User talk:Diannaa/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Question on copyright when it comes to lists

Would this count as a Copyvio, or not? Sorry to bug you, and thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the good question. No it does not count as copyvio. It's an alphabetical list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Root Cellar (poem)

Hi Diannaa. I know that Wikipedia allows quoted text to be used in article, but I'm not sure whether it's OK for an entire poem to be added to an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Even a short poem should not be reproduced in its entirety. I will remove it — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add The Tyger as well since something similar was done for the article about it. This one, however, might be old enough to be PD, but I'm not sure how that should be handled. Does a template of some kind need to be added to the talk page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Normally for a PD poem we don't add a template of any kind. This one is already up at Wikisource, so we don't really need it in our article but it's okay to leave in. I would remove a long work and refer the folks to Wikisource but this one is short. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

9th North Carolina Regiment

I am redoing the history of this regiment so that it does not look so close to the text in sources. It is hard for a unit with little history to summarize it without looking very similar to the sources. I would like to just add the unit subordination as a list, too. 20:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC) User:G._Moore Talk

Lists are okay to add. The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi Dianna. Can you protect Billboard Music Award for Top Social Artist temporarily? Geoffroi (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Geoffroi (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove AWB access

Hello, can you remove my bot (AnkitAWB) from the AWB CheckPage. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your service — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delaware Democratic Party

You seem to be our resident master of copyright; can you have a look at Delaware Democratic Party? I just removed an entire section that was a pretty obvious copyvio, but the article is a mess and I'm not easily spotting the last clean version; there may also be other copyvios left that I haven't spotted. Home Lander (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Home Lander. This was done - I wrote you a reply yesterday but it failed to get saved. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

question

is this ok for attribution from one article to another[3], thank you for any help, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it's okay, since it provides a link to the source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Altgeld Gardens

Hello, you recently deleted the first half of a section of Altgeld Gardens due to copyright concerns from non-free sources. However, I cited all of my sources and they were mostly from news articles, which are easily accessible to anyone on the web. Secondly, my content was mixed with another user's unfinished content (and uncited) that did not fit with the article. Clearly, nobody edited it and left it there since 2014. You deleted that user's contributions as well. Can you guide me on how to not state the information verbatium, as many news articles reference the same issues I was talking about here with the same language? Thanks.Jjgotshwifty (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Altgeld Gardens Homes (Chicago, Illinois)

It is appropriate for you to cite your sources, but it's not okay for you to copy from them. Sources are used as a source of information, but not a source of prose. I have double checked my work and did not find any content by other people - all the content I removed was material recently added by yourself. Regarding how to write for Wikipedia while staying within the limitations of our copyright policy, here's some advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words at Purdue. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Grey Power (New Zealand) page

Hello, my student User:DavidNec has been editing the Grey Power (New Zealand) page and noticed that removed the political platform from the page with a flag that it was a mission statement. Could you please clarify this removal as a mission statement is quite different from the platform for a political party and we are both unsure as to how to reformat the platform to accommodate Wikipedia standards? thanks Mosterbur (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Mosterbur

Wikipedia isn't particularly interested in what an organization has to say about itself - we are more interested in what secondary sources have to say, if some such coverage can be found. At the very least, in my opinion the material should be paraphrased rather than copied verbatim. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Hi,

At first I thought this was a copyright violation, but then it occurred to me there might not be a way to reword the bits that appeared to have been copied )mainly from here). Was I right and is it revdel worthy? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The material in the first paragraph is also present at https://coralreef.noaa.gov/about/welcome.html and https://coralreef.noaa.gov/, which are US Govt webpages in the public domain. The overlap in the second paragraph looks bad at first glance, but I can't think of a way to re-word it. The sentence structure is very much the same as is the use of the words "fulfil" and "responsibilities". I can't find similar phrasing at the NOAA webpages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... As it stands, copied content (if you can even call it that as there's hardly any) is from here, which appears to be public domain (in the US at least). I'm afraid I might have cocked this up royally by raising a false alarm . Adam9007 (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:T-Series_(company)#Highly_biased_view_of_tseries.

Hi Diannaa, hope all is well. I'm picking you at random, and let's face it, we rarely interact anymore... :( Anyway, might I trouble you to please look at Talk:T-Series_(company)#Highly_biased_view_of_tseries. and see if you might consider closing that discussion. It's getting ridiculous and the IPs involved are just engaging in "I don't wanna hear it" ridiculousness. There are about three IP editors who may or may not be the same person who keep requesting that content be removed, but each fail to make any legitimate argument. "The sources are unreliable", Ok, but they are each from 100 year-old publishing houses. That seems to qualify as reliable. "They're unreliable!" The latest IP editor at 185.203.122.16 is, I believe, just trolling. I tell him that the talk page is for discussing changes and he shifts back to personal attacks and specious allegations. Anyway, it's getting ridiculous, so I was hoping an outside admin could intervene. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb - I'd rather not, as I am not very good at assessing consensus, and I don't have the time. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Treaty of Balta Liman

Hello. You deleted my text in the topic of the Treaty Treaty of Balta Liman of 1838. You say the question is about copyright. I don't believe you. You are not the author of this book.

Doesn't matter, you need to put it in your own wording and not copy paste it. Redman19 (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright responsibility on other lang wikipedias?

Hi Diannaa, I have a question on what the jurisdicition is, and where the responsibility lies, for copy attribution on zh-wiki? Since it's a legal, not a policy issue and WMF is in the US, I'm assuming US law applies for all wikis, including Chinese, and therefore, even if we're not responsible for their guidelines and policies, we are for required copy attribution per WP:CWW and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text, is that right?

The specific case underlying this question involves a student editor enrolled in a Wiki Ed course on en-wiki, who also made some changes to an article on zh-wiki, translating from en-wiki without attribution. Please see User talk:Qiuhanzhang827#Translated pages. So my question: is that lack of attribution something we should worry about, or is it entirely up to zh-wiki folks to handle? @Sage (Wiki Ed), Shalor (Wiki Ed), and Slaporte:. Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You've already been in contact with the editor and have given them the information on how our license works, and I think our responsibility ends there. However upon checking the Chinese wiki I'm not seeing a lot of information on their copyright policy page and the page equivalent to our Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia does not exist, so it looks like it's unlikely anyone on that wiki is doing much copyright cleanup. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa.

Moved to User talk:Slaporte § Zh-wiki copyright issue

Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Article revert

Hi Diannaa, I have been editing the article Idolatry in Sikhism and adding extensive sourcing to the material I've added. A user with a rather pronounced history of edit wars, conflicts, and partisan edits has completely reverted my work on the article, sourcing and all, and reinstated their own version of the article, which is frankly poorly written (hasn't mastered the use of English articles for example), poorly organized, misuses sources to pull quotes out of context and wp:synthesizes those sources (to convey often the opposite of what they contain) and to form their own interpretations of religious practices, e.g. insisting that Sikhs do something a certain way according to his/her own worldview, and Sikhs who don't apparently don't follow original Sikh teachings. Judging from other edits he/she seems like a POV-pusher. He/she has declared it "vandalism" and reverted within an hour of my edit, after a break of several days, before which the user was apparently reported for an edit war other editors. The revert back to his/her own version also overrode the edits of a few other users, and has made no attempt to engage before doing so. Instead of immediately mixing it up with someone who will likely be difficult to talk to, I would like your take on this. Sorry if it's not your specialty, but you're the only admin I've had contact with, since your message on my talk page. Thanks Sapedder (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to get involved in this, and I have no knowledge of the subject matter. I suggest you try opening a discussion on the talk page and if that doesn't work proceed to one of the dispute resolution venues listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. General advice: Huge edits that more than double the size of an article are very difficult for people to assess and are often reverted. Try breaking down your edit into smaller chunks that are easier for users to assess. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose I'll try the smaller edits. I still think the article change is worth a look though, true it's doubled in size but was small to begin with and still doesn't seem too large. Would you happen to know any admins who you think have familiarity with this sort of topic? Thanks anyway Sapedder (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators don't settle content disputes. That's done among interested editors using the method I already described (talk page discussion, dispute resolution) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Potential COPYVIO 7th Cavalry Regiment

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of copyright content in 7th Cavalry Regiment. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This page is either mirroring Wikipedia or is being developed in tandem with our article, because the archived version does not have the overlapping content. This page is definitely a Wikipedia mirror. Global Security shows a high percentage, but it's mostly place names and things like that. The actual prose overlap is content we've had for 10 years (Wikiblame results searching on the phrase "smashing 106 miles behind enemy lines"). So no, I don't think there's anything wrong here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies – Thanks for checking. Woodlot (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries - it was a good question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation

Hi Diannaa. I hope you're well. Could you give me a second opinion on a potential copyright violation? The material was added with this edit, and appears very close to that of the source (see the bottom-left paragraph). Do you think the wording is close enough to be a problem? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Extremely close paraphrasing; some parts are identical. I will look after it. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've just dealt with the same text at Bosnia and Herzegovina, where it was also added by the same editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Eighth Grade (film)

Holy God! Before taking such a drastic step, did you check talk? I had a copyright violation investigation for this article and it was determined the plot was copied to, not from, IMDb. Do you have evidence that refutes this conclusion? Ribbet32 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ribbet32. I did not look at the talk page. I have undone the removal; sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bachwiz18 here, Ribbet32 is correct, I created the plot summary from memory myself after seeing the film in theaters. It appears the IMDb was updated used my Wikipedia summary. Sorry for any confusion.

City of London Special Constabulary

I've undone this edit of yours and its accompanying rev-deletion. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at an article split by a new user, rather than a copyvio; the offending text has been moved from Honourable Artillery Company, and was in that article in 2011 so can't have been plagiarised from the claimed website which is dated 2012. ‑ Iridescent 08:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Oregon Bottle Bill

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Oregon_Bottle_Bill I am wondering what it is that was deleted. Was it something I put in? I'm always conscious so I'm curious what was going on there. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you copied something and then removed it yourself with your very next edit. That's why you weren't notified by me - you caught the error yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How do things that was quickly caught and removed end up flagged anyhow? Mike 171 contains several sentences of word for word from https://www.sjk171.net/about and SJK 171 contained several sentences in the same manner (which I've removed) but I don't see the original copyright infringement contents struck out. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay you've got 4 questions here. (1) Your edit was noticed by a bot, and a report was filed by that bot at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. (2) Content on Mike 171 has been here since 2008, and the bot was not created until 2016. It's extremely difficult to prove copyvio on content that's been here for eleven years. (3) Can you please specify which edit of yours at SJK 171 removed copyvio ? I'm not seeing that in any of your edit summaries. (4) Infringing content can be struck out by an administrator once it is reported - an admin will do revision deletion to strike it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh gotcha. The bot explanation answers what I was wondering. I started changing things around on SJK 171 not because of copyright, but promotional peacock. I didn't bother visiting the author's website until way later and realized there's much verbatim copy/paste going on. Here's the version before I worked on the article. Here's the source of rather significant word-for-word copying: https://www.sjk171.net/about . When I do see things like this, what's the proper tag or summary to use to get it patrolled? Generally, I've just been editing it out without any additional process. Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, that content has been here since 2008, so it's pretty impossible to prove a copyright violation at this point, so I won't be doing revision deletion on that. If you want to request revision deletion, you can use the template {{Copyvio-revdel}}. There's a script available to automate and speed up that task: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Usage of CC 4.0 text

Hi Diannaa! I have tried to use verbatim some portion of an academic text published under CC 4.0 here [4]. The source is here, where the license is also described: [5]. Can you confirm that this is OK, and is there anything I should do differently? Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You do want to provide attribution. There's a couple of ways to do it: Add a blurb as part of your citation, like I did here, or use a template from Template:CC-notice. I find the templates kinda awkward to use, hence the handmade attribution is my usual method. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Great! Thank you Diannaa!! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

IisabellaA

user:IisabellaA seems like a vandalism-only account. CLCStudent (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. There's been no further edits though, since your last warning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Diannaa, could you take a look at the copyvio tag on Boeing X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing? I'm not sure of the best way to handle it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Earwig's tool found an even bigger overlap with this document which is dated November 2009. License is an Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC) license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again. - BilCat (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Haine

There are quotations (which are attributed and are fair use), but I think that I have edited out any copyright problem. Can't do anything about proper names. Please take a look. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Earwig for Richard Haine 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

All done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

TY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your intervention. Keep Calm and Carry On. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi. I noticed you recently deleted a copyright violation from Bird Box (film) by 140.186.250.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The user appears to now be adding the same information under the username Movielover3. Below are the three copyright violations I found in their contributions.

• Bird Box: copyvio diff (taken from IMBD)
• Train to Busan: copyvio diff (taken from IMBD)
• Seven: copyvio diff (taken from IMBD)
• Creep: copyvio diff (taken from IMBD)

– Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I am working on it now. No need to add more - I can see all — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Activity has stopped, at least for now. I have to go do yard work for a while and will check back later. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Diannaa, I've reworded some of the text in Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Auckland to make it pass any copyvio with Earwig. Was wondering if you wanted to strike out any previous revisions. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed Richard Haine

In 1965, he was a participant in the funeral for Winston Churchill. This was in the article before with a citation. Someone deleted it. And now because of the alleged copyright violation (corrected now), the prior iterations have been REVDELd, making it unrecoverable. I've tried finding this again, but it isn't coming up. Any help would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done  Fixed Thank you 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dacryphilia

You completely deleted this page I created. It was for a class assignment, but thank you. Plewi003

It was just a copy of Dacryphilia — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Diannaa--Thanks for flagging the copied sections in Biking in New York City, I appreciate your carefulness. I should have stated why I included the pasted sections. The catalogue copyright page states that "Curators of Why I Ride will retain the right to reprint the catalogue materials for publicity of catalogue and for future publication." I was a curator and give permission to reuse the content of this collaborative timeline, the purpose of which was to educate and advocate for bikes as is taking place here. If this makes it acceptable to Wikipedia the content may be restored. (I read the section about "donating" work, and it's okay to use the text and to change it.)

Separately, I appreciate the other edits and noticed a couple of errors in dates, including in the NYC timeline--the bike lanes were removed in 1981, not 1980--which I'll correct. Thanks again, MadeineMadeine (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

We can't host copyright content unless we have documentation in place that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Treaty of Balta Liman

Please explain why it is not possible to quote Zeynep Çelik according to you, "The remaking of Istambul. University of California Press. Berkely. Los Angeles. London. 1986"? This book is in open electronic access. Let me remind you that I did not write the whole book, but only quoted a small fragment in the theme of tanzimat. My opinion is that you are exceeding your authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.68.34 (talk • contribs)

Copying material directly from your source is not okay when the material can easily re-worded. Besides, you've not indicated that the material is a quotation; there's no quotation marks, and nothing to indicate that the material is not your own words. That's not okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference to the citation and the full name of the book with the author, year of publication and the number of the cited page were specified by me. I did not Express my opinion at all, it was only quoting. I dare say you were inattentive.

Your source material should be used as a source of information, not a source of prose. Short quotations are allowed, but there's a couple things: (1) While you did include a citation, you didn't use quotation marks. That's a problem and a violation of our copyright policy, because the reader has no way of knowing that you've copied the material rather than written it yourself. (2) There's reason to use a quotation at all if the material can easily be re-written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The available text contains information in its most General form, but there is no essential indication of the reason why economic policy has been unsuccessful. Therefore, I quoted the Turkish historian with his clear indication of the reason.

Ashburton Playing Fields

Hello, this page is a direct lift from Winterman, M.A. (1988). Croydon's Parks: An illustrated history. London Borough of Croydon, Parks and Recreation Department. p. 11. ISBN 0951348108., and this page, as well as the Council website (in ext links: just fixed the deadlink). It is word for word a lift from the PDF and book with a few minor tweaks. Both the PDF and book are published by the council so they are in effect one entity. Am I missing something here though? Is there something about Local Govt. published items being 'public domain' or am I hallucinating again! Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Also similar problem at Ashburton Park (page nine in the book); haven't yet found the PDF but I will later, when I have time to do a proper search. Thanks; please shout if you need any further information. Eagleash (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I've done what I can to clean both of these. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've looked at some other, related articles created by the same editor but haven't found more problems. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution feedback

Thank you for your notice about the copy rule of wiki , I have already rewrite it to new world and also mention there wiki link and original resource to me reference part.

Brunhilde Pomsel

Hi, I am operating with half of a laptop screen fuzzed up at the moment but it looks to me as if the Biography section of Brunhilde Pomsel is substantially a copy of this New York Times piece, which is also cited for some of it. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the tip. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I am back with a full screen now :) - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hindupur

Please check Talk:Hindupur.--Vin09 (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC). 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.

BilCat (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hello, Diannaa. A newbie editor added a lot of copyvio content, which seems to be taken from the book cited by them, although I am not sure regarding the copyright status of the book. Here's the copyvio report: [6]. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

They have again added a large amount of copyrighted material from the same book – this time with quotation marks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It's framed as a quotation, so it doesn't qualify as a violation of your copyright policy, so no revision deletion. You were right to remove it though — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Deaconess

Hello Diannaa. Thanks for your feedback. The content I added to the Deaconess page is a copy of a portion of the original content I wrote on the form nominating the Presbyterian Deaconess Collection to UNESCO MoW NZ. My name clearly appears on the form as the author and the form appears in its original format on the UNESCO page rather than re-formatted by them so I don't believe that they own the Copyright. I will paraphrase or reword and resubmit the entry, but seems a bit of overkill. Janemthomsen (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Re-wording is also a good option. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Author and book details are mixed (Redirection error)

It is to inform you all that 'Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah' is the name of the book not any personality. Here the page is wrongly redirected. Here the details of author (i.e. Ibn Khuzaymah) is given while his book name is redirected to same page too. Please make the author biography separate from his book title. Another page of his book has already been made by name of Saheeh ibn Kuzaima. Please redirect Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah page to this new page which explains his book not the author himself (i.e. Saheeh ibn Kuzaima}.

It looks like this has already been done— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on TCDD TVS2000: how to donate content?

Hi I copied a piece of original text from my personal website over to Wikipedia. I am the original author of the text. I do this copy because I want to wind down my site. I wanted to donate the content to Wikipedia instead of delete it. However, the copy was undone for the very reason it is copy. How then can I donate content? --De24000 (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Carolyn Jones (filmmaker) edits

Dear Diannaa, thank you for your help, I work with Carolyn Jones so I was trying to help her with updates to her Wikipedia page. I copied and pasted text that I had written for her website www.carolynjones.com. She is more than willing to provide copyright permission to use the text and updates, however I'm not sure how to go about that. Can you please advise? Thank you so much for your help! Lisafrank16 (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Lisafrank16

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. However the material I removed was published in http://www.upstate.edu/news/articles/2018/0416-three-will-receive-honorary-degrees-at-commencement-may-20.php so their permission would be required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

CCI clerk

Hello Diannaa! I'm very sorry to bug you, but do you know how I could get people to see my request for clerkship at CCI? I pinged you and some others about a week ago, but no one responded. Again, sorry to bug you.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Money emoji. Activity at CCI is very low, almost negligible, so the need for clerks is correspondingly low. That's prolly why no one has replied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; since thats the case, should I just add myself to the clerk list and archive cases myself?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No you should not. That would be an inappropriate thing do do, so sorry. If you're looking for useful maintenance tasks to do, please consider participating in one of the tasks mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Discouraged about backlogs— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, To Diannaa As an aside some time ago we had a brief conversation about encouraging more activity at Copy Patrol — Money is the person I encouraged and they been contributing

To Money I have been active, on-and-off, at CCI over the years and I didn't even realize there was such a concept as a CCI clerk--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I was not aware of that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Kanaka Maha Lakshmi Temple

Please check Kanaka Maha Lakshmi Temple as per [7].--Vin09 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Warning Message

STOP REMOVING NATIONAL ANTHEM LYRICS. I need them. I can't find on other web-site. Again, this is a warning. But if you repeat this again, you will be blocked.--CuteDolphin712 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Many national anthems have lyrics that are still under copyright. This means that per our copyright policy, we're not allowed to include them. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Mikhail Murad

Hi,

after your edit I worte the paragraph in my own words. I hope its setisfying. --Midrashah (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

2020 PGA Championship

When we make a new golf page, we tend to use the versions of previous years as a standard when we make a new one. So, it's okay. Thanks for your concern, though. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Attribution is required under the terms of our CC-by license, so it's required that you state where you copied the material from. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

PENLAB software page

Hi Dianaa,

The IEEE website you are citing (from which I supposedly copy-pasted the content) is an IEEE Newsletter publishing my contribution – information about the availability of our software PENLAB (as you can see from the signatures there). So there is no copyright violation whatsoever.

Thanks, Michal

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Dianaa, The same sentence is on my website http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/kocvara/penlab/ . They (IEEE) are not the copyright holders, again, it is a newsletter that simply collects contribution submitted to them electronically by anyone. This is completely normal in mathematics, see e.g. http://www.netlib.org/na-digest-html/ Moreover, we are speaking of a single sentence "Penlab is an open source software for nonlinear semidefinite programming", how can this be copyrighted? Would you like me to rephrase it? Thanks, Michal

Diannaa, See: User talk:Mkocvara. This user has a massive COI. The entire series of their created articles appears to be a promotion for the software they developed themself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung: Well, would you please like to tell me why other optimization software (IPOPT, MOSEK, Midaco, Baron, etc, etc) are allowed to have Wiki pages? Would you like me to cheat and simply ask my colleague to publish that single sentence for every code? You are speaking of a "massive COI" - I repeat, I merely published an information about a code that is being used by hundreds of academic users (please check the citations on https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=hizPCIIAAAAJ&hl=en). Yes, I developed it myself (with my students) but who do you think published information about Midaco, WARPH, IPOPT, etc, other then their developers or their colleagues? Who can update the information about the latest version (as in the mentioned software) other then the developers? Thanks, Michal

Regarding the copyright issue, since the material was previously published elsewhere online, we can't take your word for it that you are the copyright holder. Proof would be provided using the method I already talked about above. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, Welcome to Wikipedia. You may consider learning about fair use: "Around 10% of Wikipedia pages in English have some form of fair use content—that’s over 500,000 articles quoting from a book or an article;" Says the GC of Wikemedia Foundaiton anyway. Stephen LaPorte, Senior Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation The citation is in response to the post you made in my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antisoapbox (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are for the most part written in our own words. You should avoid using quotations unless absolutely necessary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio 1

This revision seems to be similar with This website.--Vin09 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please watch list the page.--Vin09 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Distortions (album)

Not sure about this one. It produces this copyvio result, but I can't figure out what the link is. Is it a mirror site? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a text dump-Wikipedia mirror, There's snippets of old versions of other articles present as well. Not to worry :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Canisteo

Please explain https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canisteo_(village),_New_York&diff=898311454&oldid=898197035

The quotes are long out of copyright, if that's what you're concerned about. I think it's more helpful and accurate here to actually quote instead of paraphrase. deisenbe (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are typically written by Wikipedians, rather than consisting of a series of quotations, especially unattributed quotations. It's not very engaging prose, and makes for a low quality article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Scott Snibbe

I had the website owner place the copy's source under Wikipedia appropriate license. Could you please revert the changes you deleted? Thank you! Moholynage (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the revision-deletion but I am not going to restore the content, because adding material copied from the subject's own website is not appropriate whether it's released under license or not. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Question abt Copy

Recently had an update to Richard M. Myers reverted. Much of the info was adapted from his publicly available CV, which was done to keep from misrepresenting complex science involved. Just checking to see if that was the overlapping copy and reason for removal. Can fix that, but wanted to make sure I was looking at the right information. Also wondering if there's a way to get copy preapproved? Even changing sentence structure, many of the words in a given sentence remain the same, given the lack of synonyms for specific genetics terms. Thanks

The material was removed because it was copied directly from http://hudsonalpha.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/31111925/Myers-CV-May30-17.pdf, which is a copyright document. Copypasting from copyright webpages is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. We don't have a system in place to pre-approve material for publication; editors are expected to make themselves familiar with our policies and comply with them. I am aware that it's not possible or necessary to paraphrase things like job titles or names of employers. Regardless of the copyright issue, adding material copied from the subject's own CV is not appropriate whether it's released under license or not. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio 2

Hi Diannaa, I've just removed some large chunks of text from Blockade (2016 film) which were almost direct cut and paste from different websites. Could you please take a peek and strike out the initial edits please? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Done; thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about copyright

Hi Diannaa, I was thinking of starting an English article for Messiaen's composition Sept Haikai and was wondering if the picture of the orchestra layout from here https://www.schoyencollection.com/music-notation/contemporary-music/messiaen-sept-haikai-ms-5575 would count as fair use. Cheers Hochithecreator (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

No it would not, because a similar freely licensed sketch could easily be created, or the layout could be described using prose. Fails WP:NFCC #1. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

FCA edits

Hi Dianaa, could you check these edits ([8] [9]) on the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles article? I'm unsure such large quotes can be protected by fair use claims. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason why the person adding the material could not have re-written the material in their own words.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dopamine Transporter Deficiency Syndrome Copyright help

Hi! Thanks for helping me out with the copyright stuff, I'm still new to the Wiki. I don't see what was reverted/changed but thank you for the heads up.

All the best and hope you have a great day.

Brsmith19 (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"Copyrighted" material from http://john844.org/ regarding the synagogue of satan

The "copyrighted" material that you removed from the synagogue of satan page was made by William Fink, you stated that it got its information from John844.org but the owner of Christogenea and John844 are the same person. If you had even given the slightest glance you would have known this. Pliesquids (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Both pages (https://christogenea.org/podcasts/exactly-why-jesus-christ-not-jew and http://john844.org/) are copyright, which means it's against the copyright policy of this website to copy the material here unaltered. The christogenea.org website (which is the one you cited) is marked as © by William R. Finck Jr. All rights reserved. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Help

I sincerely appreciate your feedback, help, and guidance! I don't feel like that is something we say enough these days, so I wanted to sincerely thank you! Commonwealth1333 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court opinions

Hi, can you please revert this edit; the U.S. Supreme Court opinions are in the public domain. Thanks, Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the court case and the content you added is there. I am restoring the content and added the template {{PD-notice}} to indicate that this material is copied from the source rather than written by Wikipedians. In the future if you could please add this required attribution along with your citation at the time you add the content, that would be perfect. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Copy Patrol

I'm getting:

500 - Internal Server Error

Just checking to make sure it isn't just me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not just you.. and it's not just copypatrol that's down; it looks like all of Labs is down. Luckily I have CopyPatrol open in a tab and will do what I can manually until we can resume doing checks in the normal way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I am working from the bottom of the list — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that it is back - I've knocked off a few.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool cool cool. I will get a few more done too before I have to go to work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MSD of Martinsville

Hi!

I am the administrator for the page. Please revert changes back. If I need to cite, please explain.

Best, Jayne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artiestories (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The material was copied from another website, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. Regardless of the copyright issue, the sort of material you added is not what we're looking for. You wouldn't find it in a paper encyclopedia, and we don't want it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Synchrony Financial

Hi Diannaa

I was reviewing your edits from the Synchrony Leadership questions and I am having trouble following why you removed this section. When providing information about the 2 individuals the sourcing was cited albeit I understand where I could have used quotes. However, if I am indicating or identifying a person's title and roll from public sources or information that exists in multiple places I'm not sure how this violates the copyright rules. I'm going to revert the changes back and then make edits per your suggestions. I am new at this and will get better. Likewise, I am going to add additional sources to review the Advert claims. Roblomo (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the copyright issue, we don't normally include mini-biographies of corporate staff. We don't normally even list them, unless they're notable people — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

on rohingya genocide

I'm pretty sure I cited every quote from the site. But I am unable to compare previous versions as they have been crossed out. But in the future I will put citations after block quotes. I just thought it looked better placing it before (especially for poems). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I did remove one quotation, but some of the copyright material I removed was not framed as a quotation or a block quote. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Partial automation - any interest?

I've noticed that in some instances, after confirming that a particular edit is an exact copy or a very close paraphrase of material which is subject to copyright, that I engage in a number of steps:

• Identify the consecutive edits by the same editor
• Rollback the edit(s)
• Revdel the edits
• Notify the editor

(Obviously, this is a little bit of shorthand as the exact steps vary a bit from situation to situation.)

It's my opinion that these exact steps occur commonly enough that it might be worthwhile to semi-automate the process. I don't know whether this would occur in twinkle or some other process, but I'm imagining a checkbox where we she could simply click, and a background process would carry out all the steps.

Because you do far more of these than I do, it doesn't make a lot of sense to look into this further if it's not something that you would use. I'm interested to know whether there is enough interest to look into this further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi S Philbrick. I don't know if this would work for me, because the copyright material is very rarely the top edit; I typically have to pick things apart and I often have to do things like this. I don't use rollback at all for copyvio for this reason. I use several versions of user talk page warnings/posts, including {{uw-copyright-new}}, {{uw-copyright}}, customized shorter copypasta for students, plot descriptions, and copyvio that was already removed for reasons other than copyright. I would guess that circa 30% of the job is cleaning up and educating people about copying within Wikipedia - adding the required attribution and educating the user as to how to do it properly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding: The longer the report has been in the queue, the less likely that the material will be the top edit. So your experience is likely different from mine, because you are typically working on the newer reports. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, Okay thanks. Not terribly surprising — yes, I typically start at the top of the queue, and it is not uncommon that the edit I'm looking at is the most recent edit. I do know how much more work it is when it isn't the most recent edit, and those couldn't be easily automated. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Malvern College Egypt contribution

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for the below email.

After reviewing what I have sent earlier and what you have published on your website, kindly find below my comments:

The parts that have been removed are all what we have published on MCE’s website that I have sent earlier links to. Therefore, they cannot be considered as plagiarized as this is what we as a college wrote and published. As for the other parts that have been takin from our sister sites , Malvern College UK and Malvern College International, I will conduct the quotation marks and send them to you.

Awaiting your kind reply.

Malvern Nourhan Malvern Nourhan (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonfree content

I agree that the large quote you removed from Charles Lightoller was far too long and UNDUE. However, given the date of publication (1912) I was wondering why you felt NFCC applies. It would appear to be long out of copyright. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm you are correct. If I recall correctly I thought the testimony was dated 1935. Working too hard I guess :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. But your decision was still correct. FAR too long. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Ernest Gordon.

I don’t understand. The original used, and footnoted, information from his obituary. The Wikipedia language was inaccurate and incomplete. I added facts from the same source and did some basic copy-editing such as identifying Princeton as being in New Jersey. If it was permissible for the writer of the original material to use information from the obituary, why was it wrong for me to add some facts? Merry medievalist (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Please don't add copyright material copied from other websites to Wikipedia. Everything you contribute needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Article revert 2

Hi Diannaa, I saw your recent overhaul of the Ik Onkar article for copyrighted content within the last week, and agree with the removal of much of the unsourced rambling in the article body. I myself had overhauled the article about five weeks ago, getting rid of much of the poor writing and unsourced information in the article, as well as adding sourced info and giving a full edit summary of my rationales.

Last month I mentioned an editor with a controversial edit history. Just prior to your edit and removal of copyrighted info, he/she had reverted the article back to the version before mine, again overriding the edits of several other users in the process, and once again giving the reason “potential vandalism” (which doesn’t make sense, there is either vandalism or there isn’t) to lazily reinstate the version he/she liked best. Much of the unsourced information you had to delete had been restored by him/her.

I bring this to your attention because due to the former presence of copyright violating info on the page, previous versions are now inaccessible and frozen out, so I can’t refer to my previous edit to retrieve sourced info and reforms to the article to make it halfway decent again. Your own beneficial edits aside, it’s gone back to being a shoddily written article overrun by the work of editors who don’t have a full command of English or a neutral POV. So my point is, would it be possible to duplicate your edit based off of the version of the article prior to this editor’s edit? You will find that a lot less would have to be deleted, and the quality and writing of the article would be much improved, a far cry from what it has been turn back into. Thanks Sapedder (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sapedder. What I am going to do is send you via email a copy of your 13:51, April 23, 2019 version, minus the copyright material that I removed, which was about 9 paragraphs pasted at the bottom. From this you should be able to determine how to go about undertaking repairs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Repairs per email completed. Thanks Diannaa for taking the time to help out. Sapedder (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Helen Nicholson (Historian)

Dear Diannaa, I'd like to know why you have deleted a substantial amount of information from the page [[Helen Nicholson (historian). The reason specified is that there was a copyright infringement, but you have deleted material from the page in such a way that I cannot verify if this is the case, and I cannot rectify it. When I wrote the page I do not believe there was any copyright infringement. I believe that every single sentence was verified and referenced, and not lifted from other sources. But I cannot check this. It would be really helpful if you could undo the changes you have made to the page so that I can check and make improvements if they are necessary. As it is the page is much more sparse and valuable information about an important source has been lost. The notability of the subject is also less established as a result of the changes you have made, making it more vulnerable. Thank you Srsval (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. The part that had to be removed is highlighted in green. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand, the link is to an external page on Helen Nicholson?Srsval (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's the proper link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en/?id=47078236 Sorry about that.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Peru earthquake

I'm honestly surprised that there was enough of She-Hulka's additions left to need such a comprehensive revdel of the article's history. It would be helpful if you could e-mail me exactly what is no longer in the article, so that I can see if any of it should be retained (in different words of course). Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

That one was pretty minor, but I still did the revision deletion regardless. Email is on its way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - nothing there to bother with I think. Mikenorton (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Addington Hills

Hello, there seems to be more copy-vio at a Croydon (UK) park article, at this page. Taken from here.

Thanks, ...if there's somewhere more appropriate I should be reporting things to (rather than bothering you) please let me know. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You can report here if you like - lots of people do, especially if the case is complicated. Ideally if the case is simple, you should remove the copyright material yourself and then request revision deletion of the diffs that contain the copyright content. More complex cases can be reported at WP:CP. There's a help page at Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 that you can use as a guide as to what to do. If not sure, please feel free to post here. Happy to help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for help. I have had a bit of a go at Beaulieu Heights which had some fairly minor copy-vio of a similar nature to previous examples. If you are able, would you be kind enough to check what I've done for errors on my part. Many thanks. Eagleash (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That's great. A couple of things: If you could specify either in your edit summary or on the copyvio-revdel template what the source was. And on the revel template, please include the diff of where the content was added if you can locate it, and the diff where you removed it. These things will help the patrolling admin do the work quicker. Thank you very much for your interest in helping with copyright cleanup. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks. I think I stopped reading the instructions too early the second time I looked at them. And I definitely didn't look at the templates! Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Canajoharie Creek

Hi, im pretty sure that the new section i made is ok to add to the article. I fixed the parts that were copyright violations. please let me know what you think or if any other things need to be dome. Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've done some more amendments and the issue is now resolved. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Pax gene

hi, just wanna say that my content is copied from the public domain interpro. its actually quite obvious if you checked the bottom of the page. i dont care about whether the prosite people have copied interpro too, but please review your deletion. --Artoria2e5 🌉 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The page https://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/entry/IPR001523 shows a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, "Copyright © EMBL-EBI 2019". The papers you cited in the removed segment were http://www.jbc.org/content/279/32/33601.full.pdf and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11103953, and neither of those shows a compatible license. Not sure what I am missing here? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The EMBL-EBI terms of use, which permits use "by any individual for any purpose", and does not impose any additional restritions beyond what the (non-EMBL) contributors give, is usually taken as public domain when applied to text that EMBL people themselves write. This is the widespread consensus for people (including these EMBL/Pfam folks themselves) who edits protein domain articles. And there is a template called {{InterPro content}} for that sort of use. --Artoria2e5 🌉 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Artoria2e5, (talk page stalker) Some editors who work on copyright issues take the position that, as nonexpert volunteers, we should avoid interpreting nonstandard wording. The wording should either reflect one of the specific acceptable licenses, or be unequivocal ("this material is in the public domain"). While that phrasing initially sounded pretty solid, the first thing that leapt to mind was whether "individual" included organizations or only living people, and if it's restricted to living people can we make the argument (probably) that Wikipedia editors qualify and it isn't the case that it is being used by an organization (Wikimedia). But while I'm fairly sure, I'm not 100% sure which is exactly why there is a preference for standard wording.

However, I decided to see the terms in context. The phrase "may be used by any individual for any purpose" is in a sentence talking about software. It looks to me like they are making it clear that anyone can use their software but I don't think software means all text. Furthermore, item 7 says "we reserve the right to update these Terms of Use at any time". If someone makes a good case that the terms discussing software also apply to text doesn't this clause suggests they could retroactively change their terms which is contrary to our requirements?

I note that this is not a one-off use but a site that used repeatedly. Even if the consensus is that it can be viewed as public domain, in view of the multiple uses, I would encourage someone to contact the appropriate people and urge them to use standard language for licensing. However, while I initially thought that I was possibly being too picky, I am now very concerned that the material cannot be viewed as being in public domain. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have sent an email to the EMBL folks to ask for some explicit copyright wording on this matter. Let's hope they will respond on that.--Artoria2e5 🌉 17:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Artoria2e5, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit history needs to be deleted for three articles

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicotine&type=revision&diff=900276420&oldid=900226164 Content was copied word for word. It was a copyright violation.

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

Edit history needs to be deleted for the usage of electronic cigarettes article. When I forked over content to the usage of electronic cigarettes two of the citations had the attribution missing. Here is one of them I fixed.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=900000305 I eventually add the missing attribution.

Edit history needs to be deleted for the Electronic cigarette article. When I expanded the page at least one of the citations had the attribution missing. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quack Guru. I did the first one but not the other two. We don't do revision deletion for missing attribution. Just add the missing attribution and warn the user/advise them how to do it themselves next time. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2019 (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. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy Patrol Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome

I dropped a note to Doc James here User_talk:Doc_James#Copy_patrol_advice_requested. You are obviously free to address that incident as you see fit, but you might wait to see if he decides to help.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Help with party page

Please see Talk:Green_Party_of_California#Grounds_for_Ideology, please and thank you. Stevemario (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

/* The Voice Kids UK */

Hi Diannaa people keeps changing the series to Jessie J in the last chair but Jessie is in the second chair. Can U Plz Help Me (TMarrofficialuser) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDitorTVCambodia222 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryptocurreny/Blockchain category

@Diannaa: Hello! If it was from NEM's facebook page (which I am part of the admins) Is it still considered as copyright? Thanks! Mickieann (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is copyright. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright removal on Ages of consent in Africa

Hi Diannaa. This is in regard to your recent edit on Ages of consent in Africa. Because the revision has been hidden I can't see exactly what was removed, but from context it would appear to be an excerpt from the Zambian Penal Code Act? Zambian legislation is in the public domain - see section 8(2) of the Copyright and Performance Rights Act: "Copyright shall not subsist in a Bill introduced into Parliament or in an Act of Parliament." So in my understanding it does not have to be removed under our copyright policy. Cheers, htonl (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have re-added the legislation, but not the editor's interpretation of what he believes it to mean. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - htonl (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Potential COPYVIO

Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the LGBT History Month article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Woodlot and sorry for the delay in replying. The biggies were (as I expected) Wikipedia mirrors, but a couple of paragraphs had to be removed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Diannaa, the content of my recent edit on the transport section for Green Party of England and Wales was within guidelines to the best of my understanding, as it was in the Parties manifesto! as a result, it's in the public domain, I know this as I'm a member of that party and other parties have lifted our material verbatim, and legally we have no standing as it's not copyrighted! Also, I'm on the transport working group, and I drafted part of that section... so I'm giving myself the right to edit my own work! I will be reinstalling you edit and improving the section! if you want to hear more about the Green party, I'm happy to fill you in on our policies... namely disability rights as I have complex visible and nonvisible disabilities! Also "... and welcome to Wikipedia" I'm sorry but it seems you have been a member for 5 months longer than me, so stop with the patronising statement, as a disabled person I get enough from society and from other members of the Wikipedia team I'm sorry to say! I don't wiki every day, and thus do not have the same rank as you as it takes me twice as long to write half as much as well as the fact as I'm working on my PhD!!! Regards The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but the page is marked at the bottom as "© The Green Party 2006 - 2019" so we can't copy it here unaltered or lightly paraphrased. That's a violation of our copyright policy.

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you not understand what I said! or comprehend the situation I'm in? I expanded the text, and added extra source material and substantial charges the section! I'm a member of the party and thus given myself permission, not least as I wrote part of the policy! reinstate my edit, please!

Regards The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I did understand perfectly, and I'm not allowed to take your word for it that you own the copyright to that website. We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi The Emperor of Byzantium. In addition, to what Diannaa posted above, I just going to add that being a member of the party doesn't give you any special editing privileges or control over the content in the article. Wikipedia articles aren't owned by the subjects of articles, and your connection to party might be seen as being at least an WP:APPARENTCOI (just based upon your posts above) which means you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference.

Another possible issue with the content you added is that Wikipedia articles are intended to be written in a neutral voice which is balanced in how it portrays the subject. Most content posted on the websites of organizations such as political parties tends to be written in a way which promotes the party and its positions; in other words, in a way not suitable for Wikipedia's purposes. So, even if copyright was not an issue with the content you added, it still might be inappropriate to copy-and-paste or to closely paraphrase the content from the party's website. Perhaps, you can figure out a way to summarize the main points of the content in a neutral manner and then support that with a citation to some reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To all concerned... I know, why don't you bloody sort it out instead? OK? Just a thought???... Disabled people are still allowed to do that right? or are you going to correct me on that as well? OR say I'm not disabled either??? you won't be the first one too! Show some god dame respect to people who work hard to try and overcome grammar and hand-eye coordination issues... I do not need this crap! Happy Regards from the UK, unless you don't think I'm from there either! The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Diannaa did "bloody sort it out". Which is why the copyright violation was removed. Disabled or not disabled has nothing to do with it. Please attempt to understand WP policy and guidelines. Marchjuly's comments above are also quite appropriate.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dongles

This is an appeal to ask you to review my most recent edit of the 'Dongles' article now taken down by another editor.

I provided two simple statements backed up by photos of physical objects: one showing the Operations Manual for the Typecraft typesetting software describing the use of a dongle in 1982 and the other showing dongles used to protect the Wordcraft word processing software.

The statements were:

"The Operations Manual for the Typecraft typesetting software shows use of a dongle in 1982 (see photograph)."

and

"The Wordcraft word processor used dongles for protection on the Commodore PET computer, the IBM PC etc. (see photograph)."

Is anyone claiming the statements are untrue? Is anyone claiming the photos are faked? If so, any photo on Wikipedia could be a fake. I think common sense has been lost somewhere along the line here and I appeal to your sense of the reasonable.

Later edit: I have sent the permissions emails you requested for the images referred to above along with providing a category for the older, 2011, image.

This morning when I used the wizard to upload two images there was no indication that additional permissions would be required beyond those provided in the fields displayed by the wizard.

Later still edit: I apologise for expanding this again as I imagine you are a very busy person - I am retired (whooppee!) so I have free time. I am a totally stress-free, pretty laid-back, decent sort of person, I have enjoyed over half a century working with computers and I suppose I am an "expert" in the fields I specialise in - I have represented the UK on international bodies in some of those fields. I do my best to remain calm and to provide reasoned arguments - but I am afraid that editor MrOllie is trying my patience. He seems to have a policeman's rigid adherence to rules (I have read the ones he has referred me to, I agree with the vast majority but I am critical of others) and orders and I have no idea what position he has within Wikipedia.

At the risk of sounding paranoid (moi?) it seems to be open season in Trusley Mike at the moment what with him hacking away at the only two articles I have contributed to and you getting at me (quite rightly) about stuff relating to images (now sorted I hope). I can't help thinking that the two of you must have had a chat.

If you have a second could you please have a look at my latest response to his comment in the "Article needs some major updating/rewriting." section of the dongles talk page? I have tried to outline my concerns.

I hope that common sense, reasonableness and discretion will win the day.

Trusley Mike (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages. MrOllie and I have no connection. His status here is ordinary editor, like yourself, and I am a Wikipedia administrator. We both independently found problems with your additions to the article (in MrOllie's case) and with the images you uploaded (in my case). Just some advice: It's not appropriate for you to question the motives of either of us or suggest that we must be in cahoots. Sorry but I don't have time to help you with the issues discussed on the talk page. The problems seem to be that you are using primary sources and original research, neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia editing. Nobody is saying that the photos are fake; what he's saying is that photos are not considered appropriate sourcing. There's a difference. When you get into a dispute with another editor you should first discuss on the talk page, and if that fails, then proceed to dispute resolution (see WP:dispute resolution for how to do that.) Sorry if my remarks above are incomplete or over-simplifying; I don't have time to study all the nuances of your dispute. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As you can imagine, I am very disappointed with your response. I am not implying anything, but, like must people, I always question coincidence - especially when something put up eight years ago is suddenly questioned by two independent editors, one of whom is an administrator, within a few hours of one another. I accept what you say that it is a pure coincidence.

Wikipedia readers are being deprived of truthful and provable information and MrOllie seems proud of the fact that Wikipedia is a "regurgitator of material cited from elsewhere" - his words, not mine. An illuminating quote.

How do I get the provable facts into the article when there is no third party citation? It should be self evident to both of you, from the material and background I have provided so far, that everything I have said is true. Would you be happy with a barrister's sworn opinion that what I say would stand up in court?

Trusley Mike (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but if you don't have a citation we don't want the content. That's the way Wikipedia works: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright for Draft:Hindi imposition

Thanks for your messages! I will keep editing this page until the problems are fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokoyaki28 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Really?

Valentine (film)

Really? You still remove my edit even though I had a refrence? Really? Really? Really? The King Gemini (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the content because it was copied from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242998/trivia, which is a copyright web page. That's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexandre Cingria

I tried to rewrite the page some more, does it look better now? I'm pretty bad at it, but I tried harder this time.★Trekker (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but it's still identical to the source document. here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate report link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand, how am I supposed to rewrite it so that it's not a copyright problem while still relaying what the source actually says?★Trekker (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I tried again. Better this time?★Trekker (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's okay now from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yay!★Trekker (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

William Martin Leggett

Hi Dianaa,

Most of my draft entry for William Martin Leggett has been removed as it appears to have added copyrighted content without evidence that source material is in the PD or licensed by the owner. Is it possible to be more specific pls? The problem may be that I based my draft entry pretty closely on my article on W. M. Leggett at AustLit (https://www-austlit-edu-au.rp.nla.gov.au/austlit/page/A127555). Do I need to seek their permission to draw on that article for Wikipedia, or alternatively ask them to remove my AustLit entry? Or does the problem lie elsewhere? - I'm not aware that I've knowingly plagiarised anything.

Regards Cvening (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing the content from the AustLit website does not change its copyright status. It enjoys copyright protection immediately and keeps it for the usual copyright term whether they take it down or not. You can re-write the content so it is no longer identical to the published article, or you can provide documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Eckford Article Revision

Hello Diannaa,

Thank you for your input on my article changes. I want to be able to properly add information onto this wikipedia page for Elizabeth using the details I initially wrote in. If you had any other contributions you can help me with in order to make the article flow better and remain free of any violations? I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

-Annampolk

Hello Annampolk and welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like the article is the subject of a class project. Please make yourself familiar with our expectations before you go any further. There's some exercises for students at https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training, or consider visiting Help:Getting started for information on how to contribute to Wikipedia in a useful way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

Recent edits on Amaravati and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region.--Vin09 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I got Amaravati, but there are no recent edits at Andhra Pradesh Capital Region? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

CC contribution is missing attribution

Hello Diannaa, sorry to bother you (I should probably know the correct templates by now), but could you double-check and add an appropriate attribution in Gamification please? The edit at [10] is clearly copypasted and adapted from [11], possibly by a fellow or colleague of the authors in good faith. Fortunately the source page seems to be published under a CC BY 4.0 license (see article info on top of source page "Under a Creative Commons license") and may just need a proper attribution to be fixed. Thank you for your help with such issues. PS just for clarity: the recent edits by Kacako in the same article are a separate copyright issue, handled via revdel request. GermanJoe (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe. Thanks for the report. I have added the required attribution and alerted the user to do it themselves in the future. I will leave the rev-del for another admin to do so that I can get today's batch of copyright issues dealt with. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Koledari

Hiya Diannaa 😊 I wanted to better understand the reason for your copyright concern on Koledari page. The song lyrics I added to the Ukrainian section are from a folk song and furthermore the section above had folks song lyrics there too which weren’t a concern. Thanks. Berehinia (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Song lyrics are copyright. A translation to English of an old Ukrainian folk song may be copyright even though the original lyrics are in the public domain. Someone restored your addition the next day — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem, United Nations Industrial Development Organization Goodwill Ambassador

Dear Diannaa, I am writing on behalf of the Advocacy and Media Relations Division of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) HQ in Vienna. The information added on the United Nations Industrial Development Organization Goodwill Ambassador Wiki page was taken from our official website: https://www.unido.org/who-we-are-unido-brief/goodwill-ambassadors It was written by our team, and we would like it to be present here as well. Could you kindly assist us with this? Many thanks in advance and kind regards, Dana. P.S. This was a number of my "change": 193.138.105.29

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Native American slave ownership

I'm getting a very high copyvio level on this, but don't have time to deal with this right now. We have a cluster of related articles with serious copyvio problems. Many trace back to the same contributors. I've done heavy cleanup on some of them, and warned the still-active accounts, but could really use another set of hands and eyes on the copyvios. Would be very grateful. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This page is a copy of Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. Which in turn has a large overlap with the article Native American slave ownership. I'm not going to investigate further, as the remainder of the potential source documents for this one also appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Byron Case

The website www.stasia.org belongs to me, and I am responsible for it. You have marked my changes to the page Byron Case for deletion due to copyright issues.

I need you to tell me exactly which content on my website has been copied (as opposed to referenced) and what of it was copyrighted. I note that it is on the sub-page "Appeals", but I am unsure exactly what it is, and why it is in violation. == Couillaud 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regarding what the overlap was, it was material regarding appeals. here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Regardless of the copyright issue, it's not appropriate to add content to Wikipedia from your own website, unless you've got independent sourcing to back up each statement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just going to add that if the website belongs to you, then you need to be aware of WP:CITESELF, WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. The link you provided above doesn't look like a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, which means it shouldn't really being cited or content from it added to the article regardless of its copyright status. I can't see the content you added or how it was cited because of the revision deletion Diannaa did, but you might want to ask at WP:RSN or even WP:BLPN about whether the content or source should be used.

Unrelated to the above, there appears to be something amiss with your signature. Did you sign it using four tildes per WP:TILDE. Your signature should contain at least one link to one of your userpages per WP:SIGLINK, but yours doesn't. I checked the a couple of your recent talk page posts and found the same issue. Have you ever edited your user preferences? Sometimes when they are editing their preferences, and editor will mistakenly check the box "Treat the above as wiki markup" in the "Signature" section, which will remove the links from their signature. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In reverse order, to the best of my knowledge, I have not edited my user preferences. I do not know how to do so. Here is my signature

Couillaud

You need to sign using four tildes ~~~~ to produce a valid signature with wikilinks and time/date stamp. Is that what you are doing when signing? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And there does seem to be a problem with my sig. I AM using the four tildes will change it, if someone can tell me in simple English how to do so; I have a problem with most Wikipedia instruction pages, as they tend to use a form of English that I only see in computer instruction manuals and legal contracts. I tried to fill out the necessary form to donate my web page material (even though it is not copyrighted), but the "explanation" page tends to confuse the issue more than help. So, in simple English, what are my basic steps? I found the donation form referring to files instead of pages. Please have pity on such a Luddite.

Also, wold it be possible to reply to me on my talk page? I don't know if the etiquette changed while I wasn't looking (a possibility, since I haven't done that much editing over the last few years)? I have been accustomed to writing on another person's page in personal discussions, and seeing their reply on my own. It would help prevent the problem I just experienced, trying to write to your page while YOU were writing to your page. . .

Lastly, I should make the full disclosure that I am family of the murder victim of the person highlighted on this page, and that the editor who created the page and provided most of the content is a supporter of his, and a member of the "Free Byron Case" organization. Most of the "Biographical" section is sourced from the subject himself, who wrote his own story, and the photo being used was already deleted about a week ago by another admin over copyright issues, but replaced by the original editor a few days ago.

I'm typing out my full user name this time ---

--- Couillaud talk

Coupla things. First, if you're a family member of the murder victim, you should not be editing the article at all, because you have a conflict of interest. Second, how to access changing your signature: click on "Preferences". Go to the section labelled "Signature". Tick the box "Treat the above as wiki markup" if it is not already ticked. Add the content [[User:Couillaud|Couillaud]] [[User talk:Couillaud|talk]] to the box where it asks what your signature should be (assuming the box is empty; if the box is not empty, simply review the contents of the box to ensure it's similar to what I've placed here). Press the button labelled "Save". Finally, no, I am not going to reply on your talk to questions you ask here; it's better to keep discussions in one place so they can be reviewed in full at any time and all the replies are properly threaded. Edit conflicts will occasionally happen; I'm sure we can all learn to cope with that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Then perhaps I need to again mention that the individual who created this entire page ("Emily.ch87") is a member of the organization working for the subject, and has a bigger conflict of interest. The edits I made were in the interest of making sure the whole truth in the story is accurately told, as the original writing is propagandizing by leaving much important information out. It talks about "controversy" in his murder conviction where there is none. The article is about the murderer himself, NOT about his victim. I am not related to the subject, and his victim is not the subject.

I found preferences, and the box was ticked. I don't remember doing so, but let's see if the change takes.

--- Couillaud (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I have just sent an email to [email protected] (I figured it out, I hope). Please let me know if I'm using the wrong method, but I sent the email, identifying myself as the creator and sole owner of the website, with the standard permissions and waivers. -- Couillaud (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Couillaud. A couple of things in no particular order.

1. Your signature problem seems to have been sorted. Usually it's something simple, such as a syntax error or (as in this case) a checkbox which has been accidentally checked. Some editors, like Diannaa, have customized their signatures; so, if you'd like to do something like that please take a look at WP:CUSTOMSIG.
2. Help:Edit conflicts can happen on any page at any time, and there's no real way to prevent them. They usually happen on articles which are being heavily edited by multiple editors (e.g. an article about a well-known person who has just died), but they can happen on talk pages too.
3. For Wikipedia purposes, all content found online (even on user-created websites such as the one you linked to above) is going to be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise, even when there's no copyright notice anywhere on the page. So, if you want to make all or part of the original content on your website copyright free, you can do so by adding a statement to the page which says such a thing. You can also add a license like one from Creative Commons to the page as well. Be advised though (striclty from a copyright standpoint), you're going to need to license the content according to Wikipedia:Copyrights using a license that Wikipedia can accept. For example, any license which says "for non-commercial use only", or "for Wikipedia use only", etc. is not going to be free enough for Wikipedia's purposes.
4. Based upon what you've posted above, you would most certainly be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to anything written about this subject on Wikipedia. As you state, others may also have such a conflict as well; however, that's doesn't mean you get to set the record straight. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some information on the kinds of edits the Wikipedia community thinks are acceptable for a conflict-of-interest editor to make. I will add some more information about this thing to your userpage for reference. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest, but it does highly discourage it and expects editors to comply with relevant policies and guidelines. As for these other editors, you can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but please be very careful when you post anything about them per WP:OUTING. Only refer to them by their usernames and avoid providing any specific information about who they might be in the real world which might be a violation of WP:BLPPCOI. The best way to contest edits which you feel are made by a conflict-of-interest edit is to show how they don't comply with relevant Wikipdia policies and guidelines.
5. Generally, it's best to try and keep a discussion in one place since it makes it easier for others to follow. So, if someone posts on your user talk page, you can reply there to keep everything on that page as much as possible. Similarly, if you post on another editor's user talk page like you did here (perhaps in response to something they posted on another page), then they can choose to reply here or the page where the original post can be found. This practice is a especially good one to follow when it comes to discussing article content because it keeps everything on the article's talk page, which makes it much easier for others to participate and also easier to keep a record of what was discussed for future reference as needed.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

ChartCo Wikipedia article for review

Dear Diannaa About 2 months ago you removed the whole or part of an article I submitted for publishing on Wikipedia: 'ChartCo'. You quoted the reason for removing this 'that the article appears to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material has been released by owner'. In order for me to have this article published, could you please explain what parts of the article that needs approval by the company owner or legal agent - is it a matter of asking the company owner/legal agent to approve the full article and the logo used within it, or must they approve EACH of the citations in this article? It is not entirely clear to me what I must do. Many thanks LHamstig — Preceding unsigned comment added by LHamstig (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There was a minor copyright violation, but that's not themain problem. The draft has been repeatedly declined as being more like an advert than a Wikipedia article and lacking independent sources. Those are the issues you most need to tackle. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

English Patriot Man?

Have a look at "JackRussell1962" as a possible new incarnation of EPN. Usual German-related subjects and English politicians, but the edit to Elvis Presley is a giveaway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer for JackRussell1962 and EPN's top 8 socks by number of edits: [12]. Seems pretty probable to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have investigated and agree. Blocking now. Thank you for doing this investigation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Clean-up is still underway. Thanks to everybody who is working on that aspect. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And the cat came back, the very next day, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hi Diannaa, I've noticed that you've recently deleted some history revisions, so I thought I could call on you. There's a not so collaborative user who wrote this in an edit summary yesterday. I'm sure this should be deleted and he should be warned not to write again such things, also I think some of his recents edit summaries (visible here) might be considered inappropriate or even incivil, but I'm leaving such an evaluation to you. I hope this report of mine was useful, bye. 5.170.47.128 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry but those edit summaries don't rise to the level where they would qualify for revision deletion. Minor incivility, a bit of swearing, and sarcasm are all allowed and don't qualify for revision deletion — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello Diannaa and thanks for the message. I want to reworded the sentences so they are not copy and past more. I hope you will answered to me soon. Best regards Nathan Annick (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: the page was not down but you have copy the false link. Here is the correct link:[13] and you can check it. There is no other copyright violation in the article. I'm sorry for the mishap. Is it possible when I write it with my own words and used the source? Best Nathan Annick (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying the source. I'm not sure a good source; you might check at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to confirm. The article is now okay from a copyright point of view.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for the answer and I'm sorry for the mishap again. I will not do that in the future. I'll take your advice and ask for it there. Nathan Annick (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Dionis Zhmaili#Problems

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Dionis Zhmaili#Problems. Alerting you with this since you may have ping alert disabled. 1989 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I was just on CopyPatrol and we ran into each other on Draft:Kim Beauvais! You beat me by a minute. :) Good work, as always!

Snowycats (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Snowycats! Did you notice there was a copy of the draft at User:WindyCityWiki/sandbox? sneaky — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not notice that Diana! How'd you come across it? I'd love to learn from one of the best! 17:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Lots of times when people with low edit counts (say 25 or less) start their draft in a user sandbox, and then copy-paste it to draftspace. I usually check contribs for these editors to see what else they've been up to. Here's another one from today: User:MMS-Neurobiology/sandbox was a copy of Draft:John H. Byrne. I found that one because it contained the same photograph from the Commons. (Note that userspace sandboxes are not at present included in the CopyPatrol auto-checking system.) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

One of my kittehs - her name is Ninja

Cute kitten! I have 2 cats right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio on John Willys

Hi there, I wonder if you can advise about this page. I tagged it for copyvio a couple of months ago. I'd like to amend it and then request revdel, but am not completely sure that the source is not a Wikipedia mirror. The page is not dated so I can't see whether it predates the creation of the Wikipedia article in 2005. Would you be able to have a look? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The oldest version archived by the Wayback Machine is dated for 2014, and we've had this content since 2005. So we can't prove anything either way. The source webpage also has a copy of the article Willys which we've had since 2003. The two Wikipedia pages were created by two different people two years apart. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

		The Copyright Barnstar
		Every time I see you you're trying your best to clean up and make sure Wikipedia is at it's best.★Trekker (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ★Trekker! cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Ethics of...

Dear Diannaa, I am at a loss of what happened with my contribution in Ethics of circumcision. You sent me a message about copyright violation saying that parts or the whole of the text I added was removed, but then, when I compare versions I cannot immediately see what it was you removed because of copyright violations. Also, I did not do a copy & paste when adding the text concerning the 2012 AAP statement. I changed sentences, used other words but tried to stay close to the original wording in order not to create conflict as the topic is a rather sensitive one as you may now. So, could you please explain me what exactly happened and what should be done now? Kind regards, Yuri. Yuri7474 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, while you were answering me, I finally discovered myself which text was problematic. I understand the problem. I will rephrase and put it back later. Thank you! Yuri7474 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok great! Thanks Yuri! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Creative Commons

Diannaa you left a message on my talk page indicating that information I added was on Creative Commons and that an attribution was required. Thank you for that. How does one know what is on Creative Commons requiring such attributions? For instance, is material from news media websites covered by creative Commons? If so, does that allow one to quote directly from the source provided an attribution is provided? Notagainst (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't be copying from elsewhere online if you don't know what the source document's copyright status is or how to find out. Please have a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for a simplified explanation of how copyright law applies to Wikipedia editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Plausible redirect?

Draft:SVT Barn has substantially the same content as SVT Barnkanalen, but I'm not convinced it is a suitable redirect. Do you have an opinion?S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I've seen some people convert these to redirects, but I'm not in favor of it. I don't think there's a speedy deletion category that applies. Usually I do this: Diff of Draft:Kempeitai. Off to work now, ttyl. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2019 (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. Cornellier (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sad Pony Deletion

Hello, I am wondering why my page on Sad Pony was deleted? Is there anything that can be done to revise it or put it back up and prevent future deletion of this page? Any help would be appreciated.Russpeffer (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The page was deleted because the content was copied from http://www.aaminc.com/clients/detail/sad_pony, and thus was a violation of our copyright policy. See the section "Speedy deletion nomination of Sad Pony" on your talk page for further information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request

This addition is copy-pasted from this copyrighted book. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

How did you find the page number? It is not present in the link provided by me. BTW, thanks for the revdel. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's embedded in the url (pg=PT81) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this useful info. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Loma Linda University

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Diannaa: There is a really big problem with Loma Linda University. User:Jmertel23 filled in a bare reference with refill and User:Trappist the monk didn't like it calling refill crap and undid the edit. I undid User:Trappist the monk, but then User:cyberpower678 undid me calling it garbage. By what I read bare references cause link rot, don't they know this or have they forgotten?Catfurball (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Catfurball, Two administrators undo the revision and you forum shop to a third. Can you not see that the edit introduced bad syntax and that we simply reverted back to valid syntax?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Shouldn't they voice their concerns about the tool at User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill and not at an editor that's just trying to improve an article? That tool is used all over the project (and by me), I guess you just cannot use it on one of their watched pages. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime, the tool mangled the reference and caused render errors. The person undoing it is not obligated to report issues about a tool they don't use. It's no different from an editor breaking valid wiki markup, someone else is perfectly allowed to undo it to restore the valid version. The person using it however, should either cease using it, or report it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: I didn't look at the edit, I formed my comment based on both edit summaries. Maybe either of you should have mentioned the syntax error instead of inferring the tool itself was "crap" - FlightTime (open channel) 23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime, I inferred no such thing. I simply called the wiki-markup garbage, and said that garbage was re-instated. As the saying goes anything that comes out of a machine all messed up is garbage. Normally that is only supposed to happen with GIGO. Here we had valid input, but garbage still came out. Besides, I was summoned because Trappist mentioned my bot, saw his talk page post looked at the edits, and agreed with the revert.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think both terms were used, anyway I made my comment, I'm not going to debate the issue. Diannaa sorry for all the TP pings. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime: if you look at User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill/Archive 2#gigo, User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill/Archive 2#non-existent templates in |title= and |last=, and User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill/Archive 2#more junk you will see that I have [voiced my] concerns about the tool. None of my posts there were answered. Editor Zhaofeng Li did not respond. At present, Editor Zhaofeng Li has not been on wiki since 22 February; see Special:Contributions/Zhaofeng Li. I have fixed or reverted way too many edits by this tool. The fault lies with both the tool that produced the crap and with the editor who accepted the crap that the tool produced. cs1|2 citations that are sufficiently broken to produce red error messages will attract my attention; WP:OWN has nothing to do with this issue. Please withdraw that accusation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have much time to maintain the tool due to IRL stuff, and the old tool is indeed garbage as you mentioned. I cannot reproduce this problem (as well as any of the 3 problems you mentioned on the talk page) on the new rewrite which is much more conservative regarding the fixes it applies. It has been available for months, and people should use that instead. I will find some time to shut down the old tool by the end of this month. Yes, the endless crap needs to end, and I'm the one to blame. Zhaofeng Li ^talk (Please {{Ping}} when replying) 01:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Catfurball: The citation that I reverted was not bare; it is made from two properly formatted external links, a properly formatted {{webarchive}} template, and some connecting plain text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated copyvios at Phenomenon-based learning

Hello Diannaa, Era hoxha has added copypasted content from their sources into Phenomenon-based learning. Mostly from Symeonidis' publication, but also from the jfkuhlmann.com reference (see history). Searching for unique key-phrases throughout the added text shows an obvious copypaste job. Could you double-check the copyright situation and handle the 3 copyvios please? I have already posted 2 clear warnings on user talk, but these have been ignored. Copyvios are probably exempt from 3RR (?), but further back and forth reverts would just be a waste of time at this point. GermanJoe (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there German Joe, I confirmed that the material is copyright and removed again etc etc. I will watch-list the article for a while. Thank you for the report and for your interest in copyright clean-up. Yes, removing copyright material is a 3RR exemption. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the clarification and your help with this issue. GermanJoe (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Conrad Moller

Hi, i wish you could help me with an article thas it's in edition prosses. It's about Conrad Moller. He was my grate grate grandphather And i want to know who is edditing his story so to get in contact with him. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basko LH (talk • contribs)

Sorry but I don't have time to help with this project. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Gadolinium at super-kamiokande

It is absolutely vital that the super-kamiokande talk about the upcoming improvement due to addition of gadolinium sulfate. Unfortunately, there are very few articles about this written in English, and of those, most are difficult to read to the point of being impossible to read. Further, had I put the section in my own words, it could have been rejected as "original research". There are only two further easily accessible references to this that I know of, the recent video from http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/library/video-e.html and the news article https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/inside-super-kamiokande-360-tour/11209104. So. You decide how to say what needs to be said. But do it soon. And mention EGADS. Mollwollfumble (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but the material you added was copied from copyright material and had to be removed for that reason. We can't host it here without permission of the copyright holder. I am under no obligation to re-write the content for you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The major problem with wikipedia from my perspective, a users perspective, is that it seems as though 50% of the time i look something up on wikipedia, the essential information simply isn't there. It's much harder to fix text that is totally missing than fix text that isn't. I'm a scientist, not a journalist, obeying the 10% copyright rule. I had enough trouble with the unending cycle of "resubmission-rejection" 30 years ago and i don't play that game any more, it wastes my time and yours. Please either find someone to rewrite it to your satisfaction, which short circuits the resubmission-rejection cycle, or pass to me the tools you use to determine if copyright has been violated, and I can fix it myself.Mollwollfumble (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we don't have a 10% rule; our copyright policy is stricter than that, not allowing any copyright content whatsoever outside of short quotations. Copyright material was copied from three different journal articles:

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092056321200268X
• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00598-9
• https://www.ipmu.jp/sites/default/files/imce/news/43E_Research.pdf. You can view some of the overlap by viewing the bot report (click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap). The remainder I found by manually comparing the journal articles with the text you provided. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Help

I was curating the page Kidwelly satanic child rape cult and got a violation possible return from Earwig, I'm pretty sure it is mostly quotes but was hoping you might take a look. Cheers Hughesdarren (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The quotations are giving a false positive. Thanks for your concern. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for taking the time to check. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

Hi Diannaa I was about to try and deorphan Christian Härle when I noted a very odd statement about copyright at the bottom of the article. It clearly doesn’t belong there but it suggests that copyright on the content of the article has not been released. I’m not sure what to do so thought I’d alert an admin. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The author should have gotten an OTRS ticket at the time they added the content. I am listing at WP:CP. They haven't edited for a coupla years, but this way at least they get notified and have time to do that if it's still possible to do. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted Song Lyrics

Here. Lyrics from Get Up (Shinedown song) (I think). Needs revdelling Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And again here and here and here and in User talk:172.78.186.137's history. Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This was all cleaned up yesterday by an alert admin while I was busy gardening and reading books and the like. Thanks GeneralizationsAreBad and thanks to you too Adam for reporting this issue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Another one. Adam9007 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And again. I think he wants blocking. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And yet again. See the page's history too. Adam9007 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything appears to be tidied now. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

PS You showed some real patience there while the person was dissin you. Mad skills — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Siyabulela Xuza

Hello; I'm not sure what happened with this edit where the page content has been duplicated (the additional being an 'unstable' version). I was tempted to restore to the previous version (also by you) which looks OK but thought there was a possibility I might be missing something? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I made a big mess. Thanks for letting me know. All fixed now, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Ah, of course, some revdel too. Eagleash (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Pokello Nare page

Good morning Diannaa, i worked on the Pokello Nare article content and recreated the page with text that i think will not violet copyright policies as you indicated. If there are other things that might need attention to help improve the page i will be happy if you assist. Thank you for the highlight, am grateful as i keep working on improving as a Wiki contributor.Hurungudo (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Chuchura railway station

Hi. When I did a copyvio check, that didn't come up. This editor has created a few of these articles recently. I checked another one today, Bhadreshwar railway station, and the same two sentences appear. As I'm reviewing these new articles, is there something I can do to catch stuff like this? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes the bot will find these, but not always. I don't think you have to worry about it as a routine check. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. And I just went to the talk page of that other article, and see you've already tagged it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Neuronetics Content Page

Hi Diannaa! I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to connect with you on recent changes made to the Neuronetics page. Please know my conflict of interest, in full transparency, since Neuronetics is a client of mine. To be in line with Wikipedia policies, I proposed edits on the talk page based on public information, such as number of employees, key executives, etc. Any information you can share as to why those changes were not made would be helpful so I can keep in mind moving forward. That said, I also see that content about Neuronetics' commercial product, NeuroStar Advanced Therapy, was removed from the page. Can you please explain the reasoning for that and perhaps help clarify what can be done to add it back in since it is part of the company profile? Perhaps additional secondary sources? I appreciate your information and patience. I'm still learning all of the Wiki policies and want to be sure things are done the right way on this page, including the best ways to resolve any issues or flags.

MD at Vault Communications (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the reason I removed the product information was in the edit summary: "remove content copied from SEC filing; primary source not suitable for this purpose, and content is not suitable for an article about the company." By the way, it is not a "company profile", it's an encyclopedia article. When you look at it that way, it becomes obvious why it's not the right place for product promotion. Please post any suggestions for improvements to the article on the article's talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Diannaa. I really appreciate your insight and am curious what you think about creating a separate Wikipedia page about Neuronetics' medical device system, NeuroStar Advanced Therapy, which is used to treat Major Depressive Disorder. Since the NeuroStar Advanced Therapy System has been covered by third-party sources, let me know if you think that approach makes sense. I'll also add this conversation to the Neuronetics talk page if it is more convenient to continue chatting there. You're the expert and since I do have a conflict of interest with Neuronetics being a client of mine, I welcome any thoughts or feedback you may have on the best way to proceed. —MD at Vault Communications (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have any interest in helping with this project. You might consider visiting the WP:Teahouse to find out what your next steps should be. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 23:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References

changed visibility of a revision

Hi, you changed visibility of a revision on page Communist nostalgia recently. A sock of the offender has the same piece inserted earlier in here, as well as another copyvio here, so you may want to do the same there. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing a draft

Hello Diannaa. I just wanted you to take a look at this draft. It had been created before and was entirely unsourced, thus it was deleted by one of the administrators. Now the creator has created the draft again and added a number of sources which don't seem to be reliable. I even tried searching the name on Google or music platforms but wasn't able to find anything. The creator of the draft has also been using multiple accounts, with four of which he has left comments on my talk page, even though I warned him not to do so as he may get in trouble. I just wanted to let you, so you could do anything that you think is necessary at the moment. Keivan.f^Talk 20:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Keivan.f. The current version is just a wee stub that will not be accepted for publication. I have added a template to the draft so that it's clear it's a draft and not an article. Drafts are eligible for speedy deletion if nobody edits them for six months. Otherwise they have to go to MFD. It looks like the person is making a new account each time he accesses the site. He is very young. I wouldn't worry about the socking aspect. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 23:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio in Timothy Woodward Jr.

An IP copied and pasted a text from here into Timothy Woodward Jr.. I reverted it, but the edits history needs to be suppressed. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do it, as I am on Wikibreak in Banff with no access to admin tools. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 23:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Should I wait or report it on the admin noticeboard?--SirEdimon (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added a template to get it on the list for admin attention. Thanks for the report. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 02:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. It seems that even in a Wikibreak you are working. Thank you for the help.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

William Martin Leggett

Hi Dianaa - re William Martin Leggett (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_64), AustLit has now advised that I hold copyright for my note on their website which I used as a basis for my draft Wikipedia entry on Leggett. Dr Catriona Mills, Senior Research Manager at AustLit has advised: "You hold the copyright for the biographical material that you passed on, and which we included on AustLit. We have credited you as the source of our information, but as far as the biography, as it currently appears on AustLit, is concerned, you are the copyright holder and free to republish it on Wikipedia. (We’d be delighted if the Wikipedia page linked to AustLit, of course!)." What's my next step? I can provide Catriona's email, but to whom do I send it? I'm happy to grant Wikipedia a Creative Commons Attribution - Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and GNU Free Documentation License. However I see that this requires a link to the Wikipedia entry - does this mean I should first reinstate my draft article?

with thanks - Cvening (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Cvening. Many people on the OTRS team are also administrators, and they will be able to view the deleted content. the draft still exists: it's at Draft:William Martin Leggett — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 02:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Diannaa, I've sent the license off. Cheers Cvening (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User reinstated copyrighted content you previously removed

Back in May 2019, you had removed copyrighted content on Gokulotsavji Maharaj (history). I wanted to let you know that this same user reinstated the content as of this morning - I wanted to revert but I am not sure on the correct process. Murkl (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it and requested revision deletion (which I would ordinarily do myself, but I am not going to log in to my admin acct in a hotel). Thanks for the report. I better watch-list this as well — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

More of the same copyvios

2600:1008:B16D:2118:6144:F3F:C525:EA83 has just posted another of the same copyvio (copyrighted song lyrics). Adam9007 (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And these are copyrighted lyrics of Evelyn by Volbeat. Adam9007 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And these are of 96 Quite Bitter Beings by CKY. Adam9007 (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And I think this is dangerously close to Livin' on a Prayer. Adam9007 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/2604:2D80:AA10:7300:93D:F67F:2C2B:3484 appears to be a sock. Maybe it's time for ANI? Adam9007 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

These are of Red Skies by The Fixx. Adam9007 (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

These are of Hammer Smashed Face by Cannibal Corpse. Adam9007 (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

These are of All I Want by Toad the Wet Sprocket. Adam9007 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Dumas Walker by The Kentucky Headhunters. Adam9007 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And Bbb23 has as good as blamed me for starting all this in the first place! Really? I mean, what am I supposed to do? Just sit back and let them post copyright violations? (well, that has actually been proposed...) Adam9007 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It is possible the IP is doing it on purpose to annoy you. Copyvio in the sandbox is not as big a deal as in article space, but I take copyright seriously, and think you should remove copyright song lyrics from the sandbox or anywhere else when you find them. You can request revision deletion of such edits using the template {{Copyvio-revdel}}. It's better for me if you do it that way at least some of the time rather than posting here, as it helps spread the workload around a bit. If you want to speed things up there's a script available: User:Primefac/revdel; I tried it and didn't fancy it but you might like it. Ponyo has issued a short block to 2600:1008:b16d:2118:6144:f3f:c525:ea83 . You might try posting the IPs at WP:AIV if I'm not around and you think they're due for a block or re-block. I can help with blocks too, when I get home. I can't do anything about these particular cases right now as I am not using my admin acct right now, being at a hotel in Banff and all.

(offtopic) RE:FRAMGATE: Please don't talk to me about going on strike or downing tools - anyone who thinks it would be possible to do that on CopyPatrol has another think coming. To miss even one day would make it really hard to get caught up again and to miss a week is simply not on. If the Foundation is going to take the time and trouble to help us build this tool and help us with its upkeep and get donated iThenticate lookups, I think it's imprtant, our duty even, to use it. Ignoring copyright violations does damage to the wiki. In the sandbox not so much, but still. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 01:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you should ignore the trolling edits (let the sandbox bot sweep it away) and revert only the copyvio. Previous IPs were:

• 2600:1008:b16d:2118:6144:f3f:c525:ea83 - Verizon wireless. Blocked on June 24
• 2600:1008:B114:A31D:8906:9375:D63B:CBF6 - Verizon wireless. Short anonblock issued
• 174.198.20.111 - Verizon Wireless, same area of Illinois as the others
• 2604:2D80:AA10:7300:309A:2D11:9FCA:A4F3 -Mediacom Cable, likely static. Blocked by Ponyo for 2 weeks. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 02:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ninja Diannaa, I don't think I can do Copyvio-revdel in the sandbox because I think the tag automatically gets removed :(. Adam9007 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok cool beans, I should have thought of that. I can do them - please post them here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials.

So from my understanding, we are not allowed to quote large chunks of texts--even if cited--from news articles and other sources without proper copyright. However, we are allowed to quote 'minimal' text if it cannot be replaced by 'free' paraphrasing.

I have been trying to understand the messages you have been sending me. I have also reviewed your edits, but since a lot of them have been crossed out, it is hard for me to understand which specific points you are referring to. Alexkyoung (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung: Here's some more help: Content has to be written in your own words and (other than short quotations where there's no alternative) not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Ninja Diannaa.Alexkyoung (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for consensus on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations page

Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Cheers & Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry, I will not. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 01:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue 2

Diannaa, you recently rejected my 'ChartCo' article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ChartCo due to the following reason: 'Your additions to Draft:ChartCo have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license.' Could you please kindly clarify what in this article i need to ask copyright permission for - is it for the mention of ChartCo? Or is it for the use of the ChartCo logo? Or any other parts of the article? Thank you, your help will be much appreciated, LHamstig (User:LHamstig)

Hello User:LHamstig. I am not the person who rejected your draft. I am however the person who notified you that some of the prose in the draft was copied from elsewhere online. The prose that was copyright was a description of Bookharbour copied from here. Your draft was not declined for copyright issues; it was declined because it's written like an advertisement, and because the company may not be notable as defined by Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cpoyvio request

Hello Diannaa. Could you please take a look at National Museum of Costume (Portugal)? The second paragraph is copy-pasted from the museum's website; it's the official page of a national museum but I'm not sure of its copyright status. I was in the process of adding some sources when I realized the issue, and I would prefer for the article to be "cleaned up", if needed, before I expand it. Thank you. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi RetiredDuke and sorry for the delay in replying. I have removed the copied material. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi, hope you don't mind a quick question about copyright? The image at Chandra Shekhar Nopany was uploaded by the article's creator, with an assertion that they are the copyright holder. The file's metadata gives the copyright holder's name, which does not tally with the username of the uploader - fair enough, they could be using a pseudonym for their username (I know I am!), but I'm a bit uneasy. What's the correct way to approach this? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Image is on the Commons. Metadata shows the copyright holder is "SHIVANI GOYAL PHOTOGRAPHY". In the case of a paid photographer, the copyright holder is usually the person who paid, usually the subject of the photo. I would nominate it as "no evidence of permission" which gives the uploader about a week to get an OTRS ticket. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be clear - when you say nominate, do you mean the 'Nominate for deletion' button, or the 'Report copyright violation' one? I'm still not very experienced with image stuff I'm afraid... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The "no permission" button— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 20:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Gregory Kramer

page deletion? Dianna - (not sure if this is the correct way to communicate on this topic. Please advise if otherwise. I've no idea why this biographical page on Kramer should be deleted. He is THE seminal and historically most important figure it the field of data sonification (c.f) He is responsible for the formation of ICAD (c.f) which, amongst other things, has run 20 annual international conferences on the now generally considered field crucial field for the discovery of gravity waves etc. As the entry says, he published the first book in the field, and is the most heavily referenced author in the field. Please undelete. I am in communication with him and awaiting further personal details/photos etc.

Copyright violation? Your message of 30 June indicates a copyright violation. Surprising, given I wrote the text on the basis of a short text provided by the subject, with additional references into wikipedia itself. Please provide details of your assertion, as described in Wikipdeia's copyright violation guidelines.

The message (yours?) says "If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion"." There appears to be no such "button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". Please advise.

Yergnaws (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)YergnawsYergnaws (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Yergnaws. I do realize that the subject of the article supplied at least some of the prose. The problem is that the same prose had already been published elsewhere online, including here. This means that Wikipedia cannot re-publish it without written consent of the copyright holder. So I removed the portion that had been copied. The remainder (as well as the material I removed) did not establish that the subject of the article is notable enough (as Wikipedia defines it) for an article at this time. So I nominated the article for deletion and another admin reviewed it and deleted it on that basis. The reason there's no button to contest the speedy deletion is because the page had already been deleted when you read that message.

There's another problem: conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon Dianna. Thank you for your explanation. It is is two parts. 1. Copyright, and 2. CIO. 2. first. In judging the issues explicated by the list provided I am confident in asserting that there is no COI. I don't believe I have ever met the subject, nor are there any promotional, contractual or or fiscal issues. I became aware of the Subject in conjunction with my research into (the history of) new media forms, especially non-visual ones, and their personnel. Data Sonification is involved in an increasing number of significant breakthroughs and the Subject is the founder of the field, and referred to as such, independent of me, in several wikipedia pages, and elsewhere. My purpose is simply to correct that lack.

1. You are correct in your comments on the supply of prose on which I based my own edits - without any knowledge of the link you provided. That link does not assert its copyright in the material. If you think that is so, that, as a general principle, will affect many many articles. The Subject, is somewhat reclusive (which you may intimate from the first paragraph and his domicile etc :-) and so I suspect he sent me a pro-forma document. I am in the process of absorbing several of his patents etc so as to extend the article. He pioneered the use of auditory beacons, for example. I agree that the Subject is not of general interest for his meditation practices (in which it seems he is currently almost exclusively engaged), but he _is_, in a major way, for his contribution, as founder, to the the fields of data sonification and auditory display. Is that in dispute?

Furthermore, to be formal, as I read the Wikipedia deletion guidelines, and without wishing to be antagonistic, the _appearance_ of a copyright breach etc does not represent the grounds for an immediate deletion of the article without correspondence/warning etc. Notification of the appearance of a breach of copyright could have been handled more appropriately, IMO, - and with less time-consumption of all concerned.

And lastly, two points: 1. How do I retrieve the text of my article? and 2. Should would it be more expeditious to communicate (further) with only the deleter of the article, or with you? Thank you for your concern about the integrity of the forum. I share that concern. Yergnaws (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)yergnaws

You state that you are in contact with the subject of the article and are editing Wikipedia on his behalf, using text he supplied. you do indeed have a conflict of interest.

This website is only one of several places where identical prose appears. It's also visible in whole or in part here, here, and here. It doesn't matter whether or not these webpages have a copyright notice; Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright.

The article was not deleted for copyright concerns. I first removed the material that violated our copyright policy (immediate removal of such material is allowed under the policy, and I am not required to consult with you before doing so), and then I nominated the page for deletion under a separate criterion: A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events). Since you have already posted on the talk page of the deleting administrator and they said they will not be restoring the article, your next step if you wish to pursue this further is to proceed to Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)