Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa/Archive 87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90


Hi Diannaa, could you take a look at the suggested changes on my user talk page? Vacosea (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Board of Deputies of British Jews

Hi Diannaa, I hope you are well. Recently you said I was in violation of copyright while editing Board of Deputies of British Jews. Your copyrighting tool shows 66% of the content is the same as source. I would be glad to rewrite the content in a way that does not duplicate the original source. Please be aware a significant element was simply an important quote from the original Board of Deputies founders which would not be copyrighted. I am a bit confused why the edits were deleted rather than reversed, as this caused of hours of work to be wasted and is demotivating. Please could you advise on what is allowable under copyright rules from academic sources? Thank you.

92.19.30.89 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed 203 words, only 46 words of which was quotations. The amount of copying allowed from copyright sources is zero. You can get an idea of what I removed by checking the iThenticate report at CopyPatrol. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy. So there's a valid policy based reason why you can no longer access these edits. — Diannaa (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box

I noticed that you've edited this page in the past. I have the Editor of the Week user box on my user page and there's now a nasty big red-link instead of a link to the nomination page (or whatever). So something is wrong with the code and I don't know what. Could you please take a look and maybe fix it? I've also left this note on the last couple of editors who've edited this user box. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You can see mine at User:Shearonink#Userboxen. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I just looked. I think whatever Sdkb did is the edit that broke it. I don't know anything about regex code so I won't be able to help. — Diannaa (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look... at least I know I'm not crazy. I'm pretty sure it used to work? Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Nardog fixed it. YAY!!! Shearonink (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
My recent edit caused the userbox to start linking to the award page if the date is specified. You had specified the wrong date, which became apparent as it created a redlink. Glad it's fixed now! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
See, it was my mistake all along! And I never noticed until your edit...thanks everybuddy for answering and fixing. Shearonink (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Spam and likely copyvio on Har Ki Doon

This edit [Har Ki Doon: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia] by user User:Cscrajabpur on Har Ki Doon seems to have added both a copyvio and a spam ref. I have had difficulty in linking the edit in question done at 0626 2 March 2023. They have done similar on other articles.SovalValtos (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Source [1].SovalValtos (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Latton, Essex

Hi,

Can I ask where you find the copyright information on this PDF? https://www.harlow.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Mark%20Hall%20North%20character%20appraisal%20and%20management%20proposals.pdf

It does not state that it is copyrighted anywhere that I can see or that it needs a license or permissions, so worry I have missed something?

And all of the other source information is over 100 years old. And author is deceased over 70 years. It is in the public domain, used and credited as such.

As far as I am aware it is a public document. Stated here https://www.flickr.com/photos/146476077@N05/40783114393/in/album-72157709115665607 it is also used here with no info or credits. https://www.mun.ca/harlow/about-harlow/historical-geography-of-harlow/medieval-villages-and-manors/

The source website states it is “free content” from “The Victoria History of the County of Essex. Vol.8 - The Victoria History of the Counties of England by W. R. Powell, University of London.

https://archive.org/details/victoriahistoryo0008unse_t7h7/page/n1/mode/1up

it’s Publication date was 1903 over 100 years ago.

and many other volumes; https://archive.org/details/victoriahistoryo04doubuoft https://archive.org/details/victoriahistoryo0006unse_j0f2/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/victoriahistoryo01doubuoft/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/victoriahistoryo0004unse/page/n10/mode/1up

File:The Victoria history of the county of Essex BHL21650124.jpg this file is also from the same book and is already on wiki comms which states Credit: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT. And that the image is in the public domain.

As are many other items from the same book; “The Victoria History of the County of Essex. - The Victoria History of the Counties of England by W. R. Powell, University of London. are on here already. And they all seems to be perfectly fine, so where did I go wrong ?

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=Search&profile=default&search=insource%3Aitemid.71948&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1

What do I need to change or show to make the file valid? I am very new here so still getting use to how it all works.

I am very confused as to what needs to be done, changed or amended. If you could kindly advise what needs to be happen, and how to go about that, as i am a bit lost with how this site works. I have tried to look into and read about it, but just get more confused and seem to be doing it all wrong :( before I give up any help would be appreciated 

Thank you DRS311 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi DRS311. My first edit removed some content copied from https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol8/pp186-195, some of which matches content in the public domain document and some of which does not. Some of the content I removed discusses events that happened in 1949 and 1921. That material can't possibly be contained in a 1903 book. I will restore what I can.
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay I am looking at it again and am not finding anything I can restore, because none of the content I removed appears to be copied from the 1903 book. My first edit removed the following snippets from this document which is obviously not from 1903. The terms of use for that website can be found here. The pertinent part is where it says "use of all material on this site is for information and for non-commercial or your own personal use only; any copies of these pages saved to disk or to any other storage medium may only be used for subsequent viewing purposes or to print extracts for non-commercial or your own personal use". That's not a compatible license, because our website does allow commercial use.

Like Netteswell it was a long and narrow parish, extending south from the River Stort.

In 1949 the northern and central parts were merged into the Harlow parish as part of the designated area of Harlow town, while the southern part was transferred to North Weald Bassett.

The Althams' seat was here for more than 200 years and James Altham entertained Elizabeth I here in 1571, 1576, and 1578.

... as cellars of that date were recorded in 1921. Lord Morley, the lessee, was living at Mark Hall in 1538.

My second edit removed content which matched content found here. I'm not going to reproduce it here, because it's obviously not from a 1903 book either. Regarding copyright, there's no copyright statement on this document or on the Harlow Council home page. But it's still protected by copyright all the same: 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) 15:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


Thanks Diannaa, I don’t know what to say then. I thought the website was a direct copy of the public domain book and therefore all the details would be the same.

Info post these dates was from myself and other source online and offline.

It all seems a bit beyond me and just out of my reach, so please just delete it all if needed.

I was just trying to put something together for the church and it’s very long parish history, but seems I am not the right person. It maybe just be easier to advise the sites, links and public books. Or get someone that knows this site and how it works better to make/write the article.

The maps from the public book are stated in book as Crown copyright. And I believe a ny Crown copyright protected material held by Companies House (other than the Royal Arms) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.

Anyways, I think I will just give up here. Thanks anyways.

Best regards

DRS311 (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is complicated and difficult, and so is copyright law. Sorry to see you go. — Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Fort Assiniboine Sandhills Wildland Provincial Park

Hello @Diannaa: Can you please look at Fort Assiniboine Sandhills Wildland Provincial Park? Reverting the Copyvio tag removed a number of (copyright free) edits from the article. I cannot view the reverted edits to pull out the good material. Is there a way to "re-revert" or otherwise send me the most recent text so we don't lose all the good changes? Thanks, Darrend1967 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. I have restored your version, which was good. — Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you.Darrend1967 (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I am investigating a copyright violation warning from Earwig on Cataract surgery which I have done some work on recently. A couple of days ago, Earwig gave it a clean bill of health. Today I ran Earwig again and it gave red warnings of over 90% on a couple of sites. One I had never even heard of, and the other was Wikidoc, which I have heard of, but have not used myself as it looks a bit iffy, and the topic is amazingly well provided with reliable sources, compared to anything I have worked on before. Anyway, I tried some old versions, and the further back I went the closer the match, peaking at 97.9% at or near January 2007, then decreasing again further back in time, fairly rapidly.

My take on this is that the Wikipedia article is the original, as it developed gradually and systematically, with no major text additions around that time, but quite a bit of copy editing, and was probably copied over to Wikidoc with some minor changes and reformatting somewhere around Jan 2007, and has remained there virtually unchanged ever since, while our article has drifted away from that version in fits and starts as is normal. I saw no copy attribution at Wikidoc, by the way, but it may be somewhere that I missed.

My questions:

  1. Do you agree with my analysis that we are clean here?
  2. Is it normal for Earwig to miss a huge potential issue one day and hit it a couple of days later?
  3. Should I leave some sort of note at Cataract surgery or its talk page that a copyright warning was investigated and the findings suggest that the other site copied ours?
  4. If so, is there a tag or standard format for this?

Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Just realised they are also a wiki so have a history. Their first version of the page is very obviously a copy of Wikipedia, as it has a later date than our similar content, which answers question 1. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Peter. I agree that the Wikidocs site is a Wikipedia mirror. I don't know why Earwig's tool did not catch it the first time you tried. I don't recall having that happen to me before. Yes we do have a template for the article's talk page, it's Template:Backwards copy. Thanks for taking the time to investigate! — Diannaa (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
We do what we can. Thanks, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 Done · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

History of Algeria

Hi Diannaa, in this edit you reverted recent additions to History of Algeria, with the summary remove inappropriate and unattrubuted copying of multiple Wikipedia articles into this article with which I fully agree. Subsequent edits seem to have reintroduced similar problems and I suspect may also be unattributed copies, but even the version that you reverted to is a bit of a mess, tbh, and I think contains an (unattributed?) copy of Kingdom of Tlemcen. I am unsure what to do with the article (I found it through reference gnoming) – would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick look tells me that the article is too long, at 24501 words is more than double the recommended size. So any content that is copied from other Wikipedia articles (whether properly attributed or not) and is still available in those articles could and probably should be removed. — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds like a good way forwards. I will have a go at it when I have time and energy for something more complex than reference gnoming – perhaps the weekend. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

We need help with the backlog at CopyPatrol please

Hello everybody. There's quite a few cases listed right now at CopyPatrol, and they seem to be coming in at a higher rate than in the past. There were more than 150 new cases posted today! You don't have to be an admin to do this task. Here is the detailed instructions and documentation. Pinging a few people who have helped in the past: DanCherek; Wiae; Ymblanter; Red-tailed hawk; Crow; Moneytrees; Sphilbrick; Hut 8.5; Wizardman; L3X1. I will also post at WP:AN. Thanks for any assistance; much appreciated. — Diannaa (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I can make an attempt, but is there anyway you could audit what I do to make sure I'm doing it correctly? Onel5969 TT me 01:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969 and thanks for offering to help! I can ask it to list "reviewed cases" and then look for your name. If you want to let me know once you've checked a few, I will have a look and let you know any critiques. If you're not sure how to handle any given report, you can leave it for someone else to assess. Thanks again, — Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I did a few, about 10 I looked at and had no clue how to handle, so left them alone. Let me know. Then if you need help, I can do a few a day... Onel5969 TT me 01:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The only one I found that I would do differently is Aurangabad City. The user copypasted from Aurangabad but left the redirect in place at the top of the destination article. So it was not obvious that there was a copy of the article hidden there. For cases like this, I would revert to the redirect and lay a welcome-laws template on their user talk in lieu of a notice discussing their edit, as any attempt to explain at this point is likely too technical considering the number of edits they've done so far. Excellent work! If you could check a few daily, that would be perfect! — Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Will do. I'll add it to my list of daily tasks. Onel5969 TT me 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! — Diannaa (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I did a couple. If I did it correctly, happy to keep pitching in. Star Mississippi 03:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You did, glad you will be able to help. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work so far people! We have reduced the backlog considerably already, from well over 150 down to 85. Cheers, — Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Down to 63 reports. Thanks so much. You folks are awesome! — Diannaa (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio question

Hi Diannaa, Can I ask a question on copying the entire text of public domain information? Is it deemed acceptable, or do we insist on at least some effort of rewriting? I came across this article which shows a 95.8% copy. The user who created the article has created 550 articles in the last two years, so before going through these, I thought I'd find out what the situation actually is with straight copying of PD information. Pinging @SandyGeorgia, as the last person I've worked with on copyright questions. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. SchroCat, 550 other articles like that sounds like potential for a CCI.
Diannaa has announced at WP:AN that she is trying very hard to back off of copyvio work for health reasons, which is a great loss to WP, as so many of us (meaning me :) badgered her with our questions. Part of the solution is to add PD attribution to the source as Diannaa showed me years ago (I can explain that part to you on my talk once you get the broader answer so as not to bother Diannaa with it) but other editors disagree that just adding the attribution to the article is sufficient, and I don't know how to answer where we stand on that ... once you get an answer on that part, I'll help you with an easy way to add attribution to the citation (I somewhere bookmarked when Diannaa showed me how to do that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The editor included attribution for the public domain material right from the very first edit using the {{Source-attribution}} template. So it's not a copyright violation; it's properly done from a copyright point of view. However Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository for public domain content; that's what Wikisource is for. The intention with Wikipedia was that we should be writing our own articles. But that's not a copyright question, and it's a question that is better discussed elsewhere. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

CC Licensed press release

How do you handle situations like this: Oral Roberts

Where the material is a press release with an acceptable license, not simply used as a source, but largely copied and pasted? S Philbrick(Talk) 12:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You would use Template:CCBYSASource to provide the attribution in cases where there is a compatible CC license. Where is the license though? I didn't see one. -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't find a license either. Regardless of the copyright issue, awards should not be sourced to the school's own website; it needs independent sourcing. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Union générale des israélites de France

Hi Diannaa, I hope you are well. As an admin with experience on Holocaust-related content, I'd be grateful if you could intervene in a dispute at Union générale des israélites de France. I think the issue should be reasonably straightforward but I may of course be wrong. The editor involved has just left a threat on my talk page and I am keen for it not to escalate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brigade Piron, sorry but I don't have the time to get involved. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Diannaa:, could you suggest another admin with knowledge in this field? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Admins don't actually adjudicate content disputes. — Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Consider the options outlined in WP:CONTENTDISPUTE -- Whpq (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@Diannaa:, the problem is that there isn't a content dispute. This is purely whether the MOS and other guidance should be applicable. This is why a personal intervention from an admin would have been helpful. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Iona Institute

Hi Diannaa, I re-added the objects clause in the Iona Institute article as it is not a mission statement. The objects clause legally restricts the activity of the company. Carrying out activities that are not included in the objects clause is know as acting ultra vires, or beyond their legal power, and those actions would be void. This is much stronger than a self-drafted mission statement or company slogan.HylandPaddy (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There's also the problem of the copyright violation, so I have fixed that. — Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Revel-worthy?

The contributions by 74.143.190.89 on Talk:Big Mac look like the work of a kid bullying another. Are they something you would normally revdel? Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Dorsetonian this has already been done; some was revision deleted and one was suppressed. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks! The content was subsequently added again, if you still fancy it. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Revdel complete. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Neither ... nor"

Hi Diannaa, would you help resolve the grammar dispute at Talk:Castling#has or have? I surely do appreciate! --IHTS (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. — Diannaa (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Rais massacre quotes

Hello Diannaa. I was wondering why you deleted those two quotes that I had uploaded to the rias massacre page. They were both cited and quoted by people in well credited news outlets. I was also curious as to why u only deleted this and not the other things on the page such as the first sentence stating false numbers from a cnn report that doesn't even exist anymore. Try and clicking on the external link to it and you will get a big 404 message. My quotes will stay on that page as they are first hand accounts by witnesses who were there and were willing to risk their lives to report it to Amnesty international as well as the Algerian League for the Defence of Human Rights, so the least I can do is put there voice out there and let it be heard to the world, as the people who died in this massacre were humans and had a voice. Please explain to me how they were "unsourced" as you put it as I carefully read each article and pulled these quotes out from them.

Cheers. Marcmmep2020 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, one of the quotes is very large and it seemed to me that it gives undue weight to that person's views and experience. The citations should be after the quotation, not before it, That's why I thought the source was missing. Another problem: some of the language you are using is not very neutral. ("A few recounts of the massacre allow us to step into the shoes of the victims and hear the appalling things that occurred on August 28, 1997.") Please see WP:NPOV. — Diannaa (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Okay easy fix, I will cut down the first quote and fix the sources. I don't think it was necessary to delete the whole thing but anywho. I will make the language less neutral as well to comply with wikipedia's standards. Cheers Marcmmep2020 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Dubček biography

Hi Diannaa, First off, thanks for being a resource for me. I really want to do this well. This is my first article. I am trying to write something that contains and compares different points of view that don't necessarily agree and where statements are attributed to sources that can be compared. Exactly how long can a quote be? If I rewrite what someone says and then footnote it that meets copyright rules, yes? The article I found before I rewrote it seemed to simply lift whole paragraphs from other places, which from your message I assume was not the correct way to do this. I will look for anything that looks too close to the original, but I'm still a bit confused about quotes. MinorDetailer2 (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no set limit on the size or number of quotations. That said, Wikipedia articles should for the most part be written in our own words, and quotations used only when absolutely necessary. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea"; "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content, especially Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text, and the essay Wikipedia:Quotations for more details. — Diannaa (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand. I will go over the copy again and try to reword quotes to minimize them or use them only for comparison. And thanks for the rewriting and formatting that you did, though I'm still a bit stumped by the instructions how to resolve the part that calls for more citations now that I've added many. MinorDetailer2 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
There's still sections and individual paragraphs with little or no citations. — Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll look at it again. I'm working on it now and adding some. I think the reformating took out some citations, too. MinorDetailer2 (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to add citations and reword some quotes but it ran into an editing conflict. I will try again. MinorDetailer2 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it should be good now. I went through once and lost the text due to some kind of conflict. I think it should be corrected now. Let me know if it still is not up to standards and tell me how I can improve it if needed. There are some parts where one paragraph continues what was in the previous paragraph. In some cases, I added citation a second time to clarify that. MinorDetailer2 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
When we're bringing an article up to Good Article standards, each paragraph is expected to have at least one citation. For an important article like Adolf Hitler we have a huge number of source books and a few websites too, and every single sentence and fact has a citation to at least one source. Alexander Dubček is an important figure in world history so I appreciate the effort you've made to improve the article. Cheers, — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa, I will look at that article. I'm redoing an article that clearly wasn't up to standards and not entirely sure how to do that. The Adolf Hitler article should give me some good ideas what to shoot for. MinorDetailer2 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Himmler voice recording

Hello! Just wanted to reach out about the Himmler voice recording. I do agree that the sourcing is lacking but through listening to other voice recordings of him both on here and youtube its quite obvious its him. But, if you wish I can get another recording on Commons, it might be poorer quality though. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that without precise details about the source of the recording, we can't determine the correct copyright status of the recording. — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Himmler excerpt Posener Reden 4.10.1943.ogg Is this better? Given how old the recording is any (if there ever was any) copyright is definitely expired. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The source webpage is a dead link. I have added an archive url so now the sourcing is okay. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Awesome! I’ll post it in a bit, thanks. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Content Removed

Hello! Why did you remove the quotes on Parumala Thirumeni? It was difficult for me to add them, and now it seems very easy for others to remove them without any second thought. Lovekindman (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't typically add gigantic sections of quotations to our biography articles. As an alternative, I suggest you include a link to the website you got them from in the External Links section. — Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, quick question. The Algemeiner appears to be copying without attribution large parts of an AFP story, modifying a few words and adding a few others. But mostly a word for word copy. Would this be a copyright violation and if so should it linked to from an article? The article is 2023 Nablus attack. nableezy - 09:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

AFP = Agence France-Presse, a news agency. I'm not seeing the Algemeiner link anywhere in the article. There's a citation to this article, but it credits AFP. Am I missing something? — Diannaa (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry somebody cited it in the afd saying it was a source in the article and I didn’t make sure that was the case. nableezy - 21:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Danijel Džino

Good evening. There is not any copyright mark at https://research-management.mq.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/cv/fcb42347-1676-49cb-9c81-bcd6b29af04e?locale=en_GB. The information contained at that address is not an authored work by its nature, so it is not neither intrinsically protected as a copyrighted work. But you have cloth and scissors. It is pointless to discuss with bureaucratic authority.

However, I take the liberty of noting that, even in this context, threats are out of place. Why do you threaten me with the banning? Should I lose earnings, power, or whatever? I invest some knowledge, time and will to enrich the content of Wikipedia in several languages. Where I can, I fix. I don't threaten, I don't insult. Your tone (not the remark, but the harsh tone) suggests to me that I am unnecessary, a nuisance.

With best regards, --23:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Inoslav Bešker (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Have a look at some of the links I placed on your talk page for more info. — Diannaa (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

She'iltot

Greetings from that pest again. Could you check out this article? It is heavily copied from The Jewish Encyclopedia, which it claims is in the public domain, but I noticed a copyright notice at the bottom of this page. So my question, PD or not? Thanks as always. Onel5969 TT me 11:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's public domain, being published between 1901 and 1906. Many of the articles are available on Wikisource. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Just thought it weird. Onel5969 TT me 17:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative tools to copyvio detector

Hey Dianna, I was wondering if there are any other tools that you use for detecting copy-pastes aside from the obvious one. For example, the wholesale copypasting of up to 300 words at a time into direct pullquotes on this page has got to be a copyright violation, surely? But on the copyvio detector it turns up nada, I'm thinking because the sources must not be digitalized yet. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the material that particular IP has been adding is copied from this book. If a person is adding excessive quotations it's a violation of our non-free content guideline but not a copyright violation per se. Note in this edit summary that the person tells us that they don't actually know how to write their own prose and is expecting others to do so on their behalf. That's not helpful, in fact it's the opposite of helpful. Writing is hard — Diannaa (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Iskandar323, I've posted a message on their talk page (here) and cleaned up one of the articles involved (Christianity in the Ottoman Empire).
To answer your original question, if a book has not been digitized as a pdf or similar, our automated tools will not find it. Sometimes I find stuff in books by Googling a snippet of prose and Google will find it in a book. But Earwig or CopyPatrol will not find it unless it's been copied into a pdf or one of the copyright-violating document sites. — Diannaa (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Review Copyvio

Can you please review article Battle of Kup as it seems like the content is directly plagiarized from the sources? The edit was made by an IP 2409:40D6:101F:634F:8000:0:0:0 This IP does have block on it now. Javerine (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Javerine and thanks for the report. It's copied from the Wikipedia article Vadda Ghalughara. I will add the required attribution. — Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft vs Sandbox

Hi! This is about Draft:Fall 2023 fashion weeks - I had quotations from the guardian removed, but I had only pulled them because I was trying to figure out how to best write a paragraph about the trends at Paris fashion week that included the opinions of the Guardian writer. I didn't realized that Drafts could just have things removed from them - should I put stuff like that in my sandbox when I'm working instead? Should I create all articles in the sandbox in order to avoid this? Thanks Computer-ergonomics (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Every part of Wikipedia is subject to our copyright policy, including drafts, sandboxes, and talk pages as well as articles. If you need to copypaste from your sources for some reason, please use a word processing programme such as Word or Google Docs. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Apologies, I wasn't aware that would apply to just a few sentences in a draft article. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Diannaa, I thought perhaps you should be aware of this. Cheers! Chanaka L (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. — Diannaa (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

German Jordanian University reference

dear diana,

you claim that the references are irrelevant but they are. please undo the deletion of the paragraph! Amani rosan (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed it because the sourcing is inadequate to support the text you added. I have opened a discussion at the article talk page. Please comment there instead of here. — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

List of Champion Trees (South Africa)

Hi,

You marked List of Champion Trees (South Africa) as a potential copyright violation. I've reviewed and placed my analysis at Talk:List of Champion Trees (South Africa)#Copyright issue for "Designated Champion Trees". In short, I believe the material is PD as claimed. Can you have a look and let me know if I have missed something in my analysis? -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Whpq and thanks for taking the time to look at this case. There's some discussion at User talk:Maqdisi#Copyright problem: List of Champion Trees (South Africa). As you can see I am just not sure what to do, so if you've checked and you think the PD claim is accurate it's okay with me for you to make that call and act accordingly. Thanks~! — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually I will look after it. Thanks — Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I was not aware of the discussion at the user talk page. It didn't occur to me to check there. But that's a bonus as I arrived at my conclusion completely independently of that discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess reversion

Hello Diannaa. I am responding to your reversion of my edit to Rudolf Hess. I am not sure why any edit that adds information about the subject of a biography and that is well sourced can be ruled "off topic." The edit well illustrates Hitler's intent, in the early days of his regime, to seize more control over the levers of government by interlinking his trusted Party leadership with the government. By placing his Deputy Führer in the cabinet, he was sending a strong message. If you think re-phrasing could help clarify the point, please feel free to do so, but I believe the main point is germane and should be retained. Please reconsider your reversion in light of these comments. Respectfully, Historybuff0105 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please post this discussion at the article talk page, not here. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Awesome

April songs
my story today

I saw you giving an "awesome" award, and liked it. 11 years for you, DYK? - Do you think Martinevans123 could be unblocked on some kind of try-out or supervision scheme? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. I appreciate your concern for your friend. But I don't thibnk that's a good idea, because he's given me no indication that he understands copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Your day is today, I was confused yesterday, sorry. Martin, we talked about you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

help

I added the source of Klaus Höss birth date and death date in the Rudolph Höss document, but the document was messed up. I don't know how to modify it, so I'd appreciate it if you could modify it. 망고소녀 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi 망고소녀. Someone has formatted the citation for you. There's a detailed guide to formatting your citations using templates, starting at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. — Diannaa (talk)

Odenwald Monkey

I think this editor is NOTHERE. Take a look at their talk page comments on Talk:Adolf Hitler and Talk:Mein Kampf. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on that. But blocking people for such comments is not something I personally would do. — Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

No, I did not completely copy it. Oddballslover (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Participation

Thank you for helping users to improve their articles in a friendly environment. Ngsharif (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Help needed at CopyPatrol

Hiu all. There's been a very large number of cases posted at CopyPatrol in the last 24 hours; I can't possibly look ater them all. Any help appreciated! Pinging some recent participants: DanCherek, L3X1, Ymblanter, 1AmNobody24, Sphilbrick. Thanks! — Diannaa (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

omw Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I will have some time to clear out some cases after work tonight. DanCherek (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both! and others who have cleared reports. I will do some more after work too. — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

Hi. Just want to make sure I'm interpreting something correctly regarding copyvio. This article has a large section which is a very close paraphrase from this source. Now the source isn't a .gov, and has a copyright marker on it. But the source appears to be copying from a .gov site. Am I incorrect in thinking that this is not a copyvio.

Also, I didn't see your post directly above. Remember that I don't do it regularly, but if you get a backlog like, feel free to ping me as well.Onel5969 TT me 13:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 and thanks for offering to help at CopyPatrol. I will keep that in mind!
Material from US Supreme Court cases is in the public domain even if they show a citation to Justia Law or other such republisher. — Diannaa (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I thought. Just wanted to be sure. Onel5969 TT me 00:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Question about possible policy violation

See thread: WP:RSN#Policy violation to link to WikiLeaks

Maybe I'm misunderstanding our policies, so I'd appreciate your feedback. WikiLeaks hosts lots of illegally obtained content, and I believe we are not allowed to link to such URLs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

About Peruvian political crisis (2017–present)

Hey, I noticed you reverted my edit. I get that this "sockpuppet" did make the article better while evading a block, so how about we can rewrite the article in a way we could rewrite it to better fit format but not exactly copying that sock revision. That way, the revision isn't evading a sanction while format is also met? Do you agree? I think that would be better. Pessi69 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You are verty likely a sock yourself. So no, I don't agree. — Diannaa (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
What? Im not a sock, I am an independent Wikipedian that joined recently. I just wanted to help around. But ok I respect your decision.

Pessi69 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the copyright violation on Temple of Athena Nike. I thought I ought to let you know that the material still exists on wiki at User:Twospoonfuls/sandbox/8. (and User:Twospoonfuls/sandbox/11 appears to be a copyvio from [2]). I mentioned this on the user in question's talk page, but they've blanked the page (as I suppose is their right), so I thought it best to bring this to you directly. Furius (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Problems have been fixed. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello

A) I am pretty sure those other revisions of the article The Poem of the Man-God also contain some copyright infringement: [3], [4]. Could you check those? Also, it is very likely that other older revisions of this article also contain a copyright infringement, juging by the fact you only left the versions with my removal visible and that I only made those changes on 22 April 2023‎.

B) In my removal of unreliable sources I did on 22 April 2023‎, I first removed the sourced, and only after (in following edits) did I remove the information they supported. This was likely a bad idea as I did not think the now-unsourced paragraphs could be close paraphrasings.

My bad, I should have known better!

C) Could you check this month's revisions of Maria Valtorta for copyright?

I suspect the user who expanded The Poem of the Man-God (Arkenstrone) might be the cause of the copyright problem, and this user has also expanded Maria Valtorta recently. Veverve (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Poem of the Man-God

Hello Diannaa,

I noticed that you made some edits to this page, which looks like it prevents me from restoring a previous version of the article. Am I mistaken? A new editor has made some radical changes gutting the article in question, removing important factual information in order to maintain his own POV.

I don't actually have a problem with contrary POVs, as long as it's backed up by sources. But the same must be true in the other direction as well. The edits I've made in recent months add important factual information that was previously missing, which create a wrong understanding regarding the article (for example, there was no mention that the books were removed from the Index of Prohibited Books in 1962, which is crucially important information).

In any case, I've been working to improve the article, and those edits were not contested when I finished those edits many weeks/months ago. I have asked the editor in question to leave the article as it is for now, and we can discuss each point sequentally on the article talk page and come to resolution.

I've left a note to his first note on the article talk page explaining why the sources are adequate. But if he disagrees, we can address that by finding better sources, instead of gutting the article and removing 30%+ of the content. At the very least, placing a "better citation needed" tag could alert me and others to find better sources (if they are indeed required). This editor's approach by removing large portions of the article because he doesn't like the sources, is extremely disruptive. And if there are any copyright policy violations, then please bring them up, and I'll correct.

Please consider restoring the last version of the article, where we can then go through each point and resolve them one by one. That should be the starting point since the article has already stood for some months now uncontested. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The content has been made inaccessible in the page history because it's copied from elsewhere online, which is a violation of our copyright policy. It doesn't matter how long it took for the copyright violations to be detected; lack of detection does not imply acceptance. — Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
If there are copyright violations then I can address those. Everyone makes mistakes. They just need to be brought to my attention.
However, the issue is the other editor removed large portions of the article because he doesn't agree that the sources presenting important information are good sources. This is disruptive. Instead he can place a "needs better source" label or similar on the content in question, instead of remove the content altogether.
It's important to start from the beginning, which is the last version of the article, before this user disruptively gutted large portions of the article. Then I can correct any copyight issues one by one (if there are more than one). Arkenstrone (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss content, the place to do that is the article talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, how do I access the last content in the page history that has now been made inaccessible, so I can correct it and remove any copyright violations without having the entire article gutted? Arkenstrone (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you find some reliable sources on the topic and write your own content in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking how do I access the last content in the page history, so that several weeks of work is not lost? From that starting point, I can then make any required modifications in my sandbox to satisfy any copyright violations/concerns you have.
Also, I don't understand why you made that page history content inaccessible, before sending me the copyright violation notice. If you had sent me the notice first, I would have corrected it. Blocking me from accessing that content was not necessary. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The reason the material was removed was because it was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, with some of the content you added being identical to the source web pages http://www.valtorta-maria.com/Pages/003_Valepic.htm and http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Chrchval.html. Copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical, and for clear-cut violations immediate removal is allowed under the policy. I normally do the revision deletion immediately, so that each case is completely finished when I leave the page. 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.
I personally did not edit the page or remove any content. The content was actually removed by a different user because of the lack of reliable sources and being completely without sources in some sections. Blogs, Wordpress documents, and anonymous webpages are not considered to be reliable sources. That's why I suggest you locate two or three high-quality sources (books, journal articles, etc) and start from there, writing your own content rather than attempting to repair what you already added. I have found it's a lot easier to locate sources and summarize what they have to say than it is to compose some text and then try to locate sources to support it. — Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. Regarding the articles, it's too difficult to start from scratch, as several weeks (actually 2-3 months) of work would be lost. If you can't undelete the last ungutted reversions (I won't revert to them since I'm now aware they contain copyright policy violations), can you at least just send me the full raw page text for each article for my last reversion with the copyright violations, and I can place them in my sandbox, correcting all copyright violations from there?
Yes, I understand that you didn't edit the page, but the way events unfolded ended up putting me in a difficult bind, as the other editor removed large sections of the article for other reasons, then contacted you about possible copyright infringement, which you indeed found and blocked, thereby making me unable to address those copyright infringements in the original article, since the new article had been gutted with substantial content and citations removed. How can I correct copyright policy violations if I cannot access the content/citations in which the violation occurred? Arkenstrone (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but you can't host copyright material in your sandbox either, as all parts of the website are subject to our copyright policy. I am not willing to send you the text via email. By the way it's not actually several months work; you worked on it on two days in January and two days in April. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Isn't the sandbox an area to experiment with work in progress? The main issue seems to be that I've copied a few lines of text from a couple of sources instead of quoting or paraphrasing in my own words. An oversight that is easily corrected if I have access to the original content, since much much more that just the infringing text was removed by the other editor. If you really don't want me to do it in the sandbox, then I can do it off Wikipedia.
May I ask the reason why you are not willing to send me the raw Wiki text by email?
(Hmm. I only looked at the start and end dates of the edit process. I didn't realize it was only 4 solid days of editing. Sure felt like a lot more than four days to me.) Arkenstrone (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The copying was more than a few words of a few lines; there was quite a bit of copying from the two sources that I previously mentioned. You can't host copyright material in your sandbox, as all parts of the website are subject to our copyright policy.
Random spot checks reveal you also copied from for example https://www.marysbalm.com.au/pope-pius-xii/ and https://www.marysbalm.com.au/mother-teresa/. I don't think the removed material is any use to Wikipedia, as it's poorly sourced and riddled with copyvio, so sorry. I have looked at the policy pages and don't see anywhere that it says I am required to send material out by email on demand. So I am saying no. — Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The issue of poorly sourced material is a separate issue. The two articles had unsourced or poorly sourced material from many editors. That's something that can be dealt with in due course. The main issue here is copyvio.
Regarding copyvio, I still don't understand why you deleted the revisions instead of just reverting them. Can you explain? By doing this, many many non-infringing edits were also lost. Reverting would have removed the infringing material, while allowing it to be corrected later.
I understand that it's impractical for admins to go through the large number of edits to try to sift out only the infringing ones and leave the non-infringing ones. Which is why it makes sense to just revert to before the first occurrence of an infringing edit. But deleting all revisions, which includes many many non-infringing edits, is overkill and akin to taking a sledge-hammer to a finishing nail.
There is a section called Rewriting Content at the WP:CP page you linked to on my talk page. That section describes how to handle rewrites involving copyright problems:
Suspected or complicated infringement
- Remove or rewrite the infringing text avoiding copyright violations or revert the page to before the text was added
- The infringing text will remain in the page history
- Administrators hold discretion on the appropriateness of revision deletion for each case
It seems to me WP:CP requires additional guidance for admins on when to use revision deletion otherwise it can be misused. Specifically, it should be reserved for extreme circumstances, such as when an editor ignores the copyvio warnings, notices, and reversions, and reverts an admin's copyvio reversions. Revision deletion makes sense in this case to prevent the problem editor from re-introducing the infringing material back into the article.
But that is not the case here. I've expressed repeatedly that I'm more than willing to address any copyright infringements by re-paraphrasing in my own words.
I fail to understand why you are unwilling to allow me to correct the copyright infringements in the articles. Please explain (without involving other issues that can be dealt with later). Arkenstrone (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Revision deletion of copyright violations is the norm, not an exception or reserved for extreme circumstances. Copyright violations have legal considerations, and cannot be restored. Re-paraphrasing is a bad idea as it can lead to more copyright violation if the result is a close paraphrase. The best thing to do in this circumstance is to take Dianna's advice and write the material from reliable sources using your own words. That is in fact the standard way to deal with content that was removed as a result of copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Revision deletion of copyright violations when it involves a large number of non-infringing intervening edits, should not be the norm, as it goes far beyond the intent of revision deletion in copyvio situations — to remove infringing content. In these cases, it has the unintended side-effect of also removing a large number of perfectly acceptable edits.
In any case, I am willing to do precisely what you and Diannaa are suggesting. But in order to do that, I need access to the last version before all those revisions were deleted, so I can: 1) remove those parts that infringe copyright and 2) keep those parts that are non-infringing. I am simply asking that the raw source for both articles before revision deletion be emailed to me so I can comply. Arkenstrone (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I feel I have to do what is best for Wikipedia, not what is easiest for you. So my answer remains the same. I saw your post at User talk:Deepfriedokra#Access to Deleted Revision? You might like to have a look at WP:FORUMSHOP as to why that is not considered appropriate. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I am seeking other admins to give me access to the original material because you are unwilling, even though I've explained to you the unique circumstances of many valuable non-infringing edits being lost as a side-effect of your revision deletion. I'm not even asking that they be undeleted, but that I be sent a copy so I can access important structural/citation/organizational improvements to the article, which greatly improved readability and accuracy. Why is that a problem? How is not giving me access to my own non-infringing edits, best for Wikipedia? Arkenstrone (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Request your opinion

Hi. Could you review this request on my talk page. Your opinion whether it constitutes a copyright violation would be appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Christendom College

Hi,

You marked a recent addition to the Christendom College wikipedia as a copyright violation since the text was taken from the college's website. This is publicly accessible information and I've been given permission from the college to post it on Wikipedia. Is there anything else I need to do to be able to add this info to the Wikipedia page? Thanks! FlyPeterPan87 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2023 (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 or have their permission, 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) 20:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Copied from Fandom"

Just figured I'd let you know that Bulbapedia is completely separate from Fandom. Doesn't matter too much since Bulbapedia is still a fan wiki. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks, it was a canned edit summary so I will be more careful to amend it appropriately in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah I did not know it was canned. No problem, Bulbapedia tends to be OK with the stuff they have on there (of course they don't usually use sources but what do you expect from a fan wiki) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

shopping?

Meh. Only 903 to go. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_87&oldid=1155866035"