User talk:Diannaa/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Recent deletion/hidings from List of historical acts of tax resistance

You recently removed a section I added to List of historical acts of tax resistance on the grounds that it duplicated or resembled copyrighted text found elsewhere. I am the original author of that copyrighted text found elsewhere (and the owner of the site on which you found it) and so I have the authority to release it onto Wikipedia under its license. Please let me know if there is a more formal way in which I need to do this. —Moorlock (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a couple of ways it can be done. There's instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. — Diannaa (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay... I think I've got the bases covered over at https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=26May15 (see the bottom of the content panel) —Moorlock (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks for taking the time to look after this. — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

ZeuS trojan

Hi! You sent me a message on my talk page regarding a copyvio in the ZeuS trojan article. However, although I was the creator of that page, I was not the source of the copyvio text: I originally created it as a redirect to the main Zeus malware article. You might want to take the copyvio issue up with User:Mjralte, who seems to have added most of the material in the now-deleted article. -- The Anome (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Social work

• Only saw your reply now.

I did check, I looked at the diffs presented at ANI before I protected the page. There were over fifteen diffs presented where posts were vandalized or removed. This is an unacceptable level of disruption. All of the IPs involved are from Kerala, India, so I have to assume all this trouble is being caused by one person only: you. Please find something else to do with your time. — Diannaa (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI means [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] right. I am not sure about the diffs. The truth is that most of us wee noticed through messages that wikipedia article about social work (esp. lead section) was disrupted or filled with nonsense. This can be verified by the background of these registered editors. Esp. Jim1138 and Softlavender. Edits made from members (yes from kerala, karnatka and tamil nadu) were simply reverted. If the process of the reversions are checked you could see "any content contributions" are reverted either by citing policies which are irrelevant to the case or by blocks. Further extensive and manipulative ways to build case against these ip editors are out there plainly on the talk page. If any of these both editors are asked to be cooperative they appear inactive and appear active the moment any edit are contributed. These actions itself holds them as anti-wiki editors who engage in biting, disruptions and safeguarding there ambitious positions. A recent evidence could be seen at the article revision page where an ip editors contributions are reverted citing unsourced when in fact its sourced and quickly blocked. These sort of below the belt actions and co-joined manipulative actions are visible across the edit histories of the article. I hope you can see pass through your assumptions and if possible further block activities of both Softlavender and Jim1138, there are activities alone on this page reveals there character that is against a community project which I read calls for temporary suspensions. I again ask humbly if the article requires supervision I implore to be handled by editors with good track record from editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Work. Not obsessive disruptions from Softlavender and Jim1138. Kindly look into it, the reply doesn't require to be an yes but if it could involve some positive changes with the current rv and block situations it would be helpful. If the reply is No - a humane reasoning or ways to handle the issue would be helpful.61.1.147.39 (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my previous reply, I did investigate already, and acted accordingly. If you have complaints against other users, please present specific diffs of things they did that you think warrant admin action. I don't have time to hunt up evidence against these good editors for you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

To give a perspective of these editors actions from recent events on the article for wikipedia project.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_work&diff=717648154&oldid=717639741
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_work&diff=717379055&oldid=717378609

Both these shows a perfect example of joint action which can go on reverting up to 6 reverts or apply for blocks as separate editors withot the show of indistinguishable interest. If the edit summary is viewed one doesn't have any reasons and the other falsely says unsourced. Later the article was quickly blocked and the same might have been done using false accusations.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_work&diff=716707906&oldid=716707120 , In this case the edit was unsourced but the content is true and the content wasn't harmful or vandalism of any sort.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_work&diff=711785706&oldid=711761992 , In this case the edit was reverted because the rv editor saw that springer publisher material was not fit for wikipedia and an supporting link(which could have been deleted) was not upto the standards.(that i agree) This is just a preview to shed some light.

To see the ritual obsessiveness in impugning every individual ip involved:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_work&action=history

But if these acts are the good acts of good editors that can sit well with everyone involved.- I might be wrong, if you find so, then (if possible:need) links to the specific policies and essays which enable an editor to act so and understanding this factor might be very helpful for me to edit as such in future with informed knowledge.117.213.16.196 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• This edit is a copyright violation, copied from here. You added this material twice.
• Regarding the David Howe material, you are incorrect when you say there were six reversions. There were only two. I have posted on the article talk page to ask why this material was removed, as I can't find any discussion about it on the talk page.
• This edit is unsourced. It was correctly removed, as we need sources for all additions. Your assertion that "it is true" holds no weight. Verifiable sourcing is required.
• Here is some unsolicited advice: Please don't call people vandals, either in your edit summaries or on the talk page, when clearly they are not vandals but good faith editors.
• All the IPs that have been editing the page are you; that is the pattern I see on the talk page, not IP-bashing in general. There's a list posted, and they all geolocate to Kerala. Coincidence? probably not. It's all you.
• Another comment: You were making changes to other peoples' posts on the talk page, and that is why the talk page was locked. — Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the two users who removed the material from Howe has responded on the talk page. I have pinged the other person. — Diannaa (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have also looked into the material Howe theory seems good and sourced. But the other one seems to be closely paraphrased or most of the content is taken from it.(The about section says "facilitate open access to Indian theses and dissertations to the academic community world-wide." and seems to follow copyleft, I am not sure)-The source is from 1915 and by now any material taken from it or directly sourced doesn't violate copyio, i guess.(or it could be re-written in future) As I said there was a group edit from Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka members who attended in a conference. Based on messages received through phone the edits were done. The one that raised alarm was gibberish explanation(about social engineering or something, which is now removed) given in the lead of the article. The diffs tell that the talk page matter was resolved before the block with guidance from a Timothyjosephwood. Editors like Timothyjosephwood or someone (there are many social workers in wikipedia community) from the social work wiki-project with fair-good track record should be reviewing article changes rather than ....., this would minimize much of the trouble, I am pretty sure about it.59.92.30.236 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Material from 1915 has fallen out of copyright, but we can't add it to our website without saying where it came from, making it clear that it is a quotation, and properly attributing the source. I am sure having knowledgeable people assessing edits would be highly beneficial. Unfortunately not all of the articles are as heavily watched or maintained as they should be; this is even true for core content such as this article. The way Wikipedia works is that anyone can edit any article, regardless of expertise on the topic. It appears that some people showed up to police the article and its talk page as a result of the activity on the article and the talk page as a result of the events at the conference. Thank you for the info about the conference; that's useful to know. Based on this new information, I have lifted the protection from the talk page and will monitor to see what happens. — Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

59.92.30.236 - First, at the risk of stating the obvious, a lot of this could be streamlined and much more easily resolved simply by creating an account. Yes, IP editors are in principle, just as permitted to edit Wikipedia as anyone else, but the fact of the matter is you are editing from a range of IPs with a history of problematic editing, on an article with a history of problematic IP edits. This is going to subject your edits to a higher level of scrutiny.

Right or wrong, the whole situation does get frustrating when it requires so much unnecessary time and effort sorting out who is whom, and what belongs to where, when a 30 second registration on your part could clear the matter up. At some point of complication it becomes a bit selfish on the part of the IP editor.

Second, on any relatively contested article, it's probably best to make your suggested edits on the talk first and seek consensus there, especially since you seem to be a relatively new editor, and it seems like you may speak English as a second language. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Material from 1915 as linked(https://archive.org/details/cu31924014006617). Saw this(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_work&diff=718227889&oldid=718221560)- it is a pretty vague statement due to tongue tied actions the editor performed or from knowledge base incompetence See:https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=taxonomy+of+social+work+theories ,to know its acceptance in scholarly books and the same is the case with the other source and its content. To know this facts the editor isn't incapable rather skilled for digging evidences. There are 3 types of characteristics in that editors activity: one a kind editor who responds to other and helps novices. second, a skilled computer-web savvy person who is a student and third a rude editor who engages in disputes and an infamous rv warrior. All these characteristics points discrepancies with the profile the editor has posted. I am guessing activity of three editors through a single account.

Timothyjosephwood as I was looking through your profile i saw this comment from one of the editors in question: "Poor Barek hasn't edited much since then. I'm rather burned out too. I wish warning messages would focus the addressee's attention more on the issue somehow."- This is a from of bragging, which indicates the registered editor (Barek, probably novice) was handled by the "editor in question" maybe with blocks or other forms of policies which was intended for safeguarding wikipedia's interests. The range and manner of blocks initiated in social work article by these editors are also a clear indicator to the skill which these editors can abuse policies or privileges. If you were an newbie editor and if you have stumbled upon this fact would you be willing to register and be subjected to this.

Timothyjosephwood, how would you define problematic editing in light of policies and essays, then only i will be able to respond to that statement. This definition might also solve the issue with the "nature of contested." If edits made by anon or reg. editors are content contributions that isn't with the intention of vandalism then those actions should be taken in good faith, reverting them without checks or talk page statements(suggesting corrections and giving time) by editors who weren't the contributors or the ones who are actively engaged in elevating the article isn't a good practice. Timothyjosephwood your profile shows post graduate in social work(and you must have texts notes ppts of the same-add them), active editors like your attention is required. This is something i stumbled in my recent searches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:University_of_Michigan/SW_697_Social_Work_Practice_with_Community_and_Social_Systems_%28Winter_2015%29 I am sure there might be many like this with a bit of collaboration from active editors involved in such projects competent editors like you could easily elevate this into a featured article. I am sure they would collaborate. Thank You.

Activities of Softlavender and Jim1138 were ruinous to the article. This is my understanding and I believe there are policies for this. A request with warning to not involve in this project's articles or a restriction for this editors to be involved with project's articles would be fair solution to the problem, I guess.

117.248.60.117 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

117.248.60.117 As I said above, ideally, all edits, by anon and registered users alike should be judged on their merits alone. But in the cases where an edit is in any kind of grey area, being an IP editor on an article with a history of vandalism is not going to work in your favor.

Would I be willing to register and be subject to this? Obviously yes. This is my second account. For better or worse, reputation does sometimes play a role in the way things turn out. When trying to evaluate behavior, often the first thing experienced editors will do is try to evaluate the person: How long have they edited for? Have they ever been blocked? Have they ever been warned? Do they have a history of constructive edits? (On the topic, both Jim1138 and Softlavender, have long histories of positive contributions. And it is unlikely that they ahve been engaging in "ruinous" editing.)

So, my advice is to register an account so we can dispose of the argument of who you are and who others were, and suggest specific changes on the talk page. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly engaged in WP:EDIT WARRING, deceit, and has refused to honor WP:BRD after being requested to do so many times. Several articles have been protected multiple times as a result. The IP has been the subject of ANI reports twice at least. Having to carefully go through each edit is a major time sink, annoyance, and is very frustrating. This editor should be banned as discussed on the ANI reports. The IP is WP:NOTHERE. wp:Deny recognition should be invoked. Jim1138 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Guatemalan vandal IP

190.104.115.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• 190.104.115.104
• 190.104.120.32
• 190.104.120.136
• 190.104.120.148
• 190.104.120.240 Range needs to be widened to 190.104.112.0/20 (4096 addresses). Blocked for 3 months. — Diannaa (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Mary Bonney

Hi Diana, Thank you so much for noticing that I did not add quotations, I must have erased them in the course of writing other information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtz jenny (talk • contribs) 00:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gtz jenny: Adding quotation marks does not obviate the need to obey copyright law and avoid close paraphrasing. The material needs to be thoroughly re-written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing things up, I will revise all of the deleted material. I would like you to check again however when I am done to make sure I did not violate any laws. Thank you for your time. Gtz jenny (talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If it helps, I can send you a copy via email of what I removed. — Diannaa (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Boundary Oak School Censorship

Your edit to the Boundary Oak School page (under the guise of a coatrack objection) is tantamount to censorship of the most comprehensive kind. Not only have you removed edits dating back 6 months but you have prevented access to this edit history. The edits over that period included essential public interest information that you have completely removed. I kindly request you at least reinstate the 6 months of edits to be accessible so that users can reinstate genuinely valid elements, or else it will merely be rewritten. Your wholesale removal is seen as an attempt to dissuade users from reinstating valid and relevant content. Heck you have even deleted completely appropriate changes relating to, for example, the fact that the school is now entirely different to that indicated in the article. Redukerate (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Redukerate: There's this thing called Copyright, which means that people are not allowed to steal text from sources (such as the Telegraph) and post it wherever they want as if it's their own writing. If you're capable of seeing the coatrack objection, you'll capable of seeing that Diannaa was removing edits that contained copyright violations. Those edits are not being restored, but if you quit acting like Diannaa is a member of the Ministry of Truth, maybe someone will be more willing to manually re-add the material so that there can be discussion regarding its appropriateness.

Also, this site has a rule called WP:Assume good faith. If Diannaa said she was removing material per WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP, that's what she meant -- not "censorship," and certainly not any sort of conspiracy to hide the truth from the public. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Slightly laughably I'm a copyright lawyer so completely understand what you are talking about and you will know (since you seem to be familiar with the content) that there was no copyright infringement in the content (good faith works in many ways). In any event there was clearly a disregard for the totality of the content removed, no discrimination, since the nature of the substantive content included public interest and evidenced content and completely unrelated practical information regarding the school. The edits at least should be visible. Redukerate (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also slightly laughably I could claim I'm the Queen of England. On the internet, no one knows if you're a dog. I'd say far more editors would be inclined towards taking Diannaa's word that there was a copyright violation against that of an account a mere 1 day old, good faith not withstanding. Blackmane (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In this edit, she does indeed remove a copyright violation (I can see this because I'm also an admin). Someone had copied the tenth paragraph of this source verbatim. Because no one removed that material for six months, all of the edits that contain that copyright violation need to be removed per our policies (which in this case are guided by the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers). Now, if there's material from that time that needs to be restored, that can be done -- but accusing Diannaa of censorship was not the way to go about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually Ian, it's not "all of the edits that contain that copyright violation need to be removed", it's "all of the revisions that contain that copyright violation need to be made inaccessible" - the former suggests that all the material added by those edits has been removed, when it has not. And there is no missing material from that time (other than what was explicitly removed by Dianna's two edits). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Diannaa has not removed all of the edits that were made in the past six months, she has only removed the copyright violation and some coatracking/BLP violation. Revision-deleting previous revisions from the history does *not* remove the changes made by those revisions, it merely means that those previous revisions can not now be seen in their original form. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Small add, you folks have covered the main points: What I mean by removing it per coat-racking rules is that we don't use our articles about companies or schools as a place to list all the criminal convictions of everyone who has ever worked there. It's not the kind of material you would find in a paper encyclopedia, and we don't want it here either. — Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

nyu abu dhabi

Hi you deleted something in NYU Abu Dhabi for a copyright violation, but now there's a cross through the edit history and I can't see what you deleted. I am usually very careful about citations, and i remember i put the source at the end of the deleted sentence in the article so if you think i didn't paraphrase it enough i would rather put it as a quote than delete it. This article is extremely low priority for me so i don't recall exactly what you deleted, or i would add the quote myself, cheers. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What you added was material on labor violations. I did not remove it totally but rather paraphrased the bits that were not paraphrased adequately. It's the material in the "Controversies" section. — Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you already paraphrased it, that's what I was going to try to do. Great, thanks! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, just out of curiosity, I've never seen the strikethrough marks over an edit history before. Is that for legal reasons so that there isn't a record of copyright infringements on WP? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That's right; it prevents the copyright material from being visible within the edit history. — Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Plaque hypotheses

Hi Dianna, I am working on my referencing. Can you please provide additional info as to what parts need addressed. Thank you. CatManDoes (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of woriking on your referencing. What happened is you copied some material to this wiki directly from your sources, and that's a copyright violation. All content you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OKay... thanks CatManDoes (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Dianna, I am happy to rewrite contents in my own words, however I am having difficulties to figure out where the conflict is with the article. I know you are busy, can you please help me as I have spent already a bit of time to sort it out. CatManDoes (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The material was copied from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fcimb.2014.00092/full. Your addition began with the sentence "The ideas about oral disease development have evolved over time", which is identical to material in the source. All the material you added was copied from the opening paragraph of the source web page, and presented the same material in the same order using the same words. You need to re-write the prose completely in your own words. You might consult WP:close paraphrasing for ideas as to how to do it. Here is another good resource: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/01/ — Diannaa (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I con't find that text in the wiki page now....so it appears you have removed it. is that correct ? Do I have to do anything else to rectify this on the wiki page CatManDoes (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the copyright violation and it has been revision-deleted. There's nothing further you have to do. — Diannaa (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Help with copyrights.

Oh Mighty Diannaa! I want to use works from a large archive as sources but I am scared of a copyrights problem. I read their Terms of use and copyrights policy but I still can't understand if I really can and how to even cite it. It says the user should respect the copyright policy of the work holder, in a spesific case, the work holder is the National Library of Israel and their copyrights policy says "Subject to the law of copyright, the user may not copy, redistribute, retransmit, publish, broadcast or publicly display protected material, without the prior written consent of the National Library. ". Sounds like I can't really use their material for Wikipedia... Can you help me understand or guide me to how to figure out if those works can be used? And how?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We are not worthy~~!! It looks to me like their material is all under copyright, and as such cannot be copied over to this wiki. You could of course use their material citations for your own prose. — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That is awfully sad, but thanks anyway.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Clam river greenway

hi this is jake joyaux, recently i tried to make my own page about the clam river greenway and saw that it got deleted. i saw that it got deleted because of copyright infringement, and wanted to know any feedback you could give me about better the page to make sure it wont get deleted. i am sorry for the inconvenience it brought to wikipedia, and wanted to know if we could sort through this and i can give the page another shot by adjusting it

Joyauxcord (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What you have to do is write the article in your own words and don't copy anything at all from other websites. That's what got it deleted. — Diannaa (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

just informing you that i have recently made a change to the page, and if you could take a look at it

Joyauxcord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #15698 - User:B.Bhargava Teja

I'm working this one (for what seems like forever) and since you're the blocking admin I want to run it by you. He says his poster tagging (PD vs fair use) was inadvertent, and he went so far in his initial appeal message to reference the specific NFCC criteria he violated. Not so sure about 'inadvertent' but it's possible he's got a clue now. There's a sock tag on his user page, but I don't think the behavioral evidence is there to hold up the allegation (though I haven't removed it and CU can't check now anyway). I asked him to disclose alternate accounts and he says he has none. Do you think we should give him another chance? I won't unblock unless you and I are on the same page about it. Katie^talk 19:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to your unblocking if you believe he now understands what our requirements are for non-free movie posters. If you could monitor his contribs that would be perfect. If not, please let me know and I will make the time to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we'll give him another shot. If he screws it up this time, he's outta here. Katie^talk 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

I did add a template to the talk page about the copied content ([1]). I thought that was enough. --IngenieroLoco (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice the template, to be honest. Regardless, the edit summary is mandatory, according to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Another RevDel?

Hi again! Still feeling out the boundaries … I just reverted an edit (by an IP that seems to have a WP:RGW thing with the NFL’s ball-pressure scandal) that’s not nearly as “gross” as the last one I reported, and may actually be an attempt at humour (see IP’s first contribution), but has what I think are more serious BLP implications.—Odysseus1479 21:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say yeah, but I don't think it's serious enough to report to oversight. — Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky's possible IP

Special:Contributions/85.76.71.66 has involved same editing on Beyoncé. They are all on a proxy. 115.164.84.164 (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible, but unlikely. — Diannaa (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection of Vandegrift High School

I want to know if you are still monitoring the protection of Vandegrift High School, as it has been 5 years under semi-protection. Do you still monitor it? And if not, can I submit a request for a reduction in protection for that article? Thanks! Redolta (talk)

It looks like the page was protected due to some vicious personal attacks, which I revision-deleted at the time. I can't say that I recall the case specifically, but I today would not go to "indefinite" the first time a page was protected. Presumably the bullies that were adding this stuff have long since graduated. I will remove the protection and will watch. — Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Beaver Wars revdel

I wasn't quite sure what to do with that material in the Beaver Wars article. The material added has actually been in that article since about 2006, iirc - the usewars.net appears to have copied it (with only the slightest modifications, like adding the word "themselves") - archive.org shows the earliest version of that page as being from 2011. I meant to simply delete it rather than revdel it, since the material - with one or two words different - actually exists further down that page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(My point, if I have one, is that I hate deleting content that shows up as plagiarism because it was "borrowed" by another website. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

I did indeed find the content in an old revision of the same page and have re-added it. However, I have left my warning in place to the person who added it, as it's a lot more likely that they copied it from an external website than that they hunted through old diffs to find it or would even know how to do so. Thanks for the feedback. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Social Work

User:Diannaa, ANI reports, is it possible to see these to get a full picture, this was previously mentioned by you too, I didn't understand it then and didn't see any info on the article talk page. User:Timothyjosephwood, read and understood your concern. But citations of positive contributions from the editors in question on the article will be helpful to see the case clearly. Also who is who is not the concern of this discussion. Who does what and are they harmful and WP:NOTHERE is the concern, I am hopeful you have noticed it. The only attempt to curry favor, was to get a responsible and knowledgeable editor or editors with genuine interest in upgrading the article^ rather than.... ^: (Someone who is helpful, not going for immediate reverts, talking behind the back without informing, not going for quick blocks, teaching, can do some research and collaborate with the editor in improving a defective edit, someone who doesn't engage in silly accusations ...etc.) 61.1.200.144 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't post here any more about this topic. I don't have the time or inclination to try to help any further. — Diannaa (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't post here any more about this topic. I don't have the time or inclination to try to help any further. — Diannaa (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand but if possible a link to these ani reports that mentioned would be helpful. I am too ending the topic discussion, this would be my last post here.61.1.200.144 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have read your post more closely.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Disruptive editing, edit-warring, and vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution. — Diannaa (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

May want to check more

Saw your revdel on James White Cloud. May also want to check other articles by that writer, Joseph Robidoux IV, III, Jr and others at Joseph Robidoux. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This report covers contributions to 18 articles from timestamp 2016-04-23 21:29:01 UTC to timestamp 2016-05-05 03:50:59 UTC.

• N William (Guillaume) Robidoux: N other than some unattributed copying
• N Mary Many Days Robidoux: N
• N Joseph Robidoux II: N
• N Joseph Robidoux I: N
• Antoine Robidoux: Y Minor; cleaned.
• Louis Rubidoux: N

Results do not preclude material having been copied from inaccessible books. Spot checks in ebook Robidoux Chronicles: French-Indian Ethnoculture of the Trans-Mississippi West found nothing. — Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

My user page

Hi, User:İnternion, My request has been marked for deletion--İnternion (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Require help in my new page

Hii! How are you doing? Hope everything is well I really am stuck at this glitch on my new page "Mind Controlled Wheelchair" it's having a glitch near the caption where it's writing image=i220px It's making the infobox look kinda odd. it would mean a lot to me, if you could help me a little bit :) Thanks! Jasonprost (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Laventille & Message sent

Dear Diannaa

Thank you for the message and the welcome!! I am working my way through learning how to use wikipedia, understanding the message which was sent in relation to the post on Laventille, its application to the post and addressing matters raised so that the content can be used in wikipedia as I believe that it adds value (positive) to the image of the area and the country at large. Coming from that background, I have copied the message and will paste it in this message and while I would like to work through the concepts over time, can you provide me with a copy of the post which was deleted so that I can seek approval from the relevant authorities, with a view to placing it on Wikipedia... The Catholic News is a newspaper which is purchased by Catholics and non Catholics alike and the information is available to the public. So please advise, in terms which I can understand, as to why that reference is not allowed..

From reading the message, plagarism is one of the fundamental concepts which I understand and can you advise where in the post of which I am requesting a copy, have you noted plagarism?

"Wikipedia and copyright[edit] Control copyright icon Hello Jennifer N Bailey, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Laventille has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

While I understand that wikipedia is built on contributions from those who are interested, please advise as to why the rights to the work must be relinquished without noting the contribution of the author of the work and going forward, rewarding the contribution. I would be very interested in the finances of wikipedia and how it is spent.

The following information was written by Dianna in relation to an addition to a post done by Jennifer N Bailey

<template removed>

Jennifer N Bailey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer N Bailey (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You added extensive material copied from http://www.catholicnews-tt.net/v2005/archives/dec/sun04/viewpoint_2.htm, a copyright web page. Under copyright law, we cannot include the material without the express written consent of the copyright holder. If you believe the copyright holder might be interested in releasing the material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. For more information on copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia, please have a look at some of the links I already placed on your talk page, such as Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

/* Wikipedia and copyright */ reply on IPPR

Hi Diannaa - I don't think I'm breaking any copyright laws here as I work for the Institute of Public Policy Research and so not only have permission but we operate as open source. I'm partly restoring a lot of the information about the Institute that was previously deleted by another user. Sofiejenkinson (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |sofiejenkinson

Note all the material I removed was copied from the Institute's own website. Some of it has been on this wiki for quite some time, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a copyright violation. I have posted further information on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nerodia erythrogaster

Hello Diannaa. I added a video here. My first time actually putting an external link to a video. Could you check my edit and if there might be an issue with copyright just revert me. Thanks. While I'm here my best wishes to your neighbours up north. SlightSmile 15:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The original upload was at YouTube, here. I think it might make more sense to link to it there. — Diannaa (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fire

Hello Diannaa ! I've seen horrible TV-shots from Canada and the forest-fire ("a running topfire"). The reason was of cource heat, but the heat came from something called Omega-syndrome (or something). I just hope You are well, and not are, or will be affected by this fire. I'm glad to see that you have been active lately. Boeing720 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The fire is about 400 km north of here, in Fort McMurray. It's a forest fire, the city is in a forested area up north. All 85,000 residents of that city had to evacuate. The fire is still ongoing and is burning eastward toward the Saskatchewan border. All is okay here where I live. Thank you for your concern. — Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have once seen a minor - but still "top-fire" where what we call "tall" (Pinus sylvestris in new Latin)cought fire during a very hot period of a summer in the early 1970's. We were on an island (Hallands Väderö) which during warm summer days can be used by thousands of sun bathers. I guess all the adults assumed it whas an intentional fire. I could see how one tree lighted the closest standing by over the top of the tree. We (and a lot of extra people could) escape with my dads smaller (motor) boat, while others could by following the coast reaching safe ground. For a while it was total panic. Especially when the wind turned a bit and the smoke with it. Luckely did hardwood trees not cought fire equally easy. That's my impression, at least. Next time we visited the island. But then there was an burning jellyfish-invasion, so it was very difficult to swim for a longer while. Anyway(s ?) the fire was of cource nothing in compare to what I saw in Canada on TV.

Have a nice summer Boeing720 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. The fire is still burning. Yesterday it was so smoky here in Edmonton (435 km away) that I could hardly see across the street. It is raining here in Edmonton but there's not enough rain happening up north to put out the fire. — Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning a user's reviewer rights

Dear Diannaa,

My name is Mona. I'm writing these few words to you concerning the Pending changes reviewer rights that you took away from the user Keivan.f. I know he made mistakes by including the copyrighted content in his edits, but he's trying so hard to redress them and don't you think is about time to give his rights back? Well, we all make mistakes but the important thing then should be, Learn from them and do not repeat them subsequently. Anyway, considering his contributions to wiki foundation I think it would be a good incentive if you give his reviewer rights back. By the way, the views expressed here are solely my own, and the user isn't aware of it. Best regards.--Mona778 (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to give him the Pending changes reviewer right just yet, as he is still having trouble recognizing when something is a copy vio. Twas not me who removed it, it was a different admin. — Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion question

I can't figure out how to use the visual editor again. But you deleted content on a page that I (user aottke) was creating on the page for Lia Halloran. I was filling out her biographical and career information with a combination of known texts and other releases that she herself wrote (and that she gave me permission to use, post, etc.). How can I ensure that the content can stay there? Who do I need to show permission to, and how do I go about doing that? If you can also help me get the visual editor back somehow, too, that would be great. Thank you. -- Adam (aottke). Diannaa (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F0CD:8100:71DD:23C4:842C:5561 (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello D. This was posted near the top of your talk page in a thread from last week. I took the liberty of moving it so that it would not get lost in that thread. I am glad that you were not to close to the fire but my sympathies go out to everyone in your part of Canada whose lives were turned upside down by it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD for your concern about the fire. Here is the latest from the CBC – the fire is actually continuing to grow. @Aottke: Answered at User talk:Aottke. — Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at Talk:Andhra Pradesh Residential School, Tadikonda.
Message added 10:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vin09 (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your knowledge of photo image usage

You appear to know about image use at Wikipedia. There is book cover image which I would like to add to Love & Friendship. I just noticed this unexpectedly nice book cover and was wondering if it could be brought into the Production section there someway: [2]. Since a book cover is promotional material is this simple to do? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

We can only use a book cover in an article about that specific book, not in an article about the corresponding film. — Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

John Blund

Can I get some help with this? Someone is adding a link to Scholastic Corporation (founded in 1920) to the article on John Blund, who died in 1248. I've corrected it to scholasticism but ... I got reverted again with a nonsense edit summary. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have warned the user — Diannaa (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Activity has stopped, but it's best to start accumulating those warnings on the user talk page, in case he resumes teh silliness. — Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried a welcome message, got banninated for my trouble. (Not calling for action—just slightly amused by the manner of venting, although that joke must be pretty tired from where you sit.)—Odysseus1479 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is likely not a stranger. As you yourself well know. — Diannaa (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The Duchess and the Devil

Hi. Sorry I'm half a year late. (I'm like that.) I watched the whole series and, as always, look it up on Wikipedia and IMDb but found the information here lacking a bit. Since there are several pages across the series I collected all of the information as found on Wikipedia for good or bad, tidied it up a bit, then pasted it back onto each of the pages for each episode in the series. I did not add information nor plagiarize from other sources (I don't even know how you came upon that conclusion (or discovery?)). I don't know if this changes your mind or not. You may revert your change or not, or even edit the other pages in the series to remove the content I copy+pasted on each. I hope you restore that page or build upon it across all pages of the series, but ultimately I leave that up to you now. You may wish to remove your comments on my page or not, again, up to you. I'm just learning/catching up on this talk page stuff. I hope I did this correctly. JasonCarswell (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits were picked up by a bot as being copyright violations. Investigating, I discovered the source webpage had been archived by the Wayback Machine here on July 3, 2012. You added the content to our articles on December 29, 2015. That's how I found the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Neato. Thanks for the info/update. Back in December when it happened I looked and noticed that you'd changed one page or some but not all of them in the series. I don't know if you fixed it/them. Should I? Any thoughts/advice? On a completely different subject - I wrote my first page today and had problems with it all the way as a few people were deleting it as I was working on it. You are the only other person I've connected with on Wikipedia so far. Perhaps you might take a look at what was James Corbett (journalist) and advise me what to do and how to improve it. It got deleted/censored/banished. The anti-establishment material may be a political hot potato but it deserves a presence in a binary oppressive world of Trump-Hillary. We need to protect freedom while we still have it.

Any help with copyright cleanup would be appreciated if you have time, as we have very few people working in this area right now. Regarding your article on James Corbett, it was deleted because the article did not indicate why the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. The best place for new users to get help is at the Teahouse, where there's people standing by who are experienced in helping new users. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the note and references for quotations. I appreciate your help! AdWomanMan (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

James Grant Hay

While I agree that it's puffery, it may have to be AfD as it's had a prod decline in the dim past. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the rules that having a declined prod means the article is no longer eligible for speedy deletion. While I am pretty sure the reverse is true (if an article has been declined for speedy deletion, it is no longer eligible for prod). — Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

OK... Peridon (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully contest the speedy deletion of this first article without AfD or PROD discussion or consensus. The article was not eligible for speedy deletion. The article additions were new. The article was being updated with credible reliable coverage of biography sources for its improvement PROD was declined on December 11 2011. The background sources are reliable, notable and factual to the provenance and importance of the article its biography and related articles as accepted guidelines notable to its biography and therefore we respectfully request its undeletion by you (individual administrators may act on requests to restore deleted articles), before requesting a deletion review with the deletion administrator and you to show a solution was attempted with you first or in addition, before making an undeletion request with the deletion administrator and you for the article to be userfied or emailed to us for its improvement and return to the article space. Thank you both for your earliest assistance and reply. — AlphaProxy (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

To Dianaa - I've given a reply at my talk page, but would welcome your input. Peridon (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Peridon#James Grant Hay. — Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Erring on the side of revdel-requesting caution

Hi, Diannaa; we haven't formally met yet but I see from the deletion log that you are actively doing admin stuff at this minute and wanted to run this by you. An IP posted this on Crichton Castle: [3]. I obviously nixed it as unsourced BLP-badmouthing, but the more I ponder it, I think it deserves a look from a revdel standpoint. As an American without any training in Commonwealth-specific law of any nature, I have overthought whether this warrants an admin's eye, and I am thus erring on the side of caution. If I'm overzealous, duly noted for the future, but in either event, thanks for your help and have a fine evening! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Julietdeltalima. I don't think it meets the criteria for revision deletion. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank YOU. I mostly thought that too, but I'm still relatively new at this and thought "y'know, better safe than sorry." Much obliged for the drive-by consult. Take care. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

About your claim of copyright content copied

Diannaa, recently you have deleted one paragraph with claim it was copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01440398808574965 to the article Slavery in Ethiopia. Please review the sentences again and you will see that I didn't use that book as my reference which you claimed is copyrighted content with a title "Slavery and the Slave Trade in Southern Ethiopia in the 19th Century" and written by Timothy Fernyhougha in 2008. The books I used for reference are written in 1989 while Timothy's book is written in 2008 so if some sentences are similar to Timothy's book it is probably we used the same source.

The following books are the ones I used as my reference to write the paragraph.

W. G. Clarence-Smith The Economics of the Indian Ocean Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century. Psychology Press (1989) pp. 106 Google Books

W. G. Clarence-Smith The Economics of the Indian Ocean Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century. Psychology Press (1989) pp. 106 Google Books

International African Institute Ethnographic Survey of Africa, Volume 5, Issue 2 (1969) pp. 31 Google Books

I've restored the paragraph so that it can be reviewed again. W. G. Clarence-Smith's book is used in the same article by another author also.-EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I have removed the content again. The material was found by a bot to be a match for content in the article here by a bot. User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/34. It's got a match of 197 words, with essentially the same content in the same order using the same words. Please do not re-add. — Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, Please tell me what I should do to add the points in the article. So does it mean I can't use Timothy's article and all of his points at all? or should i change the words completely and still add the whole points while using his article as my reference? By the way his full article is written under the book titled "The Economics of the Indian Ocean Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century" which was written by W. G. Clarence-Smith in which I did reference properly. I'm assuming smith had the right to publish Timothy's article.- EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume that Smith had the right to publish Timothy's article, or that that gives you the right to copy it here. In order for you to include the material on this wiki, you've got to re-write it in your own words. That means using different words, presenting the ideas in a different order, anything and everything you can think of to make it different. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism and this article from Purdue for some ideas as to how to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting revdel on Special:Diff/720371543

A new user requested a semiprotected edit on what is supposedly the Wikipedia page about her. She posted her email and passport photo, part of which was redacted by the following user. But I think some of the revision needs to go. As for the edit request itself, the user as refrained from making further edits, and I'm reluctant to handle it myself. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I had it oversighted. It is best to handle this stuff off-wiki. - NQ (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please delete these edit summaries

• [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
• Two questions:
  • Is there a better/easier way to report such inappropriate edit summaries?
  • That IP-range is a non-stop vandalist and disruptive IP-hopper. When admins block his IP, he returns with a new IP again, and targets unprotected pages. Always similar insults, racist and nationalistic rants in his edit summaries. How can I deal with him? --Wario-Man (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do from a range-block point of view, as these two IPs are on different ranges. They are both dynamic IPs. Page protection will help if there's targets he keeps hitting repeatedly. I am happy to help with any revision deletion. Reporting them here is as good a method as any. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your help. Cheers. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

New IP

Please check this new IP. Same behavior, same edit summaries (insults, nationalistic rants and personal attacks), example diffs [12], [13], [14], [15]. I don't understand why this nationalistic troll calls all editors as Iranian? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and hidden these edit summaries. Why some people act this way is a mystery — Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems he's a long-term abuser, a blocked sockmaster who became a troll & IP-hopper. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Terry Manning

Hi, Diannaa. What's the issue with the Terry Manning Article? Nothing was taken word for word, and you can't copyright facts. Plus, some of the additions weren't from the Led Zeppelin site. Pkeets (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pkeets. The match was found by a bot. It's at the top of User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/34. A match of 122 words. You presented the material in a slightly different order, but it was not paraphrased whatsoever. It's a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you've deleted everything, I can't check it. Can you place the last version in my sandbox and let me compare it against the Led Zeppelin page? I thought I had rewritten/cited the information. Pkeets (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't wan't to post it on-wiki, so I will send a comparison to you via email. When you paste it in a sandbox (but don't save it please), the overlapping parts will appear in Bold. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please send the whole article including the coding of sources, then. It was a fair amount of work and I had completely restructured it. Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I can do that if you want, but I've already sent an email of the removed portion, which is the only thing that's different from the current version. The citation was coded thus: {{citation |url=http://www.led-zeppelin.org/biographies/64-reference/biographies/associates-bio/1497-terry-manning|title=Terry Manning|accessdate=12 May 2016}} — Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You've deleted 23 edits and left the article with a hanging citation. Could you send the the whole thing, please? Pkeets (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You have misunderstood how revision-deletion works. The only material that was removed was the copyright violation, the three short paragraphs that were already sent to you via email. In order to hide the copyright violation from view, all the intervening edits have to be revision deleted. This does not mean that the content of those edits has been altered in any way. A second email has been sent to you and should hopefully already be in your in-box. — Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Images

Hi Diannaa, could you take a look at these three WWII era images recently added to Commons? The contributor listed the copyright status as "own work" which seems doubtful. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Otto Carius: full-size image is present here
• Hans Sandrock: copied from here
• Martin Schroif: found it here. Thanks for reporting. Let me know if you need any of these for fair use and I will upload them for you if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't need the images. I came across them in an article on my watch list and the "own work" claim seemed dodgy. Thank you for taking care of this copyright violation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits deleted due to copyrights - we own the copyrights

Hello, Diannaa,

I have just received a message indicating that you have deleted edits I made to the Cheetah page due to copyright issues. Since my organization owns the copyrights of the information I added, I'd like to find out how to re-incorporate what I added. In fact, much of the contents on the page are from our research and work on cheetahs for the last 26 years.

I hope to hear from you. My user name is crocsetal.

Crocsetal (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to interject, but "most" of the content of Cheetah has now undergone a lot of changes. I began improving the article a few months ago, and now almost all the information comes from a variety of sources. Prior to that, a lot of it was unsourced or improperly sourced. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If the copyright holder wishes to release the material to Wikipedia under license, please have them follow the instructions at WP:donating copyright materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. Please note that if you work for the Cheetah Conservation Fund, you may have a conflict of interest regarding this article, and should not be editing it at all. I have posted some information on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Happy Valley, Victoria (Golden Plains Shire)

Diannaa, I appreciate you letting me know that the page I created was regarded as in copyright violation. I made extensive edits to that page, incorporating a lot of new original material, so very little of the previous material remained. I also explained that I was new to creating wikipedia material and that I had a personal interest in following through with even more material.

Now I find a rather rude note from "Fences&Windows" apparently based on your comments and my contest saying that I had not realised it was in violation and promising to make changes, which I did immediately. From "Fences&Windows" note he/she does not appear to have looked at my changes that I made several days prior and has deleted the page. Is this how you treat contributors? Sorry to whinge to you, but I didn't see a talk option for "Fences&Windows".

Do you really think I will attempt to recreate the many hours of work I put in because somebody, "Fences&Windows", likes exercising the power to just wipe it out?

Extremely disappointed with wikipedia! Mcintoshr (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The work is not wiped out, as deleted pages are still present, they are just hidden from view. After your additions, the amount of copy vio went from 97 per cent to 53.7 percent, still an excessive overlap, and enough that the page was still a copyright violation and hence eligible for deletion under that criterion. I have restored the page and removed the remaining copy vio as an alternative to deletion. In the future please write all Wikipedia content in your own words and don't copy from other websites. — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Frank Stuart

Thank you for bringing the copright policy to my attention in the article Frank Stuart. I was unaware of the form and length of attributions permitted from the original source. I propose to edit the article again using a smaller amount of source by quoting and citing the original source and putting all of the information into my owns words and structure by citing the same source again. — AlphaProxy (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't copy material from other websites or construct your articles using quotations. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism and this article from Purdue for some ideas as to how to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Valeri Larko.jpg

Hi Diana, You sent me a message about the use of Valeri Larko.jpg and the fact that there was no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it. I did forward an email from the photographer of the file who had already given his permission via email (email sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org). However I see that the fil has been deleted. Can you tell me what the issue is? Thank you! Marjol80 (talk)

The problem is that you needed to add a {{OTRS pending}} tag to the page to indicate that the permission email is on the way. The OTRS team a backlog of several months, that's why it's important to add the tag. Note the permission email needs to include permission for both the photograph and the incorporated artwork. Artwork, even if permanently installed in public places, is not exempt from U.S. copyright law. — Diannaa (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Photo issue

This would be a good photo to be able to use but it appears there is no proper fair use information listed or at least it has copyright problems. Can you look at it and tell me what you think; and if it cannot be used it should be deleted. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I found a source that pre-dates the upload, which is likely the original source because the yellowish coloring more closely matches the original upload (now deleted). It's also close to the size of the first upload. But I don't see an adequate rationale for the image's inclusion in either of the articles where it is in use. I am removing it from 286th Security Division (Wehrmacht) and will write a proper rationale for 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French). — Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Within-Wikipedia copyvio question

Hi Diannaa,

Quick question for you since you are an expert in copyvio cleanup. Do we revdel internal copy-pastes from one Wikipedia article to another? Or is RD1 reserved for just external copyvios? A vandal replaced everything on Bingo (1991 film) with the material from Eraserhead (obviously without attribution). I reverted it back to what it was before but I didn't want to put an unnecessary revdel request on it. Thoughts? --Majora (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is technically a copyright violation to copy without attribution from one article to another. This has been a common form of vandalism lately. I have gone ahead with the RD1 for this one. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

R/D question

The admins that I usually go to with R/D questions all seem to be away so when you have a moment would you please take a look at the edits to this article by Daddyfukr69 (talk · contribs) as I think the qualify. This editor looks to be WP:NOTHERE and has been reported to AIV and UAA so a block will occur eventually but I thought these should be looked at as well. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: The block happened while I was typing this :-) MarnetteD|Talk 03:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Breaking news: The blocking admin has already revision-deleted two edits by this acct. — Diannaa (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update to the Update: Kuru (many thanks K) took care of the offensive edits so everything is wrapped up. Good deal and Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 03:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

These also qualify for Oversight so if one of you would shoot them an email I would appreciate it as I am logging off now for the evening, snacktime and my current addiction next on the agenda. — Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again D. I hope that your evening with your addiction was a pleasant one. I logged off shortly after you and did not see your message about oversight until now. I just sent them an email but I should mention that I have not done one of these before so I don't know whether it will work or not. I guess this is "The One with the Wikipedian who hasn't been down this road before" :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I usually receive a reply from them PDQ (within minutes) and invariably within 24 hours. So you will know shortly — Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

They were. Thanks for filling me in about these. MarnetteD|Talk 22:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Friends" is literally LOL funny; be sure to check it out if you did not watch it back in the day. "I am gonna have to buy a vowel, because Oh ... My ... God!" — Diannaa (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Action on ANI

Any suggestions on getting something to happen on an ANI, specifically WP:ANI#IP Hopper on Social work? This is the fourth ticket on the matter and it appears to be ineffectual again. The previous tickets are :

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and_vandalism filed 3 March 2016
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Disruptive_editing, edit-warring, and_vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India filed 2 April 2016
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution. filed 13 April 2016

Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not interested in helping with this case any more. — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I really don't want to be involved with this either! Thanks for the reply. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologise, unless you are secretly Canadian! Diannaa 🍁 23:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyrights

Thanks for the information. Not that its an excuse, but I didn't know the Medieval Lands Project was copyrighted. But, I just looked and, sure enough, it is.

On a different subject, is it just me or has Wikipedia added a new autocorrect feature? For example, it wouldn't let me type your name as you spell it. Oh well, if that's the worst thing that happens, I should be happy.

Gerry Anderson

Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Have a look at some of the links included in my talk page message for more info. Adding, re: autocorrect: This is likely coming from your own computer or browser settings. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

UNTV Radio 1350 Logo

Hi Diannaa, please do me a favor to delete this image already (linked). Someone uploaded a new version of this and this one is no longer usable. Please feel free to delete it already.

For your kind consideration.

Thank You.

Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 23:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hamham31: Since you are the original uploader of the image, you can add {{db-author}} to the image page and it will be deleted by whichever admin is watching the non-free image category at this moment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:57 on May 20, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Unblock

Thanks for unblocking my account. I also wanted to say that I wasn't trying to argue as to whether it was a copyright violation, I was just trying to show that I made an effort to deviate from the exact text of the source instead of just C&P'ing after you had previously warned me not to. Anyway, sorry for taking up your time. Zaostao (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Interchange Plus‎

Hi Diannaa, nice spot on Interchange Plus - just so I can be more accurate in the future, how did you check this? Thanks for your great work -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked out the purported source page on the Wayback Machine and discovered there were no versions archived prior to October 2012. The earliest versions are showing a 404 error; that's because the Cardfellow website existed at that point but the subpage /interchange-plus-pricing/ did not. This old archived version shows that "Ben Dwyer" is credited with having authored the page in June 2011. This date is not present on the current version. We have had the content pretty much unchanged since 2008, so therefore they copied from us rather than the other way around. — Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you very much! I'll be sure to do these checks in the future to save you wonderful lot a bit of work -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Diannaa, I have updated Sisterhood (Magazine) article,also added a new logo which I received from the managing editor of the magazine. But I don't know how to " indicated the license status of the image" of the logo. This is as simple as was the earlier one. It is free to use anywhere. Can you please help me to sort this.--Jogibaba (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The new logo is not simple enough for PD-shape, so I have templated it for fair use. A bot will come along shortly and reduce the size. — Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This might interest you

I just now created Congressional Resolution 642. Do you have time for some copyedits? Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

question about copyright

I was in the process of adding the citation, but the content doesn't appear to be marked as copyrighted. Am I missing something?

regards

Pjgarvey1 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Have a look at some of the links I placed on your talk page for more info. — Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "coprighted content" on SolidWorks page

Hello, on April 22 you removed some edits I made to the SolidWorks page stating "remove copyright content copied from http://www.solidworks.in/sw/docs/Corp_FactSheet_2014Q4.pdf". Can you clarify why my edits were inappropriate and why you deleted them? The corporate fact sheet from SolidWorks is a public document and I copied figures and numbers from it to update the facts on Wikipedia about SolidWorks. The information online right now is very old an outdated. Did I do something incorrect? Please let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samscholes (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The document is copyright; you can see the copyright notice along the right hand side running vertically. ©2015 Dassault Systèmes. All rights reserved. — Diannaa (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The document is provided publicly for people to learn about SOLIDWORKS. It is facts and figures. I don't understand why that is an issue? Do I need an email from SOLIDWORKS with permission? --sam.s 17:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes you do. If the copyright holder wishes to release the material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Revdel question

Thank you for the revdel over at Continental Drift. Even though I've flagged whole articles for copy violations before, it didn't occur to me to do anything past putting {{uw-copyvio}} on the user's talk page after reverting the edit. Is there a procedure I should have followed? Also, how did you find the edit to redact it? Inquiring minds want to know. ;-) — Gorthian (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit appeared on a bot report as a potential copy vio. It would be great if you would report these for redaction by placing the template {{copyvio-revdel}} on the article. Thanks for your help cleaning up. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio-ing image procedure question

This is the first time I've run across this situation and I fear I've muffed the tagging. A new user added [16] to Sebastian Stan (an article plagued with new-user copyvio and RS/BLP issues). The user named Getty Images as the author, but claimed public domain status, not fair use. (My guess is that the author is of the view that if it's on the Internet it's in the "public domain"; no way, no how has Getty Images released the image into the public domain, or at least the odds of that in my view are less than a tenth of a percent!) I tagged the image as F7 as the nearest fit to this odd situation, but I know that's not technically correct; the author hasn't claimed fair use, but, absurdly, public domain. I've deleted the image from the page (so revdel is likely in order). I'm not seeing a good fit among any of the CSD tags after a good bit of noodling, but I can't imagine this wouldn't be a thing not susceptible to speedy deletion. I deeply appreciate your thoughts, and your time once again this week. Thank you!! Best - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a couple of CSD criteria that fit the case. F7 works, because it's a non-free image of a living person, which fails WP:NFCC #1. F11 works, because there's no evidence that Getty Images has released the image into the public domain. And for quickest deletion, you can tag them as F9 (copvio), because you are right - Getty and other such services (Corbis, Associated Press) essentially never release their images into the public domain, and they do not permit us to keep them for fair use, so they are obvious copy vio. — Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks so much, again! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Madonna The First Album international.jpg

This version was used in Madonna (Madonna album). A sockpuppet created the PNG version as replacement of the JPEG one. Can you undelete the JPEG, so I can reinsert it? Or can you do it? --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have done it, though after doing so I discovered the covers are not the same. Check it out and make sure this is what you want to have happen. — Diannaa (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, can you please upload a different image then? Please do not remove the original album image unless a replacement is uploaded. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I got what you tried to do, it would have been beneficial to have a edit summary. I will correct it and remove the sock's versions. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of edit summary; it was a mis-click. I don't know what the original album cover looked like, so if one of you folks familiar with the material could take it from here I would appreciate it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced with an original .png version of the image from Billboard as the source. If you can Diannaa, please delete the other versions orphaned. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I see how I messed up. I removed the wrong image. All fixed now, I hope, — Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

your changes to Wolli Creek Regional Park

Hello Diannaa thanks for the opportunity to get back to you. I do not agree with some of the edits you made to this page. It is a critical part of a uni assignment (and now the tutor will not be able to assess all my work). I had been working closely with Wolli Creek Preservation Society and had got permission to use their content. Your comment "Wiki is not a travel guide " is inappropriate in this case. I am studying Conservation Biology and the links i entered were to have animals reported to the various state authorities and to acknowledge their involvement. You also removed a whole section on Invertebrates I think because it contained a link to the photos of Voren O'Brien and the Wolli Creek Preservation Society. Photos that I got permission to use (but i don't want to give to Wiki because you do not protect the creator of the works ...wheras my link does). Could you please clarify why you removed a whole section.

Thanking you Ornithological1 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Ornithological1

Hi Ornithological1. Material that was removed per "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" was the content such as "do not cut, remove or trample any plants, even weeds!" That's not the sort of content you would find in a paper encyclopedia, and we don't want it here. There's more information on this topic at WP:NOTTRAVEL. The inline external links were removed, because per our external links guideline (point #2, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article"). They are supposed to be included down below, in the section "External links".

The reason the bulk of the material was removed is because it was a copyright violation, copied from here. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please have them follow the instructions at WP:donating copyright materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. — Diannaa (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

About Solimana article move

Hello. Thank you for your advice about moving pages. I just wanted to ask if I should request the merging of the histories of both pages of the article about Solimana. Thanks for the help. Frank R 1981 (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't work in that area. I don't even know if the page should be moved to the new title. There's articles in five other languages at the current title. I think you should probably leave it at the current title. — Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Father Saturnino Urios University

Hi Diannaa. I saw your post at User talk:Ronald Galope Barniso#Wikipedia and copyright and am assuming that it was you who redacted much of the info added to Father Saturnino Urios University between May 17 and May 19. It looks like some of that info may be creeping back in to the article, but I can tell for sure since I can't see what was removed. This also could just as likely be a good faith attempt to re-add the content, but rewrite in a way that is not a copyvio per your suggestion. It also looks the editor adding the info may be working on it in User:Ronald Galope Barniso/sandbox before adding it to the article. Would you mind taking a peek at things when you get the chance? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

What he's added so far comes up clean. I will watch-list and see what develops. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Same editor also seems to be unfamiliar with or misunderstanding WP:NFCC#1 (see File talk:Valentina Plaza.jpg). I posted at User talk:Ronald Galope Barniso#Replaceable fair use files, so maybe you could take a look at that as well. Of course, I might be the one who's wrong, so just remove the speedy tags I added to the files if I am. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You are understanding NFCC properly, and the file will have to be deleted. Your message is a very good one. You might consider saving some of the better ones on a subpage, so that you don't have to write them afresh when you need to post a similar message again someday. See User:Diannaa/Copyright for some that I use frequently. — Diannaa (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio on Economy of India

Hello. Could you please take a look at this edit on Economy of India that I just reverted. From what I can see the text has been copied from http://www.ibef.org/economy/foreign-direct-investment.aspx . Cheers. Thomas.W ^talk 08:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Page curation

When you did the page curation for Behold the Man (album), did you check that it was recreating content after it was previously redirected and had no references? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I did notice that, but it seemed to me that there was a basis for the album to have stand-alone notability, so I marked it as Reviewed. — Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeh To Kamaal Ho Gaya

@Diana thanks for removing plot summary from Yeh To Kamaal Ho Gaya. I will abide by rules and regulations of Wikipedia from now.Senthoora poove (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Review

	Natural disaster
	Please, review it again. If it is then notify me or if it is not then tell me how to fix it. Farhan Tanvir 628 15:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem confused. Nobody has nominated this page for speedy deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Tourism Commission

Hello Diannaa,

I am responding in regards to my edits to the Canadian Tourism Commission (now Destination Canada) page a couple weeks ago. I read the guidelines you sent me that outline copyright issues and source documents etc. I work for Destination Canada and was asked to update the page with the correct information as it is quite out of date. All the changes I made came directly from the corporate website which I work on regularly. I made small changes which mainly involved providing accurate links. I am wondering how I can recover my edits, and what I need to do to properly reference them if they are from the corporate website itself. I am unsure of why all the edits I made were deemed unusable. Thanks.

Addisont (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Addison

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving Message

Hi again, it seems that i do have a problems with regards to this archive. How to apply the whole archive with do not modify status? Thanks for your assistance. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hamham31, I fixed the misplaced </div> that was causing the problem. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance JJMC89 Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 04:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Templestaykorea block discussion notification

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Unblock request rejected based on dubious reasoning". Thank you.

File uploads by Alanten19

Hi again Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at File:Zica Manuhi.jpg, File:Seiloni Iaruel.jpg, File:Kevin Shem.jpg, File:Jale Dreloa.jpg, File:Iosefo Verevou, 2015.jpg, File:Setareki Hughes.jpg, File:Paulo Scanlan.jpg, File:Freddie Kini.jpg, File:Philip Mango, 2014.jpg, File:Raoul Coulon, 2015.jpg, File:Bong Kalo against the Solomon Islands at the OFC Nations Cup 2016.jpg? THese were all uploaded by User:Alanten19 as public domain, but I don't think that's correct at all. There user has been inappropraitely adding non-free logos to various articles as well, but at least that's something that can possibly be discussed at FFD. The metadata for some of the aforementioned photos clearly indicate they are copyright protected and at least three are Getty images. I think the uploads were made in good faith, but Alanten19 might be confusing "free" as in "free of charge" with "freely licensed". I thought about tagging them with {{db-f9}}, but I wanted to check first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

These are all copyvio. I will look after it. Instead of putting eleven notifications on his talk, in cases like this the uploader is a lot more likely to read and understand a personalized note (in this case, one of my boilerplate messages from User:Diannaa/Copyright). I will add the user to my list of people to monitor. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this Diannaa. I couldn't think of anything to do other that using the "db-f9" templates, but, as you point out, a personal note is often more appropriate in cases such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Postcolonial literature

Diannaa, My apologies! I had a sense that I must have missed something, because I was adding so much, in trying to improve this article. I was thinking of adding a note to the article to explain what I had been doing. Sorry to waste your time again. Rwood128 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

99.254.50.201

• 99.254.50.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP is back to editing again after your last block. I'm not sure if the behavior still constitutes for a further block, but it may be worth looking into. Thanks. 71.237.141.40 (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing blockable so far. There were a couple of edits I would have reverted, but User:Oshwah has already done so. I am watching a suite of articles for this guy's main schtick, which is to add "box office bomb" to Adam Sandler's films. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Toms with real Boban and Molly.jpg

The image was deleted by you mentioning the reason The photo doesn't tell us anything about the subject of the article, and is not discussed in the article. Fails WP:NFCC #8. I hope you are referring the article Toms (cartoonist). If you have read the article atleast one time, you will know the reason is incorrect. The article clearly says Toms created the character Boban and Molly based on two real life persons of the same name. But I still don't know why you deleted it.! Also, the reason mention on the file page is WP:F7 and on the talk page is WP:NFCC #8. I think it's a mistake from your part.--Joseph 04:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said on the file's talk page, if you wish to pursue this, the place to go is WP:Deletion review. — Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright infringement on the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article

Dear Diannaa,

Thank you for your edit on the above mentioned page. As you have noticed I am quite new to the Wikipedia world. Hence, I am unsure how my edit was a copyright infringement as the information I took is a Protocol published by the African Union named the: "MALABO PROTOCOL GRANTING INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION TO THE AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS". This is an official document accepted by the African Union Commission and is openly available as public good and does not carry a copyright just as quoting an article from European Union legislation would be. Furthemore, I had place the quote in quotation marks and linked it to the source. As the Protocol has not been officially adopted due to the lack of ratification by the African Union it has not yet been uploaded on the website of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and thus I had to use a secondary source. I would be very interested to find out more on this and how it should be done correctly in the future. As I am currently working on my first article where I refer to the original charters and legislation set out by the African Union and its Organs I find it interesting to learn more on referencing these. Thank you for all your support and I look forward to your support. Regards,

Haukezie

Hauke-zie (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

None of the material was in quotation marks, and it looked like a straight copyright violation to me. It may surprise you to learn that government works, including the the text of legislation, are copyright in many countries. So the fact that it is an official document does not make it exempt from copyright law. The source you gave for the material, http://www.county-yangu.com/default/details.php?number=1373, is a copyright web page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm odd ok then I guess my second edit did not save. Sorry about that. Interesting and good to know. Thank you for your support. I will be more aware in the future.– Hauke-zie (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wu's paper

Hi, can you undo your change at the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines_v._China&action=history

Fu and Wu's published paper is not copy righted material, the paper can be download at Wu's web site "National Institute for South China Sea Studies":

http://en.nanhai.org.cn/uploads/file/file/20160512wsc.pdf

The material can be found at various sites:

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/abc123/t1362738.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2016-05/13/content_25254747.htm

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/south-china-sea-how-we-got-stage-16118

http://www.manilatimes.net/south-china-sea-how-we-got-to-this-stage-5/265119/

Otherwise, can you discuss first on the Talk page instead of removing.

Toto11zi (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Toto11zi. Like I stated on your talk page, the material is copyright, and we cannot reproduce it here. It doesn't matter that it already appears at several other places online. Please refer to the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Image rationale

Hi Diannaa, I don't believe that "own work" is a correct rationale for this historic image: Kuban shield. Could you please have a look? I don't need the image; just curious to see if this is indeed appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, is there a word/character limit for plot descriptions that should be followed? I.e. here: Cross of Iron (movie). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) K.e.coffman, film plots should be 400–700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding images of Nazi badges, it took some digging, but I found commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany, which states that government works do not enjoy copyright protection in Germany. So as long as we have a proper license for the photograph we should be okay. — Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As for plot word limit, the above is a recommended range, "...unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range". So keep that in mind, K.e. Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information at Pissarrachampsa

I am uncertain why you removed the information on Pissarrachampsa. The PeerJ licensing allows for copying, as long as attribution is provided, and the citation adds all the information we need for proper attribution. The changes can be (not) seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pissarrachampsa&action=history. I am in agreeance with FunkMonk and Pedro that this information should be usable for wikipedia. If you can reply with your rationale as why the information is not available for here, please reply. IJReid ^discuss 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit copied 133 words from the article, enough to be a copyright violation and enough to trigger a bot report. While a citation was provided, that's not the same thing as providing attribution, where it's made clear who the author is and it's made clear that the material is a direct quotation. We can restore the material if the authors of the paper are interested in releasing the material under a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this and decided the passage is not so long that we can't have it as a properly attributed block quote and have restored it. — Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This was about the Sub-titles you just deleted from 'Arkay Beverages'

Dear Diannaa,

I will start by thanking you for your efforts and time for going through my articles, my username is 'abekeapo'. The subtitle you deleted some hours back from 'Arkays Beverages' on franchising was not copied from anywhere, i was shocked when i got your messaging saying i copied it from another source. I want you to look into this problem for me and i awaits your reply on this. Thank you Abekeapo (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)abekeapo

@Abekeapo: Identical content can be found at the copyright web page http://www.franchisedirect.com/directory/subway/ufoc/915/, where it has been present since at least March 2016. — Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A vandalized file need restoration.

Yesterday, a user vandalized a file by replacing its image with a random one, although he kept the copyright details of the original version. Now that user - Rahulheinzyaduvanshi (talk · contribs · count) - has been banned from editing in the category of articles where he did vandalism. But nobody restored the vandalized file. As I neither ever ventured in the Wikimedia Commons nor I have any knowledge of copyrights, it would be great if you could restore the file to its original version. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the proper image and will contact administrators there so that the recent uploads can be removed. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, that was fast! Thanks a lot for the help. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Garagepunk66. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Broad Oak (Heathfield), East Sussex, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A cute kitten for your never give up policy.

Jupiter Jones Julie (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your great achievements.

Vimala Darshani (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail :)

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lectonar (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin article

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I've sent you an email regarding this, appreciate your help to solve this issue.

Thank you. Juzarbhai (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Juzarbhai: I have not received the email. Please re-send, or post your concerns here or on the article talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, the email finally came through — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Radford Univ. article

I'm thinking that the Radford University needs protected from the IP who keeps adding unsourced (and probably copyvio) content? 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 06:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of it was copyvio, for sure. I am blocking the IP for two weeks and will watch-list the page. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Shelly Peiken

Shelly Peiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a song writer, is edited / updated by
Shelly Peiken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has created a large list of her discography. It is now at about 140+ entries. This seems a bit much. After her last batch of entries in February, I tagged the section and removed the YouTube links in April. Also added a comment not to add YouTube links. Shelly Peiken just added four more YouTube links. Any suggestions? I don't want to crimp her style and be hunted down by her fans. ;o) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

AllMusic says "Better Love Next Time" was composed by Guy Roche. On the other hand, AllMusic says "Whenever I Run" was composed by John Shanks / Keith Urban / Shelly Peiken. Maybe you could go through the whole list this way and see if the content can be sourced. Here's another suggestion: Talk to the user and let her know our rules about adding YouTube links. No one has posted on her user talk since 2011. Many people don't know how to look at the history and are unaware that edit summaries even exist, so it's possible she has no idea what's appropriate and what's not. — Diannaa (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Need your help!

Dear Diannaa, user "Alhakika" keeps adding misinforming content targeting Berber pages since weeks, some users tried to undo his vandalism edits on pages like Msemen, Tagine, Berbers and Couscous .. etc, suddenly an editor "Ponyo" has reverted original content to Alhaqiha's revisions without any sources then blocked all users, locked articles, once more he removed this reliable reference and other sources from Couscous page. Berber history and heritage on Wikipedia is under attack everyday by thousands of Pan-Arabism users and their allies ! Please stop Ponyo from oppression Berber heritage! Joesnows (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

References

It looks like "blocked all users" means Ponyo blocked checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets of JovanAndreano, who is blocked for abusing multiple accounts. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

They are not sockpuppets of JovanAndreano; Ponyo blocked every user was trying to undo revisions of Alhaqiha. Dear Diannaa, Couscous, Tagine and Msemen are ancient Berber dishes of north Africa, Food of Morocco by Paula Wolfert is one of plenty reliable sources out there! These dishes have nothing to do with the Arabs, they do not even exist in Arabian Peninsula. Ponyo has reverted edits of "alhaqiha" claiming they're Arabian without references ! And yet enlighten me, does he has the right to remove the reference I stated above, then revert vandalism revisions of Alhaqiha ! Joesnows (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comments on my text

Hello Diannaa,

Thank you for commenting the text I tried to insert in the Benjamin Britten section. I am commenting here on it here :

   You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
   Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.

- I tried to cite the source, which is the Heart & Stroke Foundation (Canada), maybe it did not appear ? Also, I did insert 'Op. cit.' to refer to it, maybe this did not show.

   Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
   If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

   In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
   Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

- I did not realize this was copyright text, sorry. Of course, as someone who has graduate level education, this is something I look for, and I did not find it. As I am new to editing on wikipedia, this was an honest mistake.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) - Thank you for your constructive comments, and polite way of formulating them. To the contrary of another person who implied I was engaged in and editing war, which I am not, and which comments on the reliability of the source I had indicated were quite surprising, I appreciate how you indicated to me how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarieBBNF (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we don't conduct research, speculate, or editorialize. What we do is report what reliable sources have to say about a subject. The reason your edit was removed was because the source you provided did not mention Mr Britten, and therefore your addition is original research, which is something we are not permitted to do. The reason you were described as being in an edit war is because you inserted the same prose six times, in spite of the objections of other editors. If you wish to discuss the edit further, there's already been some comments at the article talk page, which is located at talk:Benjamin Britten. Here's some relevant policies and guidelines: WP:No original research; WP:Identifying reliable sources; WP:Edit warring; Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. There's some additional links at the top of your user talk page with tips as to how to edit Wikipedia. Regarding the copyright issue, under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Acceptability of sources for Mufaddal Saifuddin article

Hi Diannaa, sorry to bother you again, I would like to get your guidance of the acceptability of some sources used in Mufaddal Saifuddin article, namely:

• His Holiness, Syedna Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin Saheb (1436H). رسالة اننعي المسماة - حكمة الغيبة القدسانية الابدية. His Holiness Syedna Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin Saheb, Badri Mahal, Mumbai, India.
• His Holiness Dr Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin – A brief profile. the Department of Statistics & Informai, Dawat-e-Hadiyah, Badri Mahal, Mumbai, India. September 2015

The first of these is an Arabic language book written by the subject himself. This book has restricted circulation among high-ranking followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin only and is not available to the public and therefore any references made using this book are completely unverifiable.

The second book is (I assume) an English language book published by the office of the subject. This book is circulated to media outlets and governments and is a kind of press kit type of material. It is not available online and not available for purchase anywhere, making it difficult for Wikipedia editors to verify references made to this book.

Can you please comment on the acceptability of these books as references for the Mufaddal Saifuddin (and other closely related articles)? There is also some discussion on the Talk:Mufaddal_Saifuddin page.

Thanks in advance.

Juzarbhai (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Typo

Hi, Diannaa. OK, call me stupid. I cannot see the typo you mention here. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Kidnappping" :) — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I forgot the ping, — Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Don’t you mean the pping?—Odysseus1479 06:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Please come to wp:aiv and do some blocks. 2602:306:3357:BA0:ADC7:97C6:B25C:268D (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

All caught up now. — Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio on Populus

Thank you for hiding the copyvio revision on Populus sect. Aigeiros. You may wish to look at Populus fremontii for an edit by the same IP editor. —hike395 (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have checked and that one looks okay. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic username

Hi Dianna, could you please look into this username? Special:Contributions/Einsatzgruppe_C. This editor is editing WWII topics, and the name is of obvious concern. I looked at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention, but it appears there's a backlog, so I'm reaching out to you here. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enought they've been using this name since 2012. I've placed a note on their talk page, for starters. I don't believe it's egregious enough a violation for a block. — Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's odd. Thank you for leaving the editor a message. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	I thank you for telling me about attribution. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Help removing edits

Hello! I saw your username in the list of folks that can assist in removing revisions. I have 14 to remove from my username page from 2008 that contain some personal information that I wish to remove from public view. Could you please help me with this? Many thanks! Simonalv89 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

All done! Many thanks! Simonalv89 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Undoing cut and paste move

Hi. In case you don't see it, I've replied to your comment on User_talk:Mcld#I_have_undone_your_cut-and-paste_move, and request your feedback. mcld (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Home insurance

Hi Diannaa,

I appreciate the feed back on my edits of /wiki/Home_insurance. Can you allow me to view the last version you removed so I can make the corrections without having to start over? Thank you. - Raph3988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raph3988 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I will send it to you by email. — Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Raph3988 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In regards to this comment:

"I saw your note on my talk page and will send the email momentarily. Please note that adding huge amounts of additional material to the article on home insurance in the US is not appropriate, as different countries structure their policies in different ways, and the article is already very heavily weighted towards the way things are done in the United States, with two-thirds of the content already being about the way things are done in that country."

I understand the need for diversification in other countries; however, my primary objective was to address this suggestion

"This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions. (May 2016)"

The information about basic, broad, and special forms is pretty universal. After doing more research, I can conclude that the information I included did not show preferential treatment towards the US. The ISO is a global organization and provides standardized forms to countries such as the UK:

-http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/wps/media/objects/9306/9529451/study_guide/M08_REJD_GE_11E_SG_C08.pdf

-http://www.nicheifa.co.uk/services/insurance/home

Raph3988 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Justice system in the Rojava article

As you invited me to leave a message here on the passage on the justice system in the Rojava article:

You suggest that this quote was a copyright problem. From my point of view, it was within permissible bounds. Anyway, it is extremely difficult to find English language information on that issue. As Rojava is a project that finds much empathy among progressive people, generally and from the region in particular, and the website it is to be found at is a website emphatically dedicated to the Rojava revolution, I am 100 percent sure that the author of that text would feel honored have that passage in the article.

It is virtually impossible to present this important part of the article from any other source, me and many others tried in vain. As your note to me came with a threat, my question to you: What would be your suggestion to proceed?

Cheers -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of how the copyright holder would feel about you posting the material here, we can't host it without express written consent of the copyright holder. That is, it would have to be released under a compatible license and permission filed in our OTRS system. The best way for you to proceed is to re-write the content in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As we appear to have a different legal opinion on the borders of copyright in this case, and the question of accuracy in the background as well, I made another suggestion from me for a formulation the "Justice System" paragraph on the talk page of the article; would you look at it and tell me if that is fine with you? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I visited the article in my capacity as an administrator to remove the copyright violation and am not going to otherwise get involved in decisions as to its content. The material you posted on the talk page as a suggested edit is still too close to the source. I will post a suggested wording there. — Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

FitzRoy Somerset Traits names with Copyright

How could the name of the "mythic hero traits" of 1936 be copyrighted while Joseph Campbell's "monomyth" stages names of 1949, or Vladimir Propp's 31 functions names of 1928 can be named? --Lsanczyk (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No. It would have to be something published prior to 1923.

Then, you will wish to delete the other articles I mentioned. However, I'm still in doubt about the concepts name copyrigth. Many contents of the Wikipedia, not deleted by other moderators, should share this condition. --Lsanczyk (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's true there's many other copyright violations in the encyclopedia, and you are welcome to help with clean-up if you wish. — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To von or not to von....

[17] There's a discussion on when to use von in a German name, perhaps you'd like to comment? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

08-Jun-2016

Why have you removed tagged content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._P._Lahane ? You don't need to give a reason for your edits to common lowly users ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranjandeshmukh (talk • contribs) 12:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niranjandeshmukh: Diannaa did give a reason, and a very good one: she was removing plagiarized copyrighted material that violates our policy WP:COPYVIO. It had nothing to do with your content dispute. You'll notice that all the revisions after the copyrighted material was added have been WP:REVDELed. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio problems at Human rights in Rojava

Hello, Diannaa,

Hope that all's well where you are. I am currently working on this article, along with 2A1ZA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I can see that you previously warned them about copyvios elsewhere, and I was dismayed to find that there are more in this article. For instance, I am looking at the "Historic Background" section, and I am finding copyvios and close-paraphrasing problems from Gatestone Institute, the UN, and Human Rights Watch. There may be more issues in the Rojava article, which you warned them about, as per this. As I am not terribly experienced in the arcane details of copyvios, I would really appreciate your advice in how to approach this. Thanks, GAB^gab 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This "Historic Background" section I made in the Human Rights in Rojava article was copy & paste from the (longstanding) former version of the "Modern History" section in the Rojava article (which I did neither write nor ever edit), which I then made much briefer. In the "Historic Background" section I made in the Human Rights in Rojava article, I did only write the first sentence new. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I see. Thank you for commenting on this. As of now, I hope I have dealt with most of the issues in both the Rojava and Human Rights in Rojava articles. GAB^gab 15:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA, I have placed some information on your user talk page about copying within Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Potential revdel

Silly vandalism but putting it out there for possible revdel: [18] Thanks for taking a look. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, and oversight contacted as well. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you, amiga! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

StringyBark Creek

I believe |this edit is not a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. The article Ned Kelly is not a good biographical article because it contains so much ancillary information. It is proper procedure to , if possible, break up events into their own article, and have the biographical article focus more on that single person and how the events relate to them. Michael Ronson (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic image

Hi Diannaa, could you have a look at this non-free image? It's a derivative work that integrates at least one known copyvio image. The third from the top on the left was removed from Commons in the course of you looking over the images during the GA of HIAG: Talk:HIAG#Image_assessment_by_Diannaa. It's the "File:SSWallonie.jpeg".

If you could look into this, it would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have listed the file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 10. This will give the uploader at least a week to provide us with a source and license for each image in the montage. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. on behalf of Soundofthesea -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Its moot now as Soundofthesea has been blocked and for good reason. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

copyright and fair dealing

Hello Diannaa, thanks for your note in explanation of your deletion in the article on New Brunswick. I disagree with your reasoning, because of Fair dealing in Canadian copyright law - in particular, skip down to the ruling of Lord Denning, and continue. In fact, the author may well be pleased by her work's notice here, and may well garner additionnal sales and notoriety as a result. I certainly intend to investigate her work further, and would hope that something remained of a footnote, from which to jump off wiki. I would hope you were convinced by these arguments, and we might come to a happy medium on this topic.

47.54.13.225 (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, as a result of this conversation, perhaps you could start a wiki page on Ann Gordon Condon, with [19], [20] and [21] as primary references, in addition to any other helpful sources you may find.

47.54.13.225 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but our non-free content policy is quite strict, stricter than other websites, and we do not permit copyright excerpts to be added to our articles when there's a readily available freely licensed alternative: prose that you write yourself. — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Louise Massey

I removed the photo I submitted. Feel free to delete whatever of my contributions are left (if any). I am deleting my Wikipedia account after the numerous miserable experiences I have had with editors on this site.

Gutennailfist (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you have had a bad experience. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, I noticed that you discovered (and removed) a copyvio version of the article Mugarjhor High School. Baithakata College has the same problem: first 3 versions by Lazukshiplu (now indef banned). This version is a copy-paste of this website. Thanks :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 22:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I got it revision deleted. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup. Btw, I noticed it only now, some of my versions (mainly the first 3) include the copyvio text; because I first moved the page and then I cleaned it up. The last two version are cleaned. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, corrected. — Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheshire, Connecticut

While reviewing this for GA status, I came across some possible copyvios – [22] and [23]. Could you please see what can be done here? Thanks, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I was able to prove conclusively using the Wayback Machine that both of these passages were copied from the source web pages rather than the other way around. I will post on the GA review page and the user's talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

National Institute for Health Research

Hi Diannaa. Thanks again for the message. Please see below the amends (note the word similarities may likely be due to the proper name of the established centres -- there's no way around renaming those):

"NIHR has partnered with King's College London, establishing the following NIHR centres across different sites of King's Health Partners: Biomedical (including Mental Health and Dementia) Research Centres, School for Social Care Research, and Health Protection Research Units (in health impact of environmental hazards, and in emergency preparedness and response) "

FormerBBC (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Can you please confirm that there is still a copyvio problem with an editor

While [24] is from The Jewish Encyclopedia (the source) and is PD, it's not in quotes. Hydrocarbon pneumonitis on the otherhand is literally textbook copyvio.[25] This[26] is from here. This [27]" A few metals and their compounds are carcinogenic to humans; the vast majority is not. A few metals, such as lead and mercury, can cross the placental barrier. Some metals (cadmium, zinc, copper, and mercury) induce special protein complexes called metallothioneins." is from[28]"A small number of metals and their compounds are carcinogenic to humans but the vast majority are not." "Essential metals such as calcium and iron can cross the placental barrier and a few toxic metals such as lead and mercury can also." I'm sure there's more and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/El Cazangero was never completed. Sadly there's probably a lot more.[29] Basically he's just ignored my block and the CCT and carried on as though they never happened. Unless I'm mistaken about the copyvio I think we should call time on this editor, what do you think? Doug Weller talk 13:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I raised this at User talk:wiae#User:WP MANIKHANTA as I was discussing another copyvio editor there, you might want to see the reply there. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio issues persist and the problem has become chronic. I agree that a block is now the way to go. — Diannaa (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. I doubt they will be happy! Doug Weller talk 17:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Eichmann (again)

Dear Diannaa: I don't understand why you've again deleted my reference to Bettina Stangneth's book, which seems to be an important contribution. HuPi (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Note how in the same paragraph where you placed your addition, quotations from the works of Arendt and Wiesenthal are used, with citations, to tell the reader what those authors had to say about Eichmann. So far your addition only states that Stangneth has a different opinion, but does not tell us what her opinion is, or provide a quotation or a source. That's what makes it a low quality edit, and that's why I removed it. — Diannaa (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that I didn't give a source: the Wiki article about the book, which states her opinion, is available by clicking on the following phrase (blue in my version), and the book is listed in the bibliography at the end of the article. Anyhow, the best way to handle a clumsy but essentially good edit is to mend it, isn't it? Cheers.HuPi (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that what you need to do to make a high-quality addition to the article is to read the book, do an assessment of what her opinion is, select a representative quote, and add that to the article along with a citation. I am not going to do that, as I do not have access to the book and do not have time to read it right now regardless, as I am very busy with copyright clean-up. — Diannaa (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Diannaa: I don't suppose there's anything I could help with? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the material HuPi wants to add: "In her 2014 book Eichmann Before Jerusalem, Bettina Stangneth expresses a very different opinion." I don't know what Stangneth's opinion is, as I have not read the book, which is 581 pages long, so I am not in a position where I can mend his edit for him. — Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant with the copyvios. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, if you are interested in helping with that you could have a look at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc. There's some instructions at the top of the page. I am going to head over there right now and will be working on items at the bottom of the page, so if you want to do some at or near the top of the page, that would be great. If you have any question or concerns let me know. Any you are not sure about, leave them unassessed and I will look at them myself. Thank you for offering to help. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wiki article referred to in my aborted edit summarizes Stangneth's opinion. One doesn't need to read the book to recognize a worthwhile reference.HuPi (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

All the content in Eichmann Before Jerusalem is unsourced, and regardless, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source. — Diannaa (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added some content using the NY Times book review as a source. — Diannaa (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, a WWII biography, a topic with which you have involved. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding PP

Are there any specific standards that admins use when determining whether or not to administer semi or pc, and how long to do it for? I'm just curious as to whether there are any rules (written or not) influencing an admins decision. The article I have in mind as I ask this is Michael Rosen. Knowing what I know about the rules and page history, I requested indefinite semi-protection, as practically all edits by non-autoconfirmed users are vandalism and there's a long-term history of abuse. The reviewing admin decided on a year. I'm not challenging their decision by any definition of the word, I'm just curious as to admins' thought process. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And let me know if I'm asking the wrong person: I understand PP isn't something you do on a regular basis. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have done some work on page protection, though not recently, being pretty busy with copyright clean-up. There's details on the different protection levels at Wikipedia:Protection policy, including when to use pending-changes as opposed to semi-protection. My understanding is that pending changes is better suited to pages that are not heavily edited. It's very rare to jump straight to indefinite semi-protection on a page that's only been protected for short periods in the past. It's a lot more usual to gradually increase the duration. It's part of the mandate "anyone can edit" that causes admins to use the minimum amount of protection that they think will do the job. Look for example at Hermann Fegelein - the page was repeatedly protected as the man was the subject of an Internet meme. But there's been no trouble for a long time (two years now) and the page was never protected for longer than six months at any given time. People who are working a lot in this area recently are user:Widr and User: HJ Mitchell if you wish to collect more information and opinions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to decide on a case-by-case basis, based on several factors such as previous protections and nature of vandalism. Personally I rarely protect indefinitely, as it indeed goes a bit against the idea of free encyclopedia. After all, protection can always be renewed if needed. Widr (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Atlas Copco

Hi Diannaa. Would you cast an eye at the article Atlas Copco for me? If we concentrate on the use of external web-links in the text; would you say that this is OK in English Wikipedia? We're having a current controversy about the layout of the Swedish page... Cheers from Sweden -- KlasHass (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't include inline external links. Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember says "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." I have done some clean-up on the page. — Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- KlasHass (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

66.87.114.233

Block user:66.87.114.233. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A short block, as I think it's a mobile IP (Sprint). Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contributions. Keep it up! Cheers. Wario-Man (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Allianz Riviera

Protect Allianz Riviera for high IP vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:31B6:500:CA93:5A19 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Three days to start. Please re-report if the activity resumes when the protection wears off. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Arjuna

Diannaa, could you take a look at this one for copyvios please? I cleaned out Ravana and I expect a good chunk of this and the other articles from the same contributor are also filled with copyvios and perhaps a CCI is required. A lot of these are over the course of a year and mixed wiht other contributions now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it will have to wait until I get back from vacation, as I am trying to clear as many reports as possible from User:EranBot/Copyright/rc before I go. We are leaving in the morning and I will be away for a week. — Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries, have a good vacation. I think it can wait a few more days given the time that has already passed. My eyes hurt from reading all those forum posts from where these things have been copied from. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations

• This one was uploaded yesterday. But its high resolution version appeared here & here in July 2014. The user who uploaded this image has also uploaded two other images, which seem copyrighted.
• This one seems to be taken from here.
• This one was uploaded in October 2013 but it appeared here & here in April 2013. And it seems to be coprighted to PTI as per this article. The uploader who uploaded this image has uploaded one more image in October 2013 whose higher resolution version appeared here in May 2013.
• This one was uploaded today & seems to be problematic.

Please have a look at these files after your vacation. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not an admin on the Commons but I have done what I could to speed along the assessment of these pics. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios on Economy of India

Hello. Most, if not all, of the material added on Economy of India by Rheadiya in these consecutive edits is copied verbatim from India Brand Equity Foundation (ibef.org, who at the bottom of each page say that the material is copyrighted), primarily from this and this page. I have reverted the edits and warned the user, but revdel is probably needed. Thomas.W ^talk 17:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Diannaa (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Eichmann (3)

Dear Diannaa: Thank you. You've shown me how the true Wiki-lover doesn't just make effortless edits (as we're rather encouraged to), but should be willing to do some research. (The reviews in the Daily Telegraph and Guardian agree with the NY Times.) HuPi (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

PTI Pacific, Inc. D/B/A IT&E Page Deletion

Hello! I'm still new to editing articles in Wikipedia and I was wondering why was my page deleted? Is there anything I can do to get my page restored again? If there is anything that needs to be cleared up, I would like to have all of the texts restored so I can edit and fix any discrepancies that there may be in order to meet the content policies that Wikipedia has for creating articles. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Did you reply to me recently? I can't see your message on my talk page.

Hello! I just recreated the page and I was wondering if you could review it and tell me if there is anything wrong and what can I do to fix it? Thank you!Its bboydaniel (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Its bboydaniel (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

CMJ University

Hi Diannaa. Glad to see you're still here and wielding a mean mop. I noticed you RevDelled some edits to this article and was wondering if you'd take a look further back into the history if you get the chance. I'm still officially on an extended break and am making no attempt to stay on top of things, but back in the day I remember there were recurrent problems with removal of negative (sourced) content. It looks as if that is still happening (current version vs. my last edit). I have no idea what the status of the university is at this point and have neither the time nor the inclination to chase down recent sources and vet them for reliability, but I wanted to let a responsible editor know that possible whitewashing efforts may be ongoing. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the missing content, and will watch-list. From the news stories I can see from here, it looks like the place is still closed. — Diannaa (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio help

Hi Diannaa. On the article The First, the Last a couple of IPs are (re)adding a copyvio plot from IMDB. Please could you do some revdels and possibly protect the article for a few days to discourage them? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've placed a {{copyvio plot}} on the talk page and protected for two days. I will be away for a weeks so please post at RFPP if the problem persists. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio at Seoul Forest

Sorry for the trouble. I'll tell the students to rewrite that. This particular student seems not to understand copyvio despite my repeated explanations, as he has copypasted things several times. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Stolen content without permission or credit

Whoever copied those two articles, White Day: A Labyrinth Named School and White Day: A Labyrinth Named School (Remake) copied all of the work from our wiki (which is mostly written by me) without prior permission nor credit, this is not their own work, as evident to be a copy-paste work from the edit logs. These are the original pages from Wikia: http://whiteday.wikia.com/wiki/White_Day:_A_Labyrinth_Named_School http://whiteday.wikia.com/wiki/White_Day:_A_Labyrinth_Named_School_(Remake) Even the title is the same! can you do something about this? its embarrassing... Mrox2 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mrox2: You may wish to read about the licencing at Wikia, namely "...agree to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely for any purpose, including commercial use, in accordance with the CC BY-SA license..." -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added the required attribution for the licensed material. — Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Image Issue

User:ArmiMason is uploading a slew of new images (all radio station logos) and making them as his/her own work and releasing them under CC-by-SA-4.0. This is, of course, not true...unless this user owns iHeartMedia (which I doubt)...these are not his/hers to release not does the user own the copyright. Since these are being used on multiple pages, could you have a word with the user. Thanks....Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05 on June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Pinging your alt account (@Ninja Diannaa:) and @Drmies: as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05 on June 16, 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much clout right now, a mere sockpuppet of 1000 edits. Best to ask Drmies to speak to them. The logos are on the Commons, and there's 24 of them. Some of them are PD-text-logo but the rest will have to be deleted and brought over here for fair use. Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 05:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You have plenty of clout. :) Anywho, I tagged them all for Speedy Deletion on Commons with the following reason:

The image is not the uploader, User:ArmiMason's "own work", nor is the user the "copyright holder" of the image, nor does the user have the permission to publish the image under any version of Creative Commons. In addition, the image's description "Top 40 (CHR) Radio Station" is weak, at best, as it tells nothing about the image in question. Finally, the image is beyond Wikipedia and Common's standard 300px limit. As such, I believe this image qualifies for speedy deletion.

I also have removed them from all their respective pages here on en.Wiki. I also posted a quick note on the user's talk page as they are blindly reverting. Hopefully that will take care of things. Enjoy your WikiBreak and Take Care....Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:53 on June 16, 2016 (UTC)

A quick follow-up, after my note, the user has stopped editing both here and on Commons. No action on the images as of yet, but it is only 4:51am EDT. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:51 on June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Another quick follow-up, the user is editing again but with zero image issues. The images uploaded by the user were deleted from Commons, so no worries there. I'll keep an eye out on any further problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:14 on June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Hello how are you, Can you hide these Copyvio here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and here and here and here. The user:(User:Bolialia) is blocked and his sockpuppet accout user:Karibahar. Thank you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have assessed the diffs and re-wrote such that there are no copyright violations. Please, hide the diffs now. Thank you and have a great weekend. --Juliandas51 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision deletion has to be done where the material was added to the article, not where it was taken out. Some of the material appears to have been there since 2012, so I am not going to be doing revision deletion that far back. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Could You Close This Thread?

Hey Diannaa, hope your break is going well. I was wondering if you could close this thread. User:TheREALCableGuy, an indef-blocked editor (blocked for the past three years) and sockpuppeteer, requested an unblock. The user was going to be given "the standard offer" if he hadn't socked, it was found via CU that he had...alot. So it was all opposes at that point. So it's an easy, uncontroversial close. This is not a time sensitive request and can be done at your leisure. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:46 on June 22, 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ping of your alt. account, Ninja Diannaa. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:46 on June 22, 2016 (UTC)

A cursory look reveals the consensus, but I am not comfortable closing without having read it all and I don't have time to do that right now as I am still getting caught up from vacation. Just leave it, someone will hat it up soon I'm sure. — Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. :) You were the only admin (on my watchlist anyway) who hadn't been apart of the discussion. :) Hope you had fun on your vacation. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:26 on June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that the thread was closed by another user. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:31 on June 24, 2016 (UTC)

Everything fine with this picture?

Hello Diannaa, as I know you as the copyright expert here, I did just for the first time upload a copyrighted image for fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cover_of_Nokta_Magazine_September_2015.png Did I do everything right and can put it into articles, in your opinion? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to put details in the two fields that are currently marked "n.a." [Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1); Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2)]. The image is not currently being used in any articles and will shortly be deleted if it is not in use. — Diannaa (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

IP editor adding copyrighted material

Good morning! IP editor 196.15.248.76 has been consistently copying text directly from pages 84 to 90 of http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/15524/thesis_bopape_ml.pdf?sequence=1 and pasting it into Lebowakgomo for the past few weeks. I've left several messages on their talk page but they don't seem to be complying. Would you mind taking a look to see whether administrative action is needed? Thanks! /wiae /tlk 14:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP seems pretty stable so I have blocked for 6 months for copyvio. Clean-up underway. — Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you! /wiae /tlk 14:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Remind me again why you are not an admin yourself. — Diannaa (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Have a mo?

Could you show this editor the door please? It's a bit o' NOTHERE with a dash of talk page NOTAFORUMing - thank you! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You're a gem, thank you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Urgh, they look like they're going to continue on their talk page - could you do the honours again? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I did request this on WP:RFPP as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk page venting is normal, and this instance is not extreme. Reviewer at RFPP might have a different opinion, — Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

cryptography notice of copyvio cleanup

I noticed the notice. I can't speak to what has happened since I was last active as an editor in the cryptography world, but when I left the article cryptography, I had written most of the actual words in the article. At one time or another. NONE of the edits I made were taken from any existing material; indeed I edited from the content of my head, and I do not have eidetic memory. And I was hassled and reverted for lack of references, as I don't store those in my head either. Having reread the article, and history of cryptography, prior to making this comment, I find much of what I wrote still there (and still not footnoted profusely). That at least cannot be a violation of anyone's copyright save my own, and that was assigned to WP when it was submitted. Whatever some lawyer for a copyright troll might claim. WP is a specially vulnerable target since it is not in a position to defend all such claims, however frivolous and so subject to sanction in court should it get so far. Not likely of course, but formally true. I would suggest a chill pill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.211.137 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I see I in March 2014 presumptively removed some content added by Tobby72 as part of working on his CCI case page. That's my only edit to this article. I have no idea why you would take offense for this work a year and a half later. Status is already chill, no pills required, but thanks for the suggestion. — Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios

Greetings! A user has pasted some copyrighted text here (original [30]). He/she also previously uploaded at least one non-licensed file. Could you please fix this? Kind Regards -- Soupforone (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Jalpaiguri copyvio

Hi Diannaa. Please RevDel the revisions of Jalpaiguri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) between 725413581 (14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)) and 726315834 (11:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)) as well. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for your alertness. — Diannaa (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work with copyvios. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

All changes / additions removed

Re: Jochen Zeitz

Hi Dianaa,

I made a number of different changes to a particular page (it was my first time editing on Wikipedia) but unfortunately all of these changes / additions were deleted because I unintentionally included an external link and missed out one reference. I'm happy for these specific changes to have been deleted, but it's really frustrating that everything else was deleted along with them... Is there any way to restore all my changes so I can manually correct these errors?

Thanks,

Chala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chala Kenya (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes. You can go into the history tab, then hit the undo button on the reversion of your edit. Then, before hitting safe, take care of the external link and the reference. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Compassionate727. For some reason my edit doesn't have an Undo link next to it... both of my edits (on the same day in May) have been struck out and greyed so I can't seem to select them at all, do you know how I can undo these reversions so that I can make the necessary amendments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chala Kenya (talk • contribs) 12:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chala Kenya. Your addition was picked up by a bot as being a copyright violation, and it was hidden from view for that reason. The content appeared to be copied from http://naturalcapitalforum.com/news/article/jochen-zeitz/, a copyright web page. All prose you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, I understand. Unfortunately in this case, Natural Capital must have used Mr. Zeitz's official PR bio when writing their article, so when I used the same bio (which we created) it must have recognised the similarities. Is there any way to undo the reversion so that I can work on changing the text, or do I need to start a whole new edit? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chala Kenya (talk • contribs) 06:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The official biography is a copyright document, and should not be copied here unaltered. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. There's a second problem: conflict of interest. If you have a professional connection to the subject of the article, you are strongly discouraged from editing that article. Instead, you are supposed to propose changes on the talk page using the {{request edit}} template. A third problem is the wording; the type of content and tone that is suitable for a press release is not suitable for Wikipedia, which (unlike LinkedIn or Facebook) is not a repository for advertising but rather an online encyclopedia. — Diannaa (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about reversion

FabledGold (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

All okay, no worries, — Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Kazaro

I'm taking up an under investigation on the user I linked in this title. He/she indicated himself/herself that he/she is already an admin, but only created the account for at least 5 days. And not just only that, I think he/she spamming a message of one of our contributors here in Wikipedia, indicating on the bottom part of his user page saying the following lines:

This edit was not vandalism, don't worry about this warning. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia by adding categories to GMA News TV! Appable (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you please investigate this user? I'm going to take a recent wikibreak in this Wikipedia, due to some bad-feeling performance recently by some contributors there. I need to clear things up for now. On my behalf, thank you for understanding. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 03:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Potentially problematic editor from your past

It seems as if the user Film Fan might be up to their same shenanigans that has caused them to receive multiple blocks; on File:Power Rangers (2017 Official Theatrical Poster).png, which I uploaded for a clearer image for the Power Rangers (film) article, it was immediately replaced by Film Fan, citing "nonfree reduce". Unaware of poster sizes, I reverted back to the 300px size, as it was of lower-resolution, per the NFCC. Then, I did upload the smaller size in another low-res format. These reverts were reverted back by Film Fan to their own edit, with the reasoning "should never have been replaced", ignoring the low-res per the NFCC. And given your past transgression with this user of their edit-warring of their own preferred image, I believe it is safe to say that have not learned from their past behaviours. But then again, I am also not an Administrator, but figured you'd want to be made away of this situation before it gets taken out of hand. livelikemusic talk! 01:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've placed an edit warring warning on his talk page for a start. Please let me know if the problem escalates and I will try to help. — Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely will; thank you very much!! Much peace to you as we head into the month of July! livelikemusic talk! 03:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User is insisting that "their" upload be returned to the file's page, per its talk page. Mind stepping in a bit? I'm not getting a warm sense from this editor through their discussion. livelikemusic talk! 01:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Philippines v. China

Need your help in talk page. Please see International reactions to Philippines v. China. The article needs to be split for readability. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What you need to do is get consensus for the split, on the article talk page. I have no knowledge of the subject matter and will not be joining the discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Valentinois edition

Hello Diannaa, thank you for your message but the question is: Along Duke of Valentinois edition and other pages, many people has many interest about the theme has invented excuse and excuse and excuses for eraser each contribution. From a simple reference which was so fine put until this last theme. person like BGwhite and others had been from three years or more disrupting my articles because in certain aspects concerning to Grimaldi family. This page is transformed by all of them in a "dolor de cabeza" because I have redacted the page just like this must to be. This page has been eraser once at once at once just because Cesar Borgia or because Duke of Valentinois is just a problem.

My last edition has parts of a book of Rapael Sabatini but this is not meaning the article be bad and the part of first duke of Valentinois neither is bad, on the contrary is well referenced. First Duke of Valentinois is erased because forat this people is not convenient. I´ll redact again the article and I hope this time be respect because is fine referenced and it´s true at all. It´s historical true and how you are pending af it, I hope you help me to correct. If you don´t accept to correct the text It will be cleare you are of that persons prentending substained something insubstainable and incongruent in many aspects respect Grimaldi´s Duke of Valentinois. I´ll left a note in the page of Duke of Valentinois talk.

Thanks

--Siredejoinville (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I only stopped by your talk page to warn you not to post material you copied from public domain sources without proper attribution, as required by the content guideline. I am under no obligation to re-write the prose for you; this is not part of what administrators do. — Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Pangolakha Wildlife Sanctuary - copyrighted material removed

Hello Diannaa,

Paraphrasing has been done just now in the article Pangolakha Wildlife Sanctuary. Kindly have a look. DA. Sona 17:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibyendu Ash (talk • contribs)

Those additions are okay. — Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mad Studios

Diannaa,

It has come to our attention that some edits that we made on the 20th of June to our wikipedia page have been retracted. This concerns us as we feel that as a corporation, we should be able to control the narrative of factual information being disseminated on Wikipedia. Please help us understand the rationale behind the meaning of these changes and what steps need to be taken to rectify or comply with any concerns that Wikipedia has. We believe that we are disseminating factual, verifiable information about our firm via our website, and would like justification as to why this information was edited (by someone other than us).

Eric Spencer — Preceding unsigned comment added by MADstudioericspencer (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Spencer. A corporation does not own or control their Wikipedia article; in fact we strongly discourage that corporations create or edit articles on their company. Instead, you are supposed to propose changes on the talk page using the {{request edit}} template. The second problem is copyright; as was explained on your talk page, we can't host material that has already appeared elsewhere online unless we have received documentation that the material has been released under a compatible license. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to do that. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. A third problem is the wording; the type of content and tone that is suitable for a corporate website is not suitable for Wikipedia, which (unlike LinkedIn or Facebook) is not a repository for advertising but rather an online encyclopedia. Please follow some of the links already in place on your talk page to find out more about Conflict of interest and copyright law. — Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

File:William Orbit, Window - Photo by Laurie Mayer.jpg

Diannaa, I would say delete the photo immediately. I have been just digging through the uploader's contribution and it seems its a case of WP:COI. Somehow he/she is related to William Orbit or his management himself. That actually makes me question the image upload itself. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

History of computer development

Are you sure they were copyright violations? I believe the content is licensed CC-BY-SA. Adam9007 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Source page was here. I'm not seeing a license. Am I missing something? Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a wiki site with the exact same content, licensed. They could easily have copied it from there. Adam9007 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

http://wikieducator.org/History_of_Computer_Development. The terms of the CC-by-SA license requires that the person copying it gives proper attribution. "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." Without the required attribution, copying the content is a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)