Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa:No language issues here, see my Reply above. I hope you will do a best deal. Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not going to change my mind. The fact that you've found the same (or similar, or translated) text on more than one website does not mean it's okay to copy it here . Please consider consulting one of the people on this list if you would like to get a second opinion.  — Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa:Good day! Diannaa. From the beginning I explained and proved that I was doing "Citations", although I didn't know how, I made a Footnote in "References" and even specifically stated in parentheses where the excerpt was from (see "About my additions in Dennstaedtia" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Dennstaedtia, and "About my additions in Plenasium banksiifolium" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Plenasium_banksiifolium). As I said in a Reply a few days ago: If it is impossible to restore, then please improve the reasons for remove on these two articles: Dennstaedtia and Plenasium banksiifolium to be more factual. The reasons you stated in these two articles were too far from the truth (see "About my additions in Dennstaedtia" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Dennstaedtia, and "About my additions in Plenasium banksiifolium" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Plenasium_banksiifolium). I think this will be easy for you. Thanks in advance! Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already explained to the best of my ability and have nothing further to add. — Diannaa (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa:Everything you said is recorded above and I won't repeat it here. Also, if you think your remove is appropriate, why do you keep trying to block my "Talk/reply" in different ways, as I described in this section:About the page "Creating User: Ping an Chang" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_the_page_%22Creating_User:_Ping_an_Chang%22). For a few related questions that I haven't asked, I'll put them in a new section, please explain. Ping an Chang (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Redacted edits
Hi! it looks like you supressed some of my edits on List of premature obituaries with the edit reason "remove unsourced, some of it is copied from en.mediamass.net/people/willie-nelson/deathhoax.html." However, none of my edits were about Willie Nelson whatsoever and included citations from reliable sources. Were these retractions inadvertent or were they removed because of copyvio edits that were made by another user around the same time as mine? It seems like every edit within a 24 hour period were removed by oversight, not just mine, and all the content I added is still included on the page. I just wanted to know what's up because I noticed these removals in my edit history. Thanks! Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. If you check you should be able to see that your edits are still intact. The content that I removed was added by someone else with . Oddly enough he added content about Dave Navarro, but the page where I found the matching prose was about Willie Nelson.  — Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thorough explanation. That indeed makes sense. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 13:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio problem at Bon Aire
Hi - I found one problem, but there's possibly more; appears to be a new user making GF contributions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't find anything further. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Image question
Hi Diannaa, sorry to bother you - can you have a quick look at File:Kevin Knuth profile.webp (it's hosted here, not on commons)? The uploader says that they got it off a website, but obtained the owner's permission - it doesn't look properly licensed to me. Girth Summit  (blether) 13:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The image needs an email from the copyright holder to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating that it's released under license and okay to publish on this website. I have tagged for F11 deletion and Twinkle has placed an explanatory template on the user's talk. Also, I put a note on the file's talk page for patrollers as to where I got the info about the source. — Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Bioweapons and 2008 report
Hello, you removed this line "According to the 2008 report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service, "Developments in biotechnology, including genetic engineering, may produce a wide variety of live agents and toxins that are difficult to detect and counter; and new chemical warfare agents and mixtures of chemical weapons and biowarfare agents are being developed. . . Countries are using the natural overlap between weapons and civilian applications of chemical and biological materials to conceal chemical weapon and bioweapon production." I added the source, named and linked and dated to the page. This is properly sourced from a US government source. 2600:8800:2C16:3600:D8F0:4736:FB01:8142 (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * United States biological weapons program. I have formatted the citation and placed it immediately after the content it supports. — Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting revdel
per WP:RD2. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I have informed the oversight team. — Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Help required, if possible.
Respected,

I need a help from you. User Mili977 is continuously doing such poor, disruptive and misleading edits resulting in total vandalism at the articles related to deities in Hinduism. Especially, he's adding and removing content with his personal believes, without any reason and sources. He's currently disturbing the article Durga. Few days back, he was trying to add/remove all general information from the Durga article and adding his own perceptions. Then, I quickly reverted all those edits. Then again he reverted/undo my edits and this kept going on and on. When at last the page was fully protected (administrative protection and access required) by Favonian. And just few hours back the administrative protection was expired and the page was accessible again for all. Then, I restored the page to the original version and removed the misleading edits by Mili977. And now again, he has started his disruptive editing. I've seen you warning him earlier also that's why I have redirected here. Therefore I request you if possible to ask sanctions on him as he is regularly disturbing many articles. The user is extended confirmed. He's also disturbing articles like Mahadevi, Navadurgas, Tripura Sundari, Bhuvaneshwari and many others related to hindu goddesses. Also I request that Durga article be permanent or for sometime semi protected (extended confirmed access required) as some other editors are also disturbing the page.

Any help will be appreciated. Keshavv1234 (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Since this Keshavv1234  is a devotee of Durga, Durga's name is used on every page, and information based on other beliefs is removed. Also, the references he applies to the facts he posts do not prove the relevant facts. And once he had completely changed the pages of Tripura Sundari and Bhuvaneshwari.In many pages, he does not use the common name of Mahadevi and only uses the name Durga, which distorts the details. For example, on the Navaratri page, he has mentioned the Navaratri festival as a festival dedicated only to Goddess Durga. Also Durga is one form of Adi Shakti. Applying the word Durga instead of Adi Shakti leads to bias towards only one belief.  Mili977 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not devoted to anyone. I was just improving the page. But you are adding your personal stuff. You are removing that general information which is those articles from so long. Also Navaratri and Navadurgas pages are totally associated with Durga. If you have to add Mahadevi only, then you are proving that there's no need of independent page of Durga. You replace Mahadevi or Adi Shakti with every goddesses just like you are doing. Adi Shakti is the energy lying among them but they are in separate aspects. And for your information, among all these pages you are mentioning, Durga article is highly viewed and seen by a lot of public as compared to others so misleading edits at Durga won't be tolerated. If you try to add/remove any content or especially general information then it will be reverted again and again. You have already been warned many times in the past about your vandalisms at different articles related to goddesses. Also I've noticed that you are trying to promote Tripura Sundari and Bhuvaneshwari only as supreme goddesses and you are taking all other goddesses under them which is totally irrelevant. Your misleading edits at Durga needs to be stopped otherwise the page will be disrupted or broken due to tons of edits. - by Keshavv1234 (talk)

I request, Mathglot and MRRaja001 also to kindly look into this matter. - by Keshavv1234 (talk)


 * the user is still not stopping and changing content which is again vandalism. I will undo his edit But I'm not reverting it now unless we have a discussion here. Because his misleading edits has also spoiled the sentence and grammatical structure of the article and therefore it must be reverted soon. As article is viewed by a lot people. - by Keshavv1234 (talk)
 * Sorry, I don't have time to help with this problem. — Diannaa (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear, users Fylindfotberserk and Kridha, kindly help me with this matter if possible. Any help will be appreciated. - by Keshavv1234 (talk)

Removal of entire section based on minor issue relevant to a portion of the article section.
A user by the name of Moxy is removing edits/additions on a topic that is sensitive to Canada and Canadians referencing an issue that corresponds to a minor subsection of the added content. Please restore information for further edits as necessary. While some topics may be sensitive to certain individuals, information regarding current events and revelations of the poor treatment of Indigenous people and women in particular in Canada should not be censored in this manner on Wikipedia. 184.101.12.14 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The content was removed because the text was copied from elsewhere online, in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Tantura
Hi, I know that you're just performing a necessary function in removing copyright violations, but I'm a very active user, and if you had only asked, I would have re-paraphrased or cut the quotes from the problem source at Tantura massacre. I perform regular copyvio checks myself, but I just worked on this today, and hadn't gotten around to a final check. Now, since you've revdel'd the whole thing, it's very hard to tell what's been removed, and to make amendments. So, small ask: Could you possibly put the affected material in my sandbox, or, if that's also a copyvio, is there any way you can grant me visibility to the final non-public diff, or email me the prior version or just the affected sections, so that at can at least understand what's been excised? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Iskandar323. I realize that you added this content in good faith, but it's not okay to paste copyright material into Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor such as Microsoft Word or Google Docs and work on it there until you are sure it's completely original. I will send you the removed text via email.  — Diannaa (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am gonna send a second email with your last revision before the removal, so you can see how the removed prose fit into the article. — Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Listen I get you're a moderator and admin on Wiki and removing "copyright violations" is your thing or whatever. But not only are we a first person source who WORKS with the so called "Copy right content" that you removed but also first person source for everything that went on there. We also CO-CREATED the entire page and all the content in there. So the fact you're removing it when you know nothing about the subject, nothing about the sources, or the people involved is wild to me. Good job removing all the hard work people have done for months. Go hit up DDOSecrets and Security Affairs and see how happy they are about you removing the work that we did :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmenyCricketttt (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Literally what the hell? Just removed 90% of the content from that page absolutely ruined the page when literally the same people who wrote the articles HELPED write the page. We are first person sources as the people on our team were the hackers that did the dumps, the writers that wrote about the dumps including DDOSecrets, The Tech Outlook, and Security Affairs. All of us have been working together on this article, and you just deleted half a years worth of work on for a rocky claim at best. You could've ASKED the people who created the page first why it is like it is. So good job because after that, none of us even want to contribute to our pages or Wikipedia as a whole anymore. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The content I removed was copied from numerous different websites, such as
 * https://www.hackread.com/anonymous-hacks-central-bank-russia-leaks-28gb-data/
 * https://ddosecrets.substack.com/p/release-transneft-79-gb
 * https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/130262/hacktivism/anonymous-targets-russian-entities.html
 * https://cybersocialhub.com/csh/since-declaring-cyber-war-on-russia-anonymous-leaked-5-8-tb-of-russian-data/, and more.
 * 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. If you are the copyright holder of the material I removed, please see donating copyrighted materials to find out how to release your work under a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of that was copied from those articles. The articles paraphrased it from DDOSecrets, which helped write the exact article that you're claiming copyright on. In addition, DDOSecrets, Security Affairs, HackRead, and The Tech Outlook all worked on this article with us. So just blatantly guessing that it's actually copywriting and messing up the article is unacceptable regardless of your personal opinion. They're already talking about you on Twitter right now because of this. But as the person below suggested a copyright release, we will get those for you since the literal CEOs of those news articles worked personally with us on these press releases and articles. Biggest goofball alive Chimney Sweepa (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Matter of fact, this whole situation shows me either a) You don't know anything about the topic at hand and/or b) You don't know anything about copyright. This isn't even copyrighted material just because there's similar phrasing or even exact phrasing. When there's a leak, there's only so much information you can say about it. That being Company "A" was hacked and "B" amount of emails were leaked by actor "C", and company "A" has relations to companies "x", "y", and "Z". So obviously if that's the most information about the leaks, then every single article, post, and page that references it will sound pretty similar. Just because someone else said it doesn't make it copyrighted material because similar quotes or paraphrasing. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there; just wanted to help because of past experiences with accidental copyright violations. Eventually I reached out to the authors themselves and asked for a copyright release which very miraculously was granted due to the irrevocable nature of the release process (no going back after putting into public domain). After everything is in order the page revisions were then restored. How about trying that method instead?84.54.13.148 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you Chimney Sweepa (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!
DanCherek (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Rin Nakai
Hi! Is there a chance for this page to be unprotected again? Last time this was repeatedly recreated was...7 years ago, and the protection is holding up Draft: Rin Nakai that's promising enough to be accepted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you planning on accepting the draft? — Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely! I have just done some additional sourcing work to help out too (but like the submitter said, she passes WP:MMABIO C3 anyway). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. You can now proceed - I have removed the protection. — Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such a quick and nice response, really appreciated! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas YC-15
I believe you removed my edits to the YC-15. I *think* I editted carefully, and not a single sentence was a duplictae from the source. Could you please at least allow me to access what I wrote so I can check, and fix any mistakes? I put some time into this, and I would hate to think all the work is gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can send you the text I removed via email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Kitplane01 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * YGM — Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Another undefined reference
Hey Diannaa – another undefined reference seems to have appeared in Duke University in the process of removing copyvio. Would you be able to fix it please? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

China's Special Envoy on the Middle East Issue
Hi - I want to better understand the reason behind the deletions at China's Special Envoy on Middle Eastern Issues. The general copyright notice is not self-explanatory in this instance. All information had proper attribution. The long block quote (the five points) was simply a Chinese government statement, and I cited it where it appeared in a secondary source. Can you elaborate? JArthur1984 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ? There was no block quote template or quotation marks. Hence my removal. — Diannaa (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I must have forgotten to put it into the template. Thanks very much, I understand the issue now and will make sure I get it right when I re-draft. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrongful removal of original references content by Moxy
Content that was added to this page has been removed by a contributor Moxy and tagged as copyright violation. Two contributions made did potentially violate copyrights due to over-quoting of published material, however, original content included in edits have been erroneously identified as a violation and removed. As an administrator, this should have been checked thoroughly and revisions not deleted for contributions made between July 31st and August 1st that were not in violation of any copyright. Please restore original contributions and edits. 184.101.12.14 (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have double checked Moxy's removal from the page Human rights in Canada and everything he removed was copied from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/canada, a copyright web page. None of it was marked as being a quotation, and none of it was original material. So no, I won't be restoring it. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

About the page "Creating User: Ping an Chang"
Good day! Diannaa. Shortly after I left messages on your Talk page, the following warning page appeared on my User page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ping_an_Chang&action=edit&redlink=1.y94 This page is clearly marked "Please do not draft new articles here—to do that, create a userspace draft." and other warnings. I personally have never written any word on the User page, can you please help to delete it? Thanks in advance! Ping an Chang (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ping an Chang, page stalker here, don't worry, "Creating User: Ping an Chang" is not a page. As you have not created a user page, User:Ping an Chang shows as a red link. If you click on the link you get a screen "Creating User:Ping an Chang", which enables you to make the first edit and create your user page. The screen also has standard warnings, including one asking other users (like me) not to create your user page. TSventon (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * TSventon, Thanks for your message! I think things are not as simple as you think. Since I said on Diannaa's Talk that she deleted all my "additions" on Dennstaedtia it was a bit too quick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Dennstaedtia), after that, I can no longer reply on Diannaa's Talk smoothly because she blocks me in different ways, or I can't reply immediately at all (I need to try multiple times at different times to reply), or in Reply space she placed a very long text that I initially thought I couldn't respond to (I took pictures of these "obstacles-very long text"). I didn't want to mention this, if I hadn't seen her message today in "About my additions in Dennstaedtia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Dennstaedtia): "I can't restore the content I removed from Dennstaedtia because it was copied fropm http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Dennstaedtiaceae.pdf.", "Similarly, I can't restore the content I removed from Plenasium banksiifolium because it was copied from http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Osmundaceae.pdf. ". In fact, she didn't tell the truth, she turned the positive into the negative. (see my reply in "About my additions in Plenasium banksiifolium" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Plenasium_banksiifolium), so she should "restore the content she removed". Now she is still saying "The Flora of China page is also marked as copyright, which means you can't copy from that page either." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Plenasium_banksiifolium) The problem is that I have made, every time, a footnote to state the source: "Flora of China...", just like the two pages she presented are http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Osmundaceae.pdf. and http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Dennstaedtiaceae.pdf., they are all copies of "Flora of China", but there is no copyright problem, because they have the source on the page, which is exactly the same as my situation. Thank you again! Best regards. Ping an Chang (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Same user re-uploaded the same no-permissions image immediately after it was deleted

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kevin_h_knuth.png I'm alerting you because you were the person who originally tagged the initial (now-deleted) image. --Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: Copyright problem on Recession
Hi Diannaa, I thought I did a better job of paraphrasing that passage. I'll see if I can rewrite it. Sorry for that, I don't want to add to your workload. Thanks for all the work you do on WP. Carlstak (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will say that in writing about economics, like other technical subjects, it's necessary to use the precise terms of the language, so to speak, terms that can't really be paraphrased, and that makes it more difficult to restate the premises in one's own words, increasing the number of positive "hits" in comparison of the texts, theirs and mine. I thought that by attributing the results in-text to the authors, I had avoided that problem, but it's more difficult than when writing about history, for example, where the language is more malleable. I will try to rewrite it with consultation of other sources, but won't add my content until I'm sure I've succeeded in that reaching that goal.;-) Best, Carlstak (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be a smart-aleck, but say I write something that iThenticate shows has 30% correspondence because of the unavoidable use of technical terms, is there a threshold percentage for the amount of allowable matches? Carlstak (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Carlstak. The question about percentages is a good one, and it applies to Earwig's tool as well. I don't go by percentages but instead look over the prose that got flagged and compare it to the source. What that shows in this particular instance is that the content you added was very similar to the source, only lightly paraphrased, and presented the same material in the same order using very similar wording. You are not of course expected to re-word technical terms, job titles, names of schools, etc. Such content does occasionally get flagged but we will mark it as a false positive. — Diannaa (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. So there is no hard and fast standard, and sometimes these decisions are judgement calls made by the particular copyright patrol editor, necessarily, I suppose. That's what I wanted to know. Carlstak (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

London Borough Blazons
The quotation marks are not necessary. All blazons put into these infoboxes are copied from the original, as heraldry leaves very little room for paraphrasing. There are thousands of blazons quoted on Wikipedia and almost none of them use speech marks in that way. Your comment that "these blazons are recent enough to enjoy copyright protection" is also at odds with general practice - Commons:COA says that blazon is not eligible for copyright. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * But it says "Both the definition and the representation of a coat of arms are intellectual creations, and their legal protection may be considered as such." Intellectual creations are eligible for copyright protection. The year of creation of the individual blazon would come into play, so a blazon written in the 1960s would enjoy copyright protection. commons:Commons:Coats of arms provides a list of countries that exempt blazons from copyright. The United Kingdom is not on that list. — Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Some "facts" and "questions"
Good day! Diannaa.

1. Regarding Dennstaedtia, "my additions" is only accepted for the third time. The content of my "seconde version" and my "third version" is very similar. My "seconde version" was removed by you, may I ask why did you remove, at the same time, the photos - it is my own work and the link I made: "Commonscat|Dennstaedtia"?

2. Regarding Dennstaedtia, although "my additions" has been uploaded three times, the "Reference" in English is the same. May I ask why you used a digital code to prevent me from making a Footnote on my third upload, and then you made a Footnote for me with different words, making people think it was a different "Reference" than the first two?

3. Regarding Dennstaedtia, your reason for removing "my additions" is "the new version... is therefore still a violation of the copyright policy. http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Dennstaedtiaceae.pdf", why did you use a completely different URL/webpage from the "Reference" I put on "my additions"? Do you have any special reason?

4. Regarding Plenasium banksiifolium, your removal of "my additions" is only a paragraph (with Footnote), why are all my nine "uploads/additions" marked as remove on the "Revision history" page? This makes it impossible to see the original additions.

5. Regarding Plenasium banksiifolium, your reason for removing "my additions" is "content copied from http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume02/Flora_of_China_Volume_2_3_Osmundaceae.pdf", why did you use, one more time, a completely different URL/page from the "Reference" that I put on "my additions"? And it has nothing to do with "my additions": the topic Plenasium banksiifolium is not mentioned in this page. Can you tell me the reason for doing this?

6. Shortly after I left messages on your Talk page, the following warning page appeared on my User page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ping_an_Chang&action=edit&redlink=1.y94 This page is clearly marked "Please do not draft new articles here..." and other warnings. I personally have never written any word on the User page, this is a "reputational injury" to me.

7. I am shocked that the above-mentioned things can happen in Wikipedia - a field of knowledge and culture. I feel very hurt these days.

8. Hope you will improve the “reasons for remove” on these two articles:Dennstaedtia and Plenasium banksiifolium. I also hope you can remove this page Creating User:Ping an Chang: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ping_an_Chang&action=edit&redlink=1.y94. Thanks in advance! Best regards.Ping an Chang (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) I reverted the entire edit. I should not have done that, because the images did not have to be removed. Sorry about that.
 * 2) I'm not sure I understand the question. You specifically asked, within the article, "the reference URL:http://www.iplant.cn/info/Dennstaedtia?t=foc. Please help to do "Reference", thanks! Best regards." So I formatted the citation, using one of our citation templates and the ref toolbar. Is that the digital code you are referring to? I don't think it is, because this was done in response to your request within your third edit. The wording was generated by the ref toolbar. If there was something preventing you from performing your third edit or formatting the citation, it was not my doing.
 * 3) The website given in the reason for removal is where I found text that matched what you had inserted into the article. This does not necessarily match the website that you used as your citation. Note that sometimes the same or very similar content appears at multiple websites.
 * 4) In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden.
 * 5) This is a copypaste mistake on my part. The matching content is at http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001107374.
 * 6) Everybody that has not yet created a userpage has this message prominently displayed to help prevent newcomers from thinking that it is the place to create an article or a draft. (See for example this userpage, or this one, or this one.) The message is generated by the Wikipedia interface, not by me. Sorry you find the message insulting.
 * 7) Sorry you are shocked and hurt.
 * 8) If you wish to remove the message, create a user page by inserting some content and saving the page. As soon as you do that, the message will no longer appear. — Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Diannaa:

Regarding my first question, you said "I reverted the entire edit. I should not have done that, because the images did not have to be removed. Sorry about that.", but you didn't (Dennstaedtia: Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennstaedtia&action=history). Your "inappropriate words and behavior" one after another, are clearly recorded in the following "sections":

1. About my additions in Dennstaedtia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Dennstaedtia)

2. About my additions in Plenasium banksiifolium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_my_additions_in_Plenasium_banksiifolium)

3. About the page "Creating User: Ping an Chang" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#About_the_page_%22Creating_User:_Ping_an_Chang%22).

Therefore, I don't want to waste time doing "Reply" to your other questions "Reply". In fact, I've wasted too much precious time on your "Talk/reply". I can do a lot of socially meaningful things during this time. I'm thinking would Wikipedia really allow an administrator to do this? Ping an Chang (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Man, this is surreal. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Muirhouse
Hi Diannaa, I got your message about copyright concerns about some edits I'd made on the Muirhouse page. How can I view the deleted edits, so that I can review and ammend them to address concerns you have raised? Cheers. Semaj Reklaw (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I will send you the material I removed via email. — Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Long quote question
Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at the WP:LONGQUOTE in the quote box New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal and assessing it. Even though it’s describe as an extract, it’s quite long and the quote box makes it stand out in perhaps an WP:UNDUE manner, It’s also first person testimony from what appears to be some type of legal proceeding which might be an issue per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF even though the quoted text technically cites a secondary source as its source. It’s attributed and supported by a citation, but I’m wondering whether it needs to be treated as non-free content per WP:NFC. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. I think the quote is of reasonable length given the size of the article. — Diannaa (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Copy vio problem at Transport Workers' Union of Australia
These edits   inserted copyright material taken verbatim from the trade union's website. Material has been removed from the article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Revision deletion done, user warned. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Yewtharaptor
OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Please unblock only if you are prepared to monitor pretty much indefinitely. I have done this twice already and been disappointed both times. (This is their third block for copyright violations.) — Diannaa (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Query: Atziluth
Hi, the page Atziluth is throwing up major copyvio red flags, but there's someone on the redirect/AfD discussion claiming that the PD attribution immunizes the article from plagiarism considerations. If this is the case, it's a novel argument that I haven't heard before, so I thought I'd ask an expert. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ditto Adam Kadmon (copyvio report). I can't really believe WP:FREECOPY and WP:PDCOPY are a cart blanche. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's okay (from a copyright point of view) to copy from public domain sources, as long as proper attribution has been provided, and it has. The guideline says "Whether it is copyright-expired or public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed." — Diannaa (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've subsequently realised that that material is PD because it is more than 100 years old, so it's no great, but for other reasons. However, in terms of being "properly attributed" - do PD sources still require inline citation, or is a PD template at the bottom of the page sufficient? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's better to provide inline citations, so that the reader (and editors) can tell which content is copied and which is written by Wikipedians. Template:Jewish Encyclopedia has the capacity to be used in that way. — Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Copy-vios in Qutbism article
Hi Diannaa; kindly REVDEL these two edits { | edit1; | edit2 } in Qutbism article which come under copyright-violations. I mistakenly assumed that direct quotations wont constitute copyright in all cases. Unfortunately I was unaware of Overquoting guidelines. Kindly excuse my error here. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone else has already done revision deletion. I would not have done revision deletion though, as over-quotation is a violation of our non-free content guideline, but not a copyright violation per se. — Diannaa (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Hello, my edit Frederick W. A. G. Haultain has been removed on copyright grounds but it is a government educational page and is copyright free. Thus it shouldn't be treated as copyrighted information. It might be uncreative but not a violation of the copyright policy.Rommel&#39;s editor (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The page is marked as "Copyright © Heritage Community Foundation. All Rights Reserved." It's not a government page, and it's marked as copyright. Regardless, in Canada, government publications are copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not see that or know that. I thank you for catching that, and will make sure such an error will not happen in the future. Rommel&#39;s editor (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Yewtharaptor
OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Deepfriedokra: :Please unblock only if you are prepared to monitor pretty much indefinitely. I have done this twice already and been disappointed both times. (This is their third block for copyright violations.) — Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. no. not willing to make that commitment -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither am I. I am not even watchlisting his talk page any more. — Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * left it for the next reviewer, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Article on President of the Republic of Kenya
President of Kenya

Hello. As an Administrator, I'm kindly requesting whether, if it is possible, you could put a Semi-Protection on the subject Article due to substantial vandalism.

Thank you. D.K.L. (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * FWIW, they asked Tamzin and she declined on her talk, but said she had expanded the range block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Things seem to have calmed down for a few hours. I will watch-list for a while. D.K.L., while Africa is awake, I might still be sleeping. So a better place to request page protection for this particular type of article might be WP:RFPP. — Diannaa (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Geomorphosite
Dear Diannaa,

I'm going to recreate the page Geomorphosite that you have deleted due to a possible copyright infringment. As I wrote in my previous message I am the author of the Springer article from which some of the page text was taken, but I'll try to use other words. I send you this message because I was adviced to do so while starting to write the draft. Best regards. GeoCameron (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Geocameron. It's okay to recreate the draft as long as none of the text is copied from the previously published work. The new draft looks okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi
If you carefully check it was not a duplication. I have tweaked the information as per the article, but i used sources. May be 1-2 lines could be a repeat. Okay will do the needful Fostera12 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It wasn't identical, but you need to provide attribution all the same. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Rima Das
possible copyright infringement. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have nominated the image for deletion on the Commons. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

United States Academic Decathlon topics
https://www.usad.org/Curriculum/Copyright-Information.aspx

Does this make my edit valid under copyright, or not? Because I saw other people pretty much copy the same thing and didn't really think about copyright. If it's not, it won't happen again. PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @PoliticallyPassionateGamer: It's definitely not okay to copy from their website. The article needs further cleanup to remove the older violations. — Diannaa (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. I apologize for unintentionally violating the copyright rules. PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have listed it at WP:CP for further cleanup. Copyright problems/2022 August 15 — Diannaa (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright
Sorry for the copyright, I haven't understood the copyright system here on Wikipedia. S.G ReDark (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

WIPO TOU
I wanted to inform you that we got the Terms of Use changed on WIPO website :)

https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html

The publications AND website are now fully CC BY 4.0, unless otherwise mentioned (provision for cases where they use material from third parties). Anthere (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added a citation to the FAQ page and provided the attribution required by the terms of trhe license. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Helen Butler, Countess of Ossory (malformed prod)
Dear Diannaa, Ultimate Vanguard Editor! Sorry to bother you. You must be very busy with more important matters. You removed the proposed-deletion tag I had placed on the article Helen Butler, Countess of Ossory with the edit summary "removed malformed prod". It had been my first ever "prod". I am not a very experienced editor. What did I do wrong? I thought I had added "Helen Butler, Countess of Ossory ", but it seems impossible to see what my precise wording was as it has been replaced. I suppose "malformed" means there was some mistake in it. Perhaps I wrote reason instead of concern. I am not sure.

Does your intervention mean that you objected to the prod, or that you rejected the prod as an administrator, or only that you corrected a mistake? IMHO I still believe this article is a biography of a non notable person. What should I do? -abandon, -repeat the proposed deletion avoiding the malformation? -try speedy deletion, -submit an AfD request? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of placing the template on the article, you placed the template, which belongs on the user talk page of the person who created the article or any other people who've significantly edited it. The template that goes on the article is  . Please see Proposed deletion for full details. Please feel free to try again using the correct template. — Diannaa (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request
per WP:RD2. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone else got this done. I was out shopping. Please consider emailing WP:Oversight for fast service. — Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How many times do we have to tell you that you aren't allowed a life outside of Wikipedia! You're much to valuable here to do unimportant thinks like sleep, eat, and actually work for a living. BilCat (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * lol — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright
I noticed that the references (Deligne, P.; Milne, J. S. (1982). Hodge Cycles, Motives, and Shimura Varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Vol. 900) in the Fundamental group scheme can be read on the author's website. May I add the "https:www.jmilne.org/math/" to §External links? SilverMatsu (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Use this link instead: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-38955-2 — Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. Done (diff) ! --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright Questions
Hey, I saw the edits you made on the STEAM page and the article you posted on my talk page. I understand that the resources were copyrighted now, but I put a citation that redirects to where I got the information from. Does this not remedy the issue? ZanyBoyo (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No. The content you added was copied from this page, which is marked as copyright: "© 2022 by Statesboro STEAM Academy". You can't add copyright material to Wikipedia, even if you cite it as your source. — Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio or not?
Hi. Long time no speak. Could you please take a look Jamila Hasanzade. I get this earwig report, but it seems to be a mirror of the azWP page perhaps? Should there be a simple attribution that this was translated/copied from Azerbaijani WP? As always, thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there Onel5969. Not a copyvio. The attribution is done via an edit summary, . There's also a template for the talk page,, . — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As always, thanks. Onel 5969  TT me 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)