This is an archive of past discussions about User:Diannaa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Can you please take a look at Firouz Bagherzadeh. The copyvios report came back pretty conclusive, the the outside source appears to have been published a day after the WP, including the photo. Thoughts? 14:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
At the close of Wiki-business on the 5th, our article had only a small amount of that overlap. The remainder was added on the 6th, and hence was likely copied from the Tehran Times. Regardless, the source webpage is marked as released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is a compatible license. I will add the required attribution.— Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew you'd figure it out. The fact that the one photo was labeled as "own work" was a red flag for me. Oh, and my apologies, I saw the attribution, and should have mentioned that in my original comment. Onel5969TT me15:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thank you. I have one more question! I had copied into this article the list of works in collections. It came from French Wikipedia, which I attributed in the edit summary. Now, as I source the items in the list, it has become clear that it was all copied from another source. But.. I see nothing copyrightable in this list, as it seems to be just a list of known facts without any originality. Am I correct? Possibly (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Correct. There's no originality; it's a list of works listed by date of creation. Nice to give attribution regardless, — Diannaa (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Here and here. Completely false. This was NOT in the episode. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:55 on March 2, 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Hope you have a great day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:55 on March 2, 2021 (UTC)
I don't think these qualify for revision deletion. Please check with oversight if you wish to get a second opinion.— Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This user has returned anew and because they took a trip to Walt Disney World (and because they have a past history of tenuous editing, especially with me because I'm local to them and they have issues with my community off-wiki), created a number of unnotable articles, including Crossroads of Lake Buena Vista (an unnotable soon-to-be-extinct strip mall of restaurants which was owned by Disney in the past), and for the Reedy Creek Fire Department. I restored the latter as a redirect to the Reedy Creek Improvement District article we already have, citing overall past AfD consensus that small fire departments aren't usually notable, but then reverted me several times calling it vandalism, then warned me to 'pick (my) battles wisely' and I should 'keep (my) eyes on the goal posts', which I read in a hostile tone. I'm looking for a neutral eye to make sure my alarm is warranted (I'm not linking out their name because I fear further retaliation). Thank you either way. Nate•(chatter)03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The Reedy Creek Fire Department is notable, Nathan. The difference is this. Reedy Creek is a special district that was created at the request of Walt Disney. This fire department is sole response area is the Reedy Creek Improvement District, aka Disney World. It's unique and unique for a number of factors. ~
Earl of Holland/Battle of St Neots query
I couldn't figure out what the attribution correction was :) and no big deal but I wanted to clarify the process.
When I then updated the St Neots page, I found (a) large parts of the content were either wrong or pointless verbiage (eg Shouting "To horse! To horse!" etc) and (b) I couldn't source any of it. Long story short, none of the content in St Neots has been copied; its all been rewritten. Hope that makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes it does. I see too that you included the required attribution in your first edit, so my note was redundant anyway.— Diannaa (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Added public domain attribution
Please answer my question posed to you on the 187th Infantry Regiment talk page on 21 February, titled Added public domain attribution, regarding your use of the generic PD Notice for the Mossman reference. Your original change on 20 February was modified by User:mikeblas on 22 February, and now I see it's back again. Charles Shaulis (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I never got pinged, because the ping and your signature have to take place in the same edit. The ping failed because you misspelled my username.— Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding RFA
Hello diannaa and how are you, i am with an experience of about 9 years approx., as a good contributor to WIKI (i think), although i was blocked several times at an early stage (in the year 2012) for violating WIKI three-revert rule. I want to become an admin now to protect wiki from vandalism these days so i am seeking your help regarding RFA and how can i nominate myself, thank you :) Sai Raghavendra Puranam (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
My grandfather used to say "try to plow around the stump", but I'm ready to pull my hair out with a new editor. Among my concerns is their lack of understanding of cut-and-pasting text from a source, despite a detailed tutorial on their talk page. I've already been cautioned about edit warning with this editor, but if you get a moment could you please have a look at this edit which was copied nearly word-for-word from this source. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
This particular user has set out on a personal vendetta against me (See, Gary Busey, New Fairfield, CT, Joyce Randolph) Now he has come after my Elvis Presley edit that I paraphrased information from a credible source as you can see for yourself. I took common knowledge about Elvis, added it & cited myself. The only reason he has come to you is to get one over on me he has let his personal feelings dictate his edits and he has not come to you in good faith I trust that you will review the situation and find for yourself that he’s doing this out of spite. Thank you, sincerely yours, Elvisisalive95 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment by (talk page watcher): Elvisisalive95, this edit is not an appropriate paraphrase of the source. All you changed was replacing "before launching his music career" with "That all changed". All of the rest is a verbatim copy-and-paste. You need to add information in your own words. Magnolia677 is trying to help you learn. Schazjmd(talk)21:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Please know my Elvis Presley edit was in good faith. I personally knew all the facts I added and wanted a credible source to cite. I will learn from this experience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisisalive95 (talk • contribs) 23:04, March 5, 2021 (UTC)
Elvisisalive95, the text you added is almost identical to the source webpage, which is copyright. Please don't add copyright material copied from other websites to Wikipedia. Everything you contribute needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this, please. This editor is creating articles about bible verses, which is fine, but they are all very similar to this one (although this one is the most lengthy), in that most of the article is quotations. Thoughts on how to handle these? I added the too many quotes tag, and this editor is very amenable to coaching, so do you think this is all right? Thanks as always. Onel5969TT me15:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The quotes are from public domain sources such as St. Augustine, so I don't see that aspect of the work being problematic, at least not from a copyright point of view. Are these articles valuable to people interested in the Bible? I don't know. That's a question better suited to people who edit in that topic area.— Diannaa (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa, thanks. And apologies, I knew it wasn't a copyvio, I was looking more about the fact that virtually the entire article is comprised of quotes. But in this instance, I thought that it was okay. And being somewhat of a Bible scholar, yes, they would come in handy for someone looking up the verse (since they are properly referenced). Again, thanks. Onel5969TT me17:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I know you realized it was not a copyright issue. It's not a non-free content issue either. So that means it becomes an editorial decision, which is the purview of interested editors. Thass all I am trying to say.— Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying. I've done some revision deletion and will watch-list the page for a while. — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit reverts in autoimmune disease and Dichroa febrifuga
Come on, you are ridiculous! I just copy-pasted the text from Halofuginone which was inserted by someone else, and I suppose that those edits were already verified. You made a childish revert without checking your alleged “copyright violation” claim, or trying to discuss with me the issue. What is more, you menaced me with suspension of my edit rights. You probably are a Wikipedia inner person, but if that is the case, staff selection is a failure. Mazarin07 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Mazarin07, You've been an editor since 2007, but you are posting like a rank newbie. We've all been newbies at some time, and there's nothing wrong with being a newbie, except a newbie ought to ask questions before leaping to conclusions. You first accused me of making an error, then realized you were wrong, but instead of rethinking the whole response, you decided to lash out without knowing what you are talking about. Neither Diannaa nor I are staff. Suspected copyright violations I reverted upon sight, and if it turns out they are not copyright violations they can easily be restored. Copying from another Wikipedia article is permitted but has to be done properly. Please see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. And please, next time ask rather than leap to erroneous conclusions. S Philbrick(Talk)22:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This is pretty appalling. Mazarin07, you may have missed it but you need to know that Diannaa is absolutely the best of the best amongst editors here and that people like her keep Wikipedia afloat with their unrewarded and largely unrecognized hard work. I honestly think that you should seriously consider a retraction and an apology here. I would not normally comment on a thing like this but in truth I feel this is an egregious example. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mazarin07. Sorry for the mistake. You can help me avoid this mistake in the future by including an edit summary stating where you got the content from. In fact to do so is required by the terms of our license.— Diannaa (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
If you did endeavor to be a reviewer, you must do your job correctly. I am probably older editor here, but I would not undertake a reviewer job without having enough time for it. Mazarin07 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Look, I already apologised for my mistake, so I don't know what you're trying to achieve by scolding me again. — Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I work for the IHRCA and was asked to create this page by my supervisor. She approved everything, and since we're the creators of our website, I don't believe my original version had copyright issues, as I had permission and approval from the copyright creator (my supervisor). Do you have suggestions when it's the organization writing their own Wikipedia page? Thanks,
Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Aside from WP:No open proxies, there's an unconfirmed rumor going around that the Myanmar junta might start a big editing operation in attempt to sway opinion undeservedly into their favor, which I think would include some of those proxies that would help them hide better. Just to be safe, can you make it at least anon-only?John haxor (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
No, I did not mean page protection at all. Rather, I mean that that IP range should be blocked because it's an open proxy, preferably with "anon-only" setting on.John haxor (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Already filed. But just for an FYI, if you select "Thailand" in ZenNet VPN once you created and logged to a dummy trial account there, you'll end up on that range. That alone I think should be sufficient enough.John haxor (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Normally copying other people's work is not okay, because most written works are protected by copyright. But the text you added was copied from here. It's okay to copy from that page, because it's compatibly licensed. But you need to add a note at the bottom of the page indicating that it's copied, like I did here. — Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, we have the permission to include the copyrighted content you removed from IAF page, how should we indicate that so we keep it in the page? Houla80 (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)houla80
We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've gone through and made some changes, primarily to the "Suicide" and "Aftermath" sections, trying to clear things up and remove or identify disinformation. When you get a chance, take a look and see if you think that more should be done. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the maintenance of the page. The page was recently vandalized by Kate and John De’Laney of Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Australia, as a result information was removed, rearranged, and added to the page and taken out of order of precedence. As a result of this the order of precedence has been lost, as well as the list of Canadian provinces with proclamation removed, only leaving three of the province and disregarded the others that recognize October 15 with official proclamations. Can you fix this? I am not text savvy when it comes to Wikipedia however I can access and cite the information to support the order or precedent as well as for the list of provinces removed. Also everything pertaining to Canada needs to be placed back in order of precedence under the campaigns heading given the role it played in being the first in the world to officially recognize the day. Ms Coggan’s and her campaign’s have come under attack many times over the nearly 18 years since initiated,
as a result individuals and associated organizations have attempted to rewrite the history and write Ms Coggan, who without her nephew, who she was to adopt, the International Wave of Light would not exist. Out of respect for Ms Coggan, and her nephew Riley, the catalyst of the Wave of Light, I ask Wikipedian’s to give the page much needed time and attention to restore it to its prior vandalism state, and watch the page for future attacks of vandalism. MrsPhinch (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Diannaa.
Thank you for doing articles better. Want to ask about Gas Exporting Countries Forum article. You removed the history cause of copied content copyright. But I rewrote it twice, and it is still unsuitable. I don't understand, what's wrong with this part of text. Please give me advice on how to rewrite the history section so that it complies with the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you The7bab (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The7bab, Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found in just one of your edits. It was like that throughout the History section. General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
blocked from editing
Hi User:Diannaa please i want to ask. you why you need to block me or you block me from editing if am wrong correct me not to block me because am a new here why.
And you need to Encourage not uncourage please don't block me from editing
(Aliyu shaba (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Please correct me where am wrong [2] i want to change it,
And please dont block me if you block me please free me, and now you can teach me.
(Aliyu shaba (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Please what is the problem of this page you try to delete it told me.
On this page [3] this User User:Umakant Bhalerao he try to delete it like you and am fix the problem he remove the deletion tag from article and you why you come again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliyu shaba (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Aliyu shaba, you are not blocked. You violated our copyright policies. Please don't do that again. If you don't understand what the problem was, you really need to read the policy links that Diannaa put on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:World Balance when you get a chance? An IP editor made an edit request that might need to be revdeleted from the page's history. The content has been removed from the talk page by another editor, but it's still in the history. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:Diannaa I of course have learned from my mistakes and took everything you said constructively. I made some different additions and changes to a small portion of the Elvis page. Was hoping you could review it and make sure I did ok! I respect your views and hope if you have time you could analyze everything ! ThanksElvisisalive95 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
You've changed the distance of Graceland from downtown as being nine miles, though the distance is not mentioned in the source you provide.— Diannaa (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, nothing in the titles takes away from the value of his writing nor of his ability to make sales from those titles. I clearly state in my changes where the information I found came from and merely add the words as a means of saving people the trouble of clicking on that link. He does not charge for access to that link, and the information I provide can only make more value for readers of his books (not less, since I am clearly citing my source by my linking to him). As you can see, that video I link to provides added information, including his reading of entire paragraphs and summaries that I do not copy.
I intend to (in future) find some reliable sources to help me provide short summaries of what each chapter is about (since it is a "synopsis" after all) under each of those headings (chapter titles). Would not the chapter titles, therefore, be the proper headings for each of those synopses that I intend to add? Your changes do not sound reasonable and I hope you can provide me with some evidence to back up why each chapter cannot be summarized under its own title, especially since Peterson himself has published that list, and I am merely pointing out which of his already-published 42 rules he is singling out here.
If you like, I can consult Jordan Peterson himself to ask if he considers the inclusion of those chapter titles to be a violation of his ownership of his book. Would that satisfy you that my professional judgement (I am also a professional copy editor and now teach writing and copy editing for a living) is on point?
Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. Short properly attributed quotations are also okay. I have changed the text to make it clear that these are the titles of the chapters, and added quotation marks.By the way, if you have some connection with the author, you should not be editing the article at all, because you have a conflict of interest. I have no bias against Peterson - I only visited the page to perform copyright cleanup. And it's not appropriate for you to suggest to multiple people that Bilorv is doing something unethical or vandalistic by editing the article to have it meet Wikipedia's guideline regarding reliable sources.— Diannaa (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea who I need to talk to, but saw your name as the last person that edited this page! I am an avid eagle cam watcher, with SWFL eagle nest being my first and favorite. When reading this information, I noticed that the whole season of 2016-2017 was left out! This was one of our favorite seasons with the hatching of E9 and a non viable egg. Is there anyway the info for that season can be added?
Thank you for any assistance!
Betty O'Brien
bobrien13@suddenlink.net Bobrien45 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Copyright
Diannaa, On the false confession page, you deleted a bunch of material that you say was copyrighted. Because of the way you have done this, I cannot see what you removed. That makes it impossible for me to see how it might be rewritten. This is not helpful. It seems to me you had two other options. One was to remove material in a way that allows me to check it and make alterations. The other was to rewrite the material yourself so that it was no longer "copied". Could I persuade you to adopt one of these two options please. CriminologyStudent (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Diannaa, May I ask you to comment on this edit [5] which I have reverted and have warned the contributor with whom I am having a difficult time. I have posted on their Talk and the article's Talk. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, I see that you removed content related to new research on EnChroma glasses. I have added back content to get the reference on the page as to not have research conducted by one of the most preeminent scientist in the field introduces clear bias to the page and this content has been continually removed from the page. Also, given your notes on copyright I removed additional content that also had copyright issues but that you left untouched. Thanks Pedanteusa (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings Miss Diannaa...
First: Thank you for your recent comment(s) and guidance - regarding my content additions and editing - as they are greatly appreciated.
Secondly; I must admit - they leave me mostly perplexed in a certain manner. To wit: I thought this was / is an online "encyclopedia" of (accumulated) knowledge... and as I run through wikipedia as a reference for many things quite frequently, and often see the (editorial) staff leaving notes in the content seeking "needs citation" unfortunately quite often. So I assumed my citations, and use of "exact" language from the works / sources I cited and books I have read would be "correct" in manner for an "encyclopedia". Additionally, since all the cited works were freely available online as well, I am therefore left slightly somehow perplexed as to why this should be less than desireable for an online encyclopedic reference work.
Granted I am an "old fart", as I attended college with Noah, and even helped him build the Ark... but if you could elaborate further and help me to better comprehend the tenor of why using publically available books and references, and quoting them, is somehow deemed unacceptable these days It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for all your time and patience in this matter. SCMG (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright, erven if it is not marked as such. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia; it's not allowed under our copyright policy. Short quotations are allowed, but that's not what happened here.— Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Removal of Eatontown Historic Info
I don't see the problem with using quoted information. This type of dictatorial deletion behavior has an overall negative and discourages people from editing wikipedia. If you think there is no issue if rewriting quoted material, why don't you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfratini33 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is mostly written by Wikipedians, not as a collection of quotes. Short quotes are allowed, but only if necessary. — Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Demon Slayer Movie's Vandaliliser
A random IP address user is repeatedly removing info of the film "Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train" Which in turn has damage the article. I have sent a three revert policy notice. But the random user doesn't seem to care. Also he has been insulting me, for my frequent attempts to solve the diaster. I do not know what to do now. Please help me as soon as possible. いちか かすが (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a multi-day content dispute and edit war. Sorry I don't have time to get involved. If there's actual vandalism, please file a report at WP:AIV.— Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the ePIcenter section that you removed due to copyright concerns - could you elaborate on which part is a problem? I am the main author for the ePIcenter project proposal and leader of the Communication workpackage for the project so I am involved in the production of much of the information about the project.
Ju12358 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2021 (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 what the bot found. The material is a match for https://lcpa.bal.eu/BALLCPA_Webseite/ as well as other locations online. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.A second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You removed some of the portions on the wikipedia page, are you referring to the engineering history memory link under the sub-header of External Links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEOAMR21 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I removed text that was copied from elsewhere online. This took place on multiple articles, not just Sachal Wind Power Project. Copying text from elsewhere is not allowed - it's a violation of our copyright policy. Please see the edit history of each article for the specific urls where I found matching text.— Diannaa (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the corrections on my edit on Mbaitoli Local Government Area. I seem to understand now why the things I added were removed. I will be careful next time. But I want to ask, if I wish to add more information to that article, am I allowed to go ahead??? Please leave me a message on my talk page ([[Sommy kemdi (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Difficult to say what all was copied, as the quotations interfere with any investigation. Regardless, some was copied from this copyright webpage, so that's enough to warrant revision deletion. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Reverted text from public domain government website
The text you reverted on Saeima was from a government website and in public domain as it is stated here:
>All photographs, audio-visual materials, infographics, animations, etc. (hereinafter – the Content) published with a reference to the Saeima are the property of the Saeima.
>The Saeima’s Content can be republished or otherwise used for information purposes without express consent of the Saeima or the authors of the Content. It is prohibited to use the Content in a manner that discredits the Saeima and the individuals depicted in the Content, or misleads about the circumstances in which the Content was created. When republishing the Content, it is mandatory to make a reference to the Saeima and the authors of the Content (if they are listed).
Sorry but that's not a liberal enough license, because we can't guarantee that the content will not be used "in a manner that discredits the Saeima" or in a misleading way.— Diannaa (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, i have paraphased the content and is not a word to word copy of the content and does not come under copyrights if you are summarising or paraphasing the content, let me know specific content which you see as copyright infringement.
also under following terms the content does not come under copyrighted material both in USA and Authors origin country, kindly let me know if you need clarification
Please have a look at the Hirtle chart. See the section "Works Published Abroad Before 1978" as the text was copied from The Life Divine (ISBN 0-941524-61-2) which according to Worldcat was first published in 1939. The only instance where the book is no longer protected by copyright is if it was "published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of URAA date". You will have to prove that this is so - I can't take your word for it.Regardless, when copying from public domain works, our copyright rules require that you provide attribution so that readers and patrollers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. This is done by including the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation.— Diannaa (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)--Shrikanthv (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree and will take care regarding {{PD-notice}} my intention definitly is not to copy word by word nor claim others work to be own or also in direct or indirect way, also do not understand the proving required ?if you go through India PD-India its clear and the work is in public domain, and will include "PD-notice" in future Shrikanthv (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
It is not proven that the content is in the public domain, because you have not proven that the book was not properly registered as copyright when it was originally published and the copyright was renewed. Almost all books are copyright. We can't assume that it was not. If it was properly registered as copyright and the copyright was properly renewed, it still enjoys copyright protection until 2022. Please don't guess or assume that it was not. — Diannaa (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
How to ...
Hi,
Regarding the content about mandate in the article Department of Science and Technology (India) which you have deleted mentioning it is form Government site, But Diannaa it is mandate of the Government department which can not be changed by any body and it is declare by Government Department. We can not even write it in different words or represent it in different way. The article needs this information as it is a sprite of the subject.
Sorry but the content is copyright, and you can't copy it here. If it's not possible for you to put it in your own words, you will have to leave it out.— Diannaa (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa, There are few things in public domain which you have to put it as it is for eg. National anthem, Laws, Slogans, constitutions like wise the mandate is to be quoted as it is.
Because it is mention on one site does not mean it can not be mention at other places, rather it should be same on all the places wherever it is mentioned. It is for public by Government.
Song lyrics (even national anthems) are copyright, and we're not allowed to include them. In India, even legislation is copyright for 60 years from publication date. In addition to the copyright issue, we don't normally include mandates, mission statements, or organizational goals. — Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
RevDel assistance
Hello, could you help with a possible case of revdel? I removed a long standing copyvio from Filiberto Ojeda Ríos. It is mostly a trimmed down copy and paste (translated from Spanish) of a report ([8] (pp. 136-40)) that isn't in the public domain (as far as I can tell). I moved it and the source to the talk page. Thank you. TJMSmith (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I have looked at some of the points and run them through Google translate, and while the Wikipedia version presents the same points in the same order, the material seems adequately paraphrased to me. Just a suggestion: If you suspect something is a copyright violation, please don't paste it to additional places that will have to subsequently have to be cleaned up. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your notification. As the original contributor to the affected prose sections (with references) in both source article and destination article, I believe I complied with the sourcing requirement. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)12:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Diannaa thank you for your notice at the Malay article page, I am glad that you inform me about the copyright policy on Wikipedia. But somehow my current edit on that page is basically not just a "copy and paste" content, because some information is already provided before and I just want to give my contribution by expanding the article and give related images based on citation sources that eventually share the similar citation sources as Malay (ethnic), because basically Malay (as in ethnicity) related to the Malay (as in kingdom), the Malays called as "Malay" because it bear their identity which is the descendant of the Malay Kingdom. Can you give me some alternative on how I can contribute to expand the page but still preserves the Wikipedia policies so I will not accused as a "copy-paste" editor? Thank you in advance for your good faith cooperation.
Eiskrahablo (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your message on my Talk Page
Hi, you left a message on my talk page that my edits on article "Presidency of Ram Nath Kovind" is removed. I even got a e-mail notification for an edit on the page, but the page edit history doesn't shows any edit history. Secondly, I have not completely copy-pasted the information from the source, there is change in sentence in the article than that same sentence of the source. My previous edit in this article had some "copy-paste" issues, which had been informed to my by an user here, and I improved my article. If you still have any improvements for the article, please let me know on my Talk Page instead of reverting my edits (if possible). Thanks!! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2021 (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 what the bot found. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more.— Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I have just removed what I noticed looked like a serious copyvio here, which was apparently added by an IP editor way back here in 2015. I don't think I can delete the content myself, so I thought I'd pass this on to you to make it invisible. Is this the right way to do this, or is there an easier alternative? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure as to why your edits on the James Larkin article (and then on my talk page) appear to refer to me, as the section added to the article from https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/the-union-cult-of-larkin-is-built-on-factually-baseless-myths-29079014.html was not added by me, and the small section from Irish history live that was added by me was short (amounting to about 8 lines), re written and properly referenced. However now the edit history page on the article gives the impression of dozens of major edits made by myself having been reversed by way of a line having been put through them (including many lines of text that still remain and are referenced). The replacement text you added did not make sense, as important context had been removed and included spelling mistakes, which I have not corrected as I thought it best to leave the article alone for now. An explanation would be appreciated. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The content that was added by you that had to be removed was about 250 words that is a match for an article I found here. The section from The Independent was actually added by someone else long ago, and I discovered it by chance while checking the article. — Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
There are now 36 edits made by myself on the edit history page that now have lines through them. Only 4 of them relate to the section on the Dublin lock-out, which was the subject matter of the source you have mentioned. Having checked again the number of words removed that related to edits by myself were around 160 and mainly related to the facts of the situation (numbers of people involved and dates). Admittedly some language remained very similar which was an oversight, although the source matter was referenced to. If you note the edit history to the article over the time I have been adding to it, the number of words I have added are in the 1000s and are all referenced and in original prose. Many images have been added including those taken from primary sources which have been used as references. However the implication given by the edit history now is that huge sections added by myself have been removed, which is untrue. Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2021 (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.— Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
CV-revdel question
Hi! Hope you are well! I just noticed that WP:REVDEL says " If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used". Could you tell me what that means? Does it mean that if there's an edit of one other editor among the offending revisions, it can not be revdelled? That doesn't sound right, coz isn't that almost always the case? But then, what if not that?
My position is that the attribution still exists in revision-deleted material, but the content is visible only to admins. If we took the stricter reading of the policy, revision deletion would be extremely rare - it would only be permitted if there were no intervening edits whatsoever, and that rarely happens. That's not the way that most of us active in this area interpret the policy.The legal code states that all contributing authors must be credited. ("The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors.") It does not state that each sentence and phrase in the document must be credited to an individual author. Therefore in my opinion providing a list of contributors via the article history is adequate attribution, even if the edits themselves are no longer visible. I think the policy wording is a holdover from the auld days where the only method of removing edits was to do a delete-and-partial-restore, whereby if there were any intervening edits by other contributors, the task could not be completed because contributor's names would be removed from the history.— Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful teaching on copyright! I think I have made copyright mistakes in a few places so I'll double back and make the necessary fixes to my edits. By the way it was wonderful and humbling to explore your user page and some of your many projects, thanks for your extraordinary work! :) Hephestus-1964 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, if you get a chance, could you take a look at the Copake, New York article. I just came across an addition to a notable people list that really seemed out of place in the article. It was more like a tribute, and when I searched on google, I seen it was copied from this website, which states at the bottom that it is copyrighted. Since you have a great knowledge of anything to do with copyrighted material, I was wondering if you could check and see if I was right. I already removed the text from the article, because even if it wasn't copyrighted, it doesn't appear to be appropriate for the town page, but if copyrighted, you might want to remove it all together from the article history. Thanks in advance. Cmr08 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This is ordinary vandalism in my opinion, not qualifying for revision deletion. Please contact the oversight team if you wish to get a second opinion.— Diannaa (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Problem at Yamato people
A new user includes large amounts of unrelated topics/content into the article Yamato people. Could you please take a look and take action. He now started to accuse me of being another user which he reverted as well. Thank you in advance and a nice day 46.125.250.70 (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
He's trying to talk here and there using IP, because he was caught trying to manipulate the article using sock puppets. "I don't like your edit" doesn't mean unrelated. He is my fellow countryman, but it seems he's too addicted to Wikipedia. (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for getting in touch. I did not use any copyrighted material in the Lemass era. I found the stub on the WikiProject Ireland page and tried to improve it with relevant citations and material on other relevant wiki pages.
hi this is marcmackdee, you have removed a considerable portion of my page claiming copyright infringement, please explain.
I am the author of every word typed on this page except for qoutations highlighted in parenthesis. I also own the image used as it is created from a photograph taken of the dog winston in 1987 and manipulated by me on my computer in 2017 for use ultimately on a tshirt also made by me.Marcmackdee (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)marcmackdee
Marcmackdee: Since the text has previously been published elsewhere online, we need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. For images at the Commons, there's full instructions at Commons:OTRS. 12:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)— Diannaa (talk)
Diannaa (talk), I created this page in 2009, all text on it is mine , if it appears elsewhere online it has been copied and pasted from here , this is my writings, look at the edit history. please give me examples of where I am alledgely plagerising other peoples text.
Marcmackdee (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Marcmackdee
The article was created in August 2009, but it's a match for this article, which has existed longer than that, and says "from the band's website". There's a comment at the bottom of the article dated Febraury 2007, and there's a copy at the Wayback Machine dated February 2008.— Diannaa (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa (talk) I wrote this text on 19th february 2003, I have the word document with date stamp on it, how can I send it to you ? I am also the author of all the text on the band website which you can confirm by contacting the site creator and administrator Andrew Lawless, I can provide you with his contact details. the examples you've provided are copy and paste of my original draft taken from the band website or from wiki , the same text was used for both. The reason I began updating and editing the wiki article is because Fergus O'Farrell died on 2nd february 2016 and the content was written while he was alive, obviously it needed to be changed, if you go to www.interference.ie you will see the content there in the 'about' section has also been updated, and is pretty much the same text I was using here on Wiki. kind regards Marcmackdee (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Marcmackdee (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)marcmackdee
Have you ever considered standing for administrator on Commons? No surprise to anyone that you're well versed in copyright. You have sustained activity there over many years. You certainly know how the tools work. If you're ever interested and looking for a nom or a co-nom, feel free to drop me a line. GMGtalk13:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries. Balance can be a hard thing to come by, especially recently. Just a note in case you ever change your mind. GMGtalk13:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
OSAC
Hi Dianna, thanks for providing some clarity on editing and creating the OSAC page. I had a question and a comment: 1) would this be an appropriate use of the AfC process after I disclose COI in my profile? and 2) You note in the reversion that although the information is in the public domain (see copyright comments here https://www.osac.gov/About/Disclaimer), OSAC is "not independently notable as an organisation" to merit a separate Wiki page. I would note that our domestic counterpart, Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), has their own Wiki page and they are a newer, smaller, and arguably less-well-known organization in the security sphere. Happy to discuss further what determines notability (and whether I can provide additional statistics to substantiate that claim)! Thanks again Falor1921 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the criteria for how we determine notability for organizations. In general, we require multiple in-depth coverages of the organization in sources independent of the subject. We like to see a minimum of three independent sources that give detailed coverage (not just brief mentions). While the article Domestic Security Alliance Council does have such sources, Overseas Security Advisory Council did not; it consisted mostly of copy-pastes from the organization's own website, which does nothing to support the contention that it is notable enough at this time to meet our notability requirements.— Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for specifying! I have submitted the article thru to the AfC process and will add 3+ references to independent sources that give detailed coverage of OSAC. Falor1921 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
...what tag to use on an article's talk page when it has some or most of its content copied from another article. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm completely unsure as to how Wikipedia works and need some help. I recently tried to update the page Marsh Christian Trust (the company I work for) as it is very out of date and we are unsure who published it in the first place. Unfortunately I have been told it was unconstructive, a conflict of interest and now copywrite. I declared my COI on the page. All of the information on there has been written by a staff member and there was links to each organisation I mentions and referenced them through their website. I am not sure what to do next as I have very little knowledge on how to edit the page and I am struggling. If there is any more help you can give me to resolve these issues that would be great as I am unsure what sections of the text are raising these issues.
Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. The addition was copied from this document, which is copyright. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.— Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
dcw2003 responds to Diannaa
Dcw2003 (talk)I believe I was indeed the sole author for the text I moved into PT-109: An American Epic of War, Survival, and the Destiny of John F. Kennedy. Check the history of the PT-109 article, (not the book) and you will see pages and pages of edits from dcw2003. Actually the text I copied was from the PT-109 article I wrote most of, not the John F. Kennedy article, although I wrote much of the section on PT-109 in the John Kennedy article as well. I greatly appreciate your advice and information. I will indeed try to follow your advice in the future.
What I really need to know is how to easily access the voluminous rules on wiki of this nature. I am too often informed after the fact of my oversights. Can you help me with this? Thank-you so much either way.
As a secondary issue, I was wondering if you knew the tag to use if you are making extensive edits on a page, particularly one you have just begun and moved to article space and need time to complete your edits before you are deluged with warning tags for missing categories or references or other essential information. I usually keep my new articles in Draft: mode, but sometimes I upload them and don't have time to complete them before getting deluged with comments while I am trying to complete the article. Thanks!!!! I would love to learn more from you Diannaa. Thanks again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 21:54, March 30, 2021 (UTC)
Re: finding the different rules: When I was starting, I found that I could usually find the rules/guidelines I was looking for by typing WP: and then the topic of interest and it would get me where I wanted to go or close to it. For example WP:copyright will get the search results for copyright, but if you type WP:copy into the search box it will suggest links to a whole bunch of related topics. Many people don't know about the rule regarding copying within Wikipedia, and it's easy to forget about it when editing. It's not a big deal, because the attribution can be added in a later edit summary. Of course if you are the sole author of the content you're copying, attribution is not required, but it does help patrollers if you do it anyway.Regarding your second question, we do have an {{In use}} template you can paste at the top of the page if you are actively editing.— Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The material I removed that was copied from Amazon was re-added at some point. I found some other things too.— Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Diannaa. I added some information about this to a post I left for the editor on my user talk page. Perhaps now they will have a better idea about WP:C-P. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi again Diannaa. Would you mind taking another look at this? It's better further expanded upon since the last revdeletion, but now an IP and Antonio Balsaq (an editor you previously warned about C-P on the draft) have showed up and I'm not sure if they're connected or it's just a coincidence. I'm not asking for a SPI/CU, just to know whether the latest version is clean so that I can add a {{AfC submission/draft}} template to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Can you take a look at this? The article was created on March 6, 2021. The source was published on November 20, 2020. It's from what I thought was a reputable online paper, The Oregon Herald. But I wonder if those folks simply copied from the existing Tucker Carlson article, from which I think a bunch of this was copied without attribution. If this had been some blog, I would have thought this was a mirror. Thoughts? Onel5969TT me15:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia mirror. No credit to Wikipedians, but at least Gage Skidmore got credit for his pic. I clicked on "Next" and got a copy of our article Nipsey Hussle - again no credit/attribution for the text, but the photographer got credit.— Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello again. I asked you this earlier, but I want to double check that what I am doing is correct. On the page for Georgia Marsh at the Smithsonian, it says that she received a "B.F.A. from the Rhode Island School of Design in 1972". I have copied that more or less directly into Georgia Marsh as "Marsh received a BFA degree from the Rhode Island School of Design in 1972."
It's just a factual statement, so not copyrightable, correct?--- Possibly (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, you can leave stuff like that unaltered (names of schools, names of degrees, job postings, etc), as things like that are impossible to re-word. You might trigger a bot report if there's enough of it in any given edit, but savvy reviewers will mark it as a false positive. — Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation in the plot summaries at the page history of Meet the Khans: Big in Bolton, introduced at Special:Diff/1015127339 and removed at Special:Diff/1015324964, if you don't mind doing some revision deletion. Copied from the BBC, here, with "attribution" given (but it's copyrighted content). Already explained this to the user who did this in good faith here (feel free to correct me if I got any of the copyright information wrong). — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Rev-del done. I see this so often that I made myself a custom Twinkle template. I've added one of those to the user's talk page, so it becomes more apparent to patrollers that the user has already been told once, in case we need that info later. Thank you for reporting and for your explanation at the wikiproject post.— Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your message about deleting the page Thomas Henry Moray, I am not supporting that page and do not object to the deletion.
The page is mainly historical, not scientific, but has been continually reviewed for scientific content, causing the citations to be deleted as not reliable. It should have been reviewed by historians.
Moray was a famous person with books written about him and more than two million references on the internet, none of which seem to be acceptable in Wikipedia.
He is in the same category with Thomas_Townsend_Brown another failed inventor with an invention now understood much differently than the original claims.
I see you revdeleted the content I reverted on Minoxidil. However, the editor did make another revert that XLinkBot reverted. I was wondering if that content was copyrighted too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
hi Diannaa! I am curious as to how you know there is a copyvio. I review thesis and use Turnitin for official reports. Otherwise I randomly copy-paste paragraphs into a search engine to see if there are hits. But the wiki space is large. Are there any automated tools to search for copy-paste? Vikram Vincent16:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa, thanks for the heads up on the WP:CV for the RAF Stenigot article. I was editing at work and had to log out unexpectedly in the midst of paraphrasing and rewriting copied info. In hindsight, I should have copied my edits into my sandbox for a later time, and returned the article to its original state. It won't happen again. Doghouse09 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Doghouse09: Please don't save copyright material in your sandbox either. It's not allowed. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or copy the material into an external editor if it's not yet ready for publication and you have to leave for a bit. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll have had a notification of my ping to you but in case it has been obscured when the user in question blanked it, it regarded this: [10]Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I would be happy to check this out if you have some specific urls from which you believe they copied. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back so quickly. I’ve quickly rechecked a couple of the edits and in those cases I’m now wondering if they’re internal after all, rather than external copy/pastes but external sites have mirrored them. What I’d done was check a few of the editor's larger edits at the England article, picking any likely looking suspiciously well-formed sentence or substantial phrase and googling it in quote marks. One example was the sentence “England was at the forefront of the illegal, free rave movement from the late 1980s, which led to pan-European culture…” from this edit, which has various ghits, internal and external, but I now see it may have originated at the Culture of England article. Nonetheless, it’s an indication they’re still disregarding your post about attribution. I’ll recheck some other edits when I get a chance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing my attention to the copyright issue. I think what happened was that I was so narrowly focused on getting architectural terms right, that I inadvertently reproduced parts of the original text. My apologies. I have rewritten the section describing the architecture - it is much shorter and I hope it resolves the issue. Hopefully architecture can be described in terms that avoid reproducing text from the source in question. Apologies for causing the problem. Autarch (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I have transferred the contents of the temp page into article space. Thank for the prompt attention to this problem.By the way your archive box on your talk page is broken. The reason for this is because for some reason your archives start at Archive 4 instead of Archive 1. The easiest way to fix this (I think) is to create empty archives 1, 2, and 3. Then all your archives will be listed in the archive navbox. (Other methods would work too, such as moving/re-naming all your archive pages or creating a custom archive navbox.)— Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for transferring the page and thanks for your advice on my talk archive page. I'll sort that out today. Autarch (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Autarch I've been thinking about this, and a better long-term solution is probably to rename/move each page. Archive 4 becomes Archive 1, and so on down the line. Then, you'd need to re-set the counter in the template {{User:MiszaBot/config}} so that the bot archives material to the correct place. If you want me to set this up for you please let me know. Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay replying, Autarch. It looks to me like the bot has found the correct archive on its own and is properly archiving material for you. So there's no adjustments needed!— Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem about the delay replying - I understand. Good to see it's working and thanks again for all your help. Autarch (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa, I had already changed the text of the royal proclamation to a longer quote from a version by Arthur Francis Leach (died 1915), so I have excluded that from the quote brackets you added. I hope that was correct. TSventon (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
It's still a quote. Quotations of 40 words or more get a block quote template. In html markup, a colon indicates a list, not a quotation. Citations go after the quote, not before it. One bit of text is in italics for no apparent reason.— Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly when an article has copyvio problems, it often has other problems as well. I have removed the italics which were present in your version. I have put the shorter blog quote in a block quote template, followed by its reference, and the longer proclamation in another block quote template, followed by its reference, does that look OK? I don't use block quotes often. TSventon (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what this one is about, you wrote:
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://theworker1891.blogspot.com/2013/08/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no original content on that page, it is word for word from the Fitzgerald Report (Page 116), it is just not properly referenced. The original material is here:
I'm not sure if you were attempting to add it as a quotation? Quotations get quotation marks, not italics. Because I couldn't locate a copy of the report online, I was unable to determine its copyright status, so I removed it. Perhaps if you would have mentioned the pdf as part of your citation and properly attributed it or marked it as a quote. I have added it back with a block quote template and a properly formatted citation— Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks and a heads up
Thank you for all you do to keep us free of copyvio. I noticed you just left a welcome note about it to ProudLondoner’s userpage; I previously left them a note about the same issue which they reverted. Wanted to give you a head’s up that there may be a recurring problem. Thanks again for all your thorough, important work. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Ant etkenmen
Why did you remove the lyrics to "Ant etkenmen" claiming copyright even though the song was published in 1917 by an author who died in 1918? Ergo the lyrics are 100% PD in both US and country of origin. You also made it impossible to view the ENTIRE revision history!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The content is okay to keep. Sorry for the mistake, I am not sure how I got confused and thought the anthem was written in 1992. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Mejilis designated it their official song in 1990's. But it was written LONG before then. In the future, PLEASE - for God's sake - be more careful about such huge changes.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I saw you reverted the page because you deemed it not to be sourced. I was the one who originally rewrote that entire paragraph about his early life months ago. That part was there. The text from "I am more Tuscan......" all the way to "Corsican families of the interior" are from the exact same source (Patrice Gueniffey). It is linked there. I noticed yesterday, someone removed the text and all I did was to add it once again. You can check the source. (Jules Agathias (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC))
Sourced or not, the material is practically unintelligible and has no place in an A-class article, so sorry.— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Self-published, promotional editing
Hello! I found you via the big banner pointing me to recently active admins, I hope posting here is fine :) I recently tripped over a promotional and self-sourced edit on my watchlist - and curious, I looked over the contribs of said user and found all of them promotional/self-sourced. What is the correct thing to do here? Report said user somewhere? go through their contribs myself? ping them here? Leave it be? Thank you! Mvbaron (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll post it there. (scary noticeboards) Article in question was e.g. this diff [13] Thanks! EDIT: this was me, removing a self-sourced section, the promotional diff imo is [14] -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, thanks for the warning about copyright issues with the text I've added. I had thought that as the sources were a government website (culturenet is published by the Croatian Ministry of Culture) that the text is in the public domain, and therefore OK to use. Is that not right? So I would now need to go back through and recreate my own descriptions of the artwork instead? Thanks for your help, I really do want to improve the quality of the information about Croatian art, so appreciate you taking the time. Farscot (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is what it says on the culturenet.hr website:
On the About Us page[[15]] "Culturenet.hr is a project initiated by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia and the Open Society Institute-Croatia aims at pooling available information resources on Croatian culture (organizations, associations, institutions, projects, etc.), encouraging their elaboration and enabling cultural workers to find in one place information of interest to them as well as partners for their projects. The project CultureNet is thus geared at promoting cultural co-operation in Croatia and co-operation with foreign countries as well as contributing to enhanced co-operation between Croatian cultural institutions, between institutions and artists and all of them with the broader cultural public."
And from the legal page[[16]] "Documents and images may be reproduced without limits, with attribution of the source"
Even if the legal page says the content may be reproduced without limits? That's a tough one, but I will bow to your experience on the matter, and start rewriting. I respect the need to keep Wikipedia squeaky clean. Thanks! Farscot (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The source article is dated March 9, 2019, at which point we already had the content in our article Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement, so it's okay to keep. In the future, when copying from one Wikipedia article to another, please say so in your edit summary. In fact such attribution is required by the terms of our license. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for details of exactly how to provide attribution and why we have to do it. Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I am the creator of page Ashu Suyash which was created with original information from our official website at- here
Please do not delete the page under copyright infringement as our information is original and valid. Please approve the draft and help me publish it. --14:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)CRISIL Ltd (talk)
Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. Sorry but I can't find any article titled Ashu Suyash and you have no edits to any articles (deleted or not), so I can't get specific about what happened to your article.— Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
HI Diannaa, what are special licensing permissions , can you please explain in detail. Also, the message shows that my page Ashu Suyash was in drafts when you deleted it under copyright infringement. Not sure how you cannot find my page. Please help me take the page live. 103.66.214.37 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Checking the other user's edit summary, he has pointed out that the supposed source page has copied from Wikipedia. Note the section is headed "Here is the Wiki-time line". We've had that timeline since the article was created, on December 21, 2008.— Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey Diannaa. Hope you don't mind a relatively broad question! I've been going through CAT:RD1 a bit lately and I need some help calibrating my threshold for where revdel is appropriate when large swaths of history would need to be deleted to hide the copyvio. To pick a rather extreme example, would you consider this a sufficient amount of copying to warrant RD1 of 3,500+ revisions going back to 2008? It's a non-trivial amount of copying, amounting to several paragraphs of text, but it's also a lot of history to lose, with many significant prose edits. I declined this last week; again a revdel request for 3,500+ revisions, but only two paragraphs copied. I think my decision was correct, but was it? As I understand it from a legal and policy perspective, and from prior discussion, basically anything can be redacted provided usernames are kept in the history for attribution (which is almost always, so I don't know why that's mentioned in WP:RD1); there is no legal need to attribute specific parts of the content to specific editors. But in practice, I don't think we'd want to delete 3,500 revisions of valuable history to hide a two-paragraph close paraphrasing. Where do we draw the line? — The Earwig (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
(hijacking due to me often being a requestor of massive revdels) Interested to hear your thoughts as well since many of these are borderline. I'd like to not make the sysops run away from RD1 during CCI cleanup if possible and this situation comes up a lot in the older cases. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I also said this on discord but I'll post it here for posterity (or whatever the word is): I would say no. I've not revdeled in similar circumstances; with that much history I only revdel if the violation was very large (5-7K+ usually) and had a chance of being re-added. For example, I revdeled about 2700 edits on Carlos Slim a few days ago over 13k bites of violations, but in that case a lot of those edits were from the violator who added it (Backendgaming) Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide04:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I also would say no. I used to do some pretty extreme revision deletions but the way the policy is currently worded and the response from the community to similar cases means I don't do massive revdels any more. The only cases where I would hide 10+ years of history would be where there's fewer than 50-100 edits involved. Like Moneytrees I have done some big ones where there's a good chance the material will be re-added, like we often see with articles about India (castes, temples, gods and goddesses in particular) — Diannaa (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The Earwig, I think again a few extreme revdels but I have seen the discussion that suggests this is not appropriate. While I understand the thought process, it leads to an odd conclusion. As a project, we absolutely do not want editors contributing copyrighted information to articles and if it happens, we will not only remove it, but we will remove it from the history to ensure that no one can link to an old version of an article which contains a copyright violation, unless it's been a long time in which case we will ignore it. That's a very unsettling policy.
I sometimes wondered whether the foundation ought to commission a developer to create a bot which could re-create the history of the article as if the problematic edit never occurred. My guess is that someone will point out that this sounds nice in theory, but implementing it is a lot tougher than I realize. S Philbrick(Talk)16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, in case you've forgotten, in the old ticket phab:T256501, Eran said the bot will automatically re-start at the 4 hour 5 minute mark if no new reports are filed at CopyPatrol. If the restart fails it will try again every 10 minutes.— Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is copyvio. I have done the revision deletion and given the editor a welcome-copyvio template. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your help here, just noticed the revdels. Lets see what happens after I remove a totally unsourced table from the lead that isn't supported by body text. I'll try a technique called 'collegiality' around this subject, something that I am unfamiliar with! -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF16:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I've seen that before, though I cant remember what it was associated with. I don't believe its a RS anyway. I know that the writer, who calls himself a wiki editor, has made less than 50 contribs when I looked. Wish I could remember more detail. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF13:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Diannaa, thank you for keeping the wikipedia clean and checking for copy right issues. You recently deleted the article on the 'Mie potential' due to "copy right issues".
In G12 that you mention it is written that " earlier versions without infringement should be retained." There were no infringement from my point of view. I simply wrote the content on the Mie potential from general knowledge that I had in my mind - I discuss this in more detail in the answer on the comment you made on my user site. FYI: The German Wikipedia also has a Mie Potential website, which contains practically the same content as I wrote in the English version, which is also complement to Sadus paper that you mention. Yet, this content is of such a general bases and mentioned in many many many scientific papers that the claim of copy write issues seems not helpful.
For instance, I could also write "Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961". Most probably, someone wrote this before me. But clearly, there are no coy write issues for such a sentence.
Please help me to get the site for the Mie potential back online and I am more than happy to rephrase the content and add references such as those of Sadus, Lafitte et al. (2013) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4819786 etc. as examples for scientific usages of the Mie potential.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeStep89 (talk • contribs)
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 what the bot found. There's no need to alter the formulas, but the text is identical, and goes beyond simple statements that cannot be re-worded. I can't find the article on the German Wikipedia – I would like to have a look at it but you will have to provide me with a link.— Diannaa (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Dianna, thanks for your response. I tried to look at the report, but it seems to me that the comparison part with the 'Mie Potential draft' I initiated is not there anymore. The bot seems to have marked mainly the formula. Anyhow, I belief that I did not write in the draft anything regarding the book 'Statistical Thermodynamics' of "Fowler and Guggenheim" that Richard mentions in his paper and was marked by the bot, since I did not even know that Guggenheim mentions such a 'version of the Mie potential' in his book (a very popular classical book). At least this part of the "report" confuses me a lot. Anyhow, no need to worry about the deleted draft.
You can convince yourself be typing 'Mie potential' in google scholar. There are many many many studies through the last almost 100 years dealing with that potential. A good review on this topic is for example given by Lafitte et al. (see reference above) and also in the book of Stone (https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672394.001.0001/acprof-9780199672394). Today most state of the art transferable force fields are based on the Mie Potential (e.g. the TaMie force field from J. Gross group and the force field introduced by Jeffrey Potoff and also the SAFT gamma Mie force field developed by the Imperial college London group of George Jackson and co-workers). This is mainly because the repulsive interactions are described more realistically by the Mie potential compared to the formally sooo popular Lennard-Jones potential. Hence, there is a severe need to create an article on the Mie potential. I am sure that there are different opinions on several details regarding the performance etc. so I hope that other people quickly contribute and review such an article. I would not consider myself a historical expert for example on these questions.
Please advise me how to re-create the Mie potential draft so I can write a description on that fundamentally important potential (and also provide references of course) [Again, even though I personally use the LJ potential much more..]. TimeStep89 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The draft is not there any more; it has been deleted. It's okay to create a new draft with the same title (Draft:Mie potential), but please be sure to write the content in your own words. The bot did find text copied from this article. There's no need to alter the formulas, but the text is identical, and goes beyond simple statements that cannot be re-worded.— Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Diannaa, I wrote a new draft of the 'Mie potential' article. Could you kindly check the text. How can I submit the draft for reviewing such that it becomes a regular article?
The new version of the draft looks okay from a copyright point of view. If you think the draft is ready, please submit it for review. I will not be reviewing the draft. You will have to wait your turn. There are presently 5,605 drafts awaiting review, so please be patient.— Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The editor is an autobiographer and SPA (not surprising). I needed other eyes on the case because it might be suggested by uncharitable persons that I am overly interested in this matter. There is substantial material on my talk page over this. FiddleFaddle10:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Skimming was all it was worth. I was seeking to cut through terminological inexactitudes. In the end I achieved it, but it was like pulling teeth.
Thanks. Yes, I know about those. I have recused myself from reviewing either. I considered experimenting to see if I could write an article on this chap, but found nothing to verify any form of notability. Pretty standard self puffery. His business will re-open after covid restrictions end (0.9 probability) based in a statement on his main web site. I am sure they will not pass at AFC, or, of they do, will face AfD very fast
It's extremely frustrating when the person says so many things that are not true, and says something else when we catch wise. He may think he is outsmarting us, but we've already in our long tenure here already seen it all. — Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The picture you're deleting "Goodden Speaking", was taken by a Chinese friend of mine, in China, at my request using my camera, more than 10 years ago. He has no presence in the U.S. nor would he have anything to do with copyrights. I inserted a few different pictures because I couldn't find one that was the right size. And I worked on this in Sandbox, not released for Review. Once I found the right picture, then I submitted it for Review, which was only 3 hours ago. So the entire "Permission" aspect would be unnecessary and impossible to even pursue anymore, nor would they even understand what I was talking about as they have no connection with the U.S. or our Legal system.
China is a signatory to the Berne convention, so therefore the same copyright rules apply in China as in the United States. It doesn't matter how many hours ago you uploaded the photo; we can't host it here, not even in a sandbox, not even in a draft.— Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
For being willing always to roll up your sleeves and handle the difficult areas where editors simply either do not understand or refuse to understand about copyright issues FiddleFaddle11:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Well-deserved, Diannaa. I simply don't understand all the ins and outs of the various copyright laws and rules, and really have no desire nor aptitude for digging deeper, not to mention lack of admin tools (and no desire for that either!) You're hard work is very much appreciated. BilCat (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! You flagged all my contributions from yesterday. I think my offence yesterday was in the "Obituaries and memorials" part of the article. I admit I was lazy. Should have put that part into my own words. Thanks for pointing it out. Wikipedia is better for your keeping people like myself on their best behaviour. Kindly let me know if there is anything I am missing. Be well... Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, Thank you for taking this as a valid criticism and not getting upset. It was regarding that congressional resolution he received. The award is still mentioned, but I removed the copied bits. Best, — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Having a look at their block notice, I see that they were told to create a new account that does not violate the username policy. So it's okay— Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like we have started off on the wrong foot due to my initial insensitive statement and misunderstanding. Hitler was recently promoted to FA status in Vi Wikipedia by one of my good friends. She is a Vietnamese German working mainly in Vi Wikipedia. The Vi version is mainly a translation from En plus additional word to bring it to FA status (so yea, part of your work is translated). I was one the reviewers of the article in Vi. I strongly believed in my position to be correct, but I did relent when consensus was not supporting me.
I'm mainly concerned about the current lack of emphasis on the army role in Hitler's decision to purge the SA. In my opinion and understanding, it was the biggest reason. You're probably right that my wording is an over-simplification of the situation. Anyway, maybe you can take a look and change the wording to emphasize more about the army's role in your own words of what you think is best? If not, it's cool. I won't (and can't) be participating in Hitler's article for quite some time and most likely won't edit it anymore in the future because it's a very difficult article to edit and very easy to get into an edit war. I know that now. If I edit a less popular article that nobody cares, I would most likely get my edits across unopposed. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This is in direct violation of your promise to stop, here. You are working very, very hard to justify a sitewide block, Nguyentrongphu. --Yamla (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have stopped. No more argue to unblock, no more argue about my point of view of Hitler anywhere, and no more trying to prove I was right. It's a simple polite request and an explanation for my sudden interest in the Hitler article. It's a fact that Hitler was recently promoted to FA in Vi. She can ignore this request if she wishes. I meant no harm and only came here with good intention to clear up the misunderstanding. Just because I was blocked in Hitler talk page, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to communicate to other editors in a polite manner. I'm working hard to improve the article even if I can't do it myself. I want to bury the misunderstanding instead of continuing it. You're working very hard to endorse a site-wide block when there is no ground for it. Why the hatred? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
After realizing my misinformation in my first proposal, I went ahead and fixed it (long-standing misinformation that no one else notices) in 2 articles: 1934 German referendum and Marburg speech. It shows my good will and willing to correct my own mistake if someone explains it to me well with good rational points. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Posting comments requesting people to edit on your behalf while you are blocked is not allowed. Posting the same sort of thing for which your were blocked on one page on a different page is not allowed either – it's considered a form of block evasion. For that reason as well as other reasons, I am not interested in continuing the discussion with you on this page or any other page.— Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Technically, I'm not blocked on Hitler page. And, It's not the same sort of thing since this is the first time I sent a personal request about making change in Hitler (I was pushing a theory before, and it failed). You probably misread my intention due to my rudeness initially in the Hitler talk page. It was a sincere request. I can't change your perception about me, but hopefully, there is no hard feelings. In any case, fair enough, I won't bother you anymore or anyone else for that matter. Thanks! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I sent you an email with a link to a second version of If. Thought you might enjoy it. I'm not sure of the value yet, but I may research a bit later on. — Ched (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Revision deletion complete. Thank you for the report. By the way, if you already know which diff added the material, it will save me some time if you give me a link. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Copy Of SuperMarioLogan Wiki
Hey Diannaa i got the message you send to me about the sml wiki and i just wanna say im sorry for copying i coudn't thought of creative and Yes Some Of It Is Copied But Not Tryed To Harm This Article And Plus There Is No Other Way To Put It In A Different Way Ms Diannaa If It Bothering You I Will Please To Change It Hopefully You Will Reply!!!
Sincerly, PhantomDigital
The draft will not be accepted in its present condition, because it has no sources whatsoever. Also, we don't actually want fan pages at Wikipedia - that's why a separate Fandom wiki was created.— Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Harvard got 1 year of semi, twice already. On January 6, 2012 it was unprotected per request, and the vandalism resumed the next day and continued until the protection was reinstated for another year 4 days later. That protection expired January 10, 2013, and vandalism resumed on the 25th. I went to indef-semi in response to a request at RFPP a couple weeks later. Few or none of the IP edits were accepted while the page was unprotected, so little or nothing of value was lost by having the page protected. So I am gonna say no. If you wish to get a second opinion, please post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Diannaa (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Control copyright icon Hello Random149! Your additions to World Hypotheses have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. REPLY: I've replaced all of the deleted material. Now 100% my own words based on my reading of Pepper's book. Thank your for your engagement with me as a new person on Wikipedia. Random149 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Diannaa! First of all, thank you for your attention, but i don't understand why you delete this text: "Lechkhumi Range has glacial landform, including U-shaped valley and Cirque" ?. Finally, i changed this article. Best regards, - OTOGIMessages12:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks like that part was okay to leave in. Sorry. The new version is okay from a copyright point of view.— Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I removed what appeared to be a copyvio here where the inserted text was taken straight from the source. Do I need to take further action, or ask you to do so? Sorry to bother you, and thanks DBaK (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Your name is awesome, so I am wondering if you have criminal minds on free internet because I have questions about vague episodes?(DoctorDoom123 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)).
CC-BY-NC 4.0 license is not a compatible license, because that license does not allow commercial use, and our license does. I already told the editor that on their talk page on April 11 and on April 14.— Diannaa (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Your sandbox
Seems like we are done there. Thanks for not minding me editing there :) That user's been on Moneytrees' radar for a bit and came under my attention while dealing with WP:Contributor copyright investigations/Carvin11. Hopefully there's no more, but I found stuff as recent as last month and there's zero talk page communication so... Sennecaster (What now?) 20:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added them to my calendar and will check their future edits and see what happens next. Thank you for your help with the cleanup.— Diannaa (talk)
There is a further concern in that at least one of the images added to commons and the article by the same editor uses the term 'screenshot' in the metadata [20]. I have not gone into detail.SovalValtos (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article and listed one image for deletion. The uploader states he copied these from his Instagram account - he says he has now sent a permission email to OTRS so I am not going to nominate the remaining 26 images for deletion. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I am particularly pleased that I relied on the collaborative nature of Wikipedia rather than attempting a task which would at best taken me days. Thank you.SovalValtos (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Question: 
Thanks Elvisisalive95 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harbour_view_Folkestone.jpg){kind=link}