This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I was in the middle of writing the lead, adding references, when I found out that a major portion of the article has been copied and pasted from Catholic Encyclopedia. User:Kmorozov was the one that copied and pasted the information from the Catholic Encyclopedia, on 27 March 2006.

• "The efforts of this cardinal to enforce his family's pretensions to the Countship of Provance, and his temporary assumption, with this object, of the title of Cardinal of Anjou were without success. He failed also when he attempted, in 1551, to dissuade Henry II from uniting the Dutchy of Lorraine to France. He succeeded, however, in creating for his family interests certain political alliances that occasionally seemed in conflict with each other. He coquetted, for instance, on the one hand with the Lutheran princes of Germany, and on the other, with his interview (1558) with the Cardinal de Granvelle (at Péronne), he initiated friendly relations between the Guises and the royal house of Spain. Thus the man who, as the Archbishop of Reims, crowned successively Henry II, Francis II, and Charles IX had a personal policy which was often at variance with that of the court. This policy rendered him at times an enigma to his contemporaries. The chronicler L'Estoile accused him of great duplicity; Brantôme spoke of his "deeply stained soul, churchman though he was", accused him of skepticism, and claimed to have heard him occasionally speak half approvingly of the Confession of Augsburg. He is also often held to be responsible for the outbreak of the Huguenot wars, and seems now and then to have attempted to establish the Inquisition in France. Many libelous pamphlets aroused against him strong religious and political passions. From 1560 at least twenty-two were in circulation and fell into his hands; they damaged his reputation with posterity as well as among his contemporaries. One of them, "La Guerre Cardinale" (1565), accuses him of seeking to restore to the Empire the three bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, which had been conquered by Henry II. A discourse attributed to Théodore de Bèze (1566) denounced the pluralism of the cardinal in the matter of benefices." --House of Guise, Catholic Encyclopedia.

• "The efforts of this cardinal to enforce his family's pretensions to the Countship of Provence, and his temporary assumption, with this object, of the title of Cardinal of Anjou were without success. He failed also when he attempted, in 1551, to dissuade Henry II from uniting the Duchy of Lorraine to France. He succeeded, however, in creating for his family interests certain political alliances that occasionally seemed in conflict with each other. He coquetted for instance on the one hand with the Lutheran princes of Germany, and on the other his interview (1558) with the Cardinal de Granvelle (at Péronne) initiated friendly relations between the Guises and the royal house of Spain." --Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine
• "Although, as the Archbishop of Reims, he crowned successively Henry II, Francis II and Charles IX, he had a personal policy which was often at variance with that of the court. This policy rendered him at times an enigma to his contemporaries. The chronicler Pierre de L'Estoile accused him of great duplicity; Brantôme spoke of his "deeply stained soul, churchman though he was", accused him of skepticism and claimed to have heard him occasionally speak half approvingly of the Confession of Augsburg. He is also often held to be responsible for the outbreak of the Huguenot wars, and seems now and then to have attempted to establish the Inquisition in France. Many libelous pamphlets aroused against him strong religious and political passions. From 1560, at least twenty-two were in circulation and fell into his hands; they damaged his reputation with posterity as well as among his contemporaries. One of them, "La Guerre Cardinale" (1565), accuses him of seeking to restore to the Holy Roman Empire the three former prince-bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun, in Lorraine, which had been conquered by Henry II. A discourse attributed to Théodore de Bèze (1566) denounced the pluralism of the cardinal in the matter of benefices." ----Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine

This is only part of the copy and pasting. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear . Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1910, is now in the public domain. s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/House of Guise— Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know how to say this politely: Please don't copy-paste material you believe to be copyright onto my talk page. It only adds to the cleanup. Thanks.— Diannaa (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I was confused about the removal of the information on Peter Kwasniewski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kwasniewski) as a composer that I added on 9 February. My goal was to provide more detailed information on this person as a composer. Was the problem that I cited from his website without putting it in quotations? If so, is there a way to recover my draft text and to fix it? It looks like you have deleted it in such a way that I cannot even access it, and I did not save a copy.Sibyl Dieudonnee (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sibyl Dieudonnee. Thanks for your interest in working on Wikipedia. Regardless of the copyright issue, we don't want to reproduce the contents of the subject's website here, even if you put it in quotation marks. Everything you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words please, and sourced to sources independent of the subject of the article.— Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I've got your message on the copywrighted WebXR content. I am the chair of W3C group that you marked as copywrigted content. We have long discussions about how to define the WebXR concepts and having them represented correctly is important to us. The previous content got a lot of the concepts wrong. The specification source is cited, as well as individual editors and the group members are all linked. Do you really need the concepts descriptions to be worded differently? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayssomething (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or 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) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Montricoux

As someone interested in the retention of editors, I would like to discuss and hopefully remedy the propensity of your automated tool to apparently slap the last person to have touched a violating text. Could you please tell me what you are using? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Automated tools are part of detecting violations of our copyright policy. The place where bot-detected potential violations are listed is https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en. The bot checks all Wikipedia edits over a certain size using a service called Turnitin, which has generously donated to Wikipedia access to their service. About 25% of the items it detects are false positives, so each item in the list must be carefully assessed by experienced editors to determine whether or not a violation has occurred. In your particular case, it detected the addition of text to Montricoux in French copied from this website to Wikipedia. As you know, someone had previously added a Google translation in English of the content of that webpage to the article back in 2013. A Google translation of a French webpage would not be detected by this tool, nor would it have been detected by its predecessor, CorenSearchBot. In fact it would be difficult to detect by human eyes either, as the link they provided as a citation does not actually point to the page where they got the content.— Diannaa (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, I work on a single screen and needed the original to figure out what the heck the machine language gibberish was even talking about in some places. And saved to-date work because my battery was low. That was part of the problem. But many of the corners where I wikignome are exceedingly obscure and unlikely to be visited in a given 3-hour period, is what I was accustomed to thinking.

I sort of understand why pasting a large amount of text would be a red flag. I’d write this off as an edge case to “stuff happens” if I hadn’t already also previously been wrongly flagged in a situation that did not involve translation. If I understand what you are saying, though, it matched the French and not the English because the text of the Google Translate was not identical. Aha. That’s one area where improvement might be possible. I will mull that.

I will also take a look at those tools. They sound proprietary, but I will give this some thought. Trying to turn my fury into something positive. Meanwhile you should know that I have ceased all pro bono Wikignoming. I have work in progress to finish and a request for help, so let’s face it, I myself am probably not going to quit. But anecdotally, when I try to recruit somebody I know irl, they say they already left because they got yelled at. And if it’s just going to get me wikiscolded, the hell if I will dutifully fix up articles because they’re in a queue. And I would say that 25% false positive is a pretty high rate.

I will probably have other questions and will do my very best to be civil while asking them. I have a feeling I am not quite managing that here, and apologize for that. I do recognize the importance of the work you are trying to do Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Dianna would you be able to help Andrzejbanas and Arcahaeoindris to restore the 2010s section and the 2020s section for the horror film article? Dudhrrthefourth (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I can't restore the copyright material I removed, if that's what you mean.— Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a sock of a long term abuser, see SPI. It is best not to engage. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I see that metallacarboranes has been deleted. It apparently was started by a plagiarist. I recall that I added significant, non-plagiarized content. Is there some way that you can give me access to this article so that I can rescue my legit content and perhaps build something decent? The topic is notable. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I can send you a copy via email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. Sorry, but I have no way of determining which content violates copyright, as the article creator stated on his talk page that " Metallacarbaboranes is almost completely copied from the Encyclopedia of Inorg chem" which is a book I cannot access. Using Copyscape, I have compared the revision as of Thepuglover's final edit with the version I deleted, and there's a 75% overlap. A total rewrite will have to be done.— Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I set up an email link. I'll take it down after your message.

BTW, thank you for detecting and acting on Puglover's work. I will be careful with my new version, which you are welcome to check of course. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an email link for you in the menu on the left. Can you please check? Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Smokefoot, I have now sent two emails. One shows the article as it was at the time of deletion, and the other when Puglover made his last edit. You can use these two versions to separate the content he added from what you added.— Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Messages received. This project will take some time, but metallacarboranes (slightly diff title than Puglovers) will eventually appear, hopefully with clean content. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

BilCat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008

Hi! Since when is text from a court decision considered copyright content? It would be nice if you didn't completely nuke the edit and instead edit it to your liking. Now I have to start from zero.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The text I removed was copied from this page, which is not a court decision, but is marked as "Copyright ©2022 by Center for Democracy and Technology."— Diannaa (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. And that information was obtained from a court decision. They didn't just make it up. But regardless, please consider rewording it if you like instead of nuking it, like you did. I re-added the information.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be the court decision in question. But the content I removed is not there; it's in the news report at cdt.org. The patrolling admin is under no obligation to re-write violations of the copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, would you mind double checking my edits at Gender digital divide (CopyPatrol link)? I initially reverted an edit because the source is marked CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO, but it has been uploaded to Commons and is pending VRT confirmation, so I self-reverted. It seems like the FAO is doing this with a lot of their documents like this one which has already been verified. I wasn't sure whether my self-revert was the right way to go before VRT comes through. Also, there are several more similar CopyPatrol reports from the same editor from a few hours ago. DanCherek (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The uploader states that he works for the FAO. Leaving the content in place is okay, pending receipt of the permission ticket. If they were in the en.wiki permissions queue, you would place ((OTRS pending)) on the article talk page. But I don't see a template to use if the content is here but the permission ticket is in the Commons queue. Should we make a note of these manually and follow up to make sure the permission emails clear properly? What do you think we should do? — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the article on my watchlist so I can circle back in a few weeks or so and check that it has gone through properly, and will do the same for the other articles. DanCherek (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This one is weird, copyvio wise. It is sourced from https://www.dev-practitioners.eu/media/event-documents/PN_Wikipedia_Article_final.pdf as Earwig's tool will show, and yet this looks like (published(!)) rough work for the draft. I'd love your thoughts on this one, please! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Google shows the pdf was created May 17, 2018. Some of the citations in the pdf show access dates of July 2021 which also predates the creation of the draft. So I think the Wikipedia draft was created after the pdf. Regardless, some of the content also exists elsewhere online. Not sure why the admin who declined the draft did not remove the copyvio - I will do so now.— Diannaa (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

PS. That username is also NFG. — Diannaa (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted Dionysia of Tralles under WP:G12 – I had been unsure of its notability, and when I came back to it, it was gone. I also just noticed and marked for G12 Eirene of Alexandria, which was created by the same user and also directly copied from connectedcontests.org. Further investigation suggests to me that several (all?) of the articles on ancient athletes created by this user on 8 March ([1]) involve substantial copying from that website. (e.g. Zeuxo of Argos and here; Zeuxo of Cyrene and here. I don't have much experience with either speedy-deletion or copyvio, but I've seen your name around copyvio stuff before so I thought I'd ask your advice on what to do here? Should I just go through these and G12 any which look suspicious, or is there something else I need to do? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If you could check them and nominate any for deletion that are violations, that would be perfect. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Great – I'll do some checking :) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I will review further once I get back from shopping.— Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've tagged most of them. One (Ptolemy, son of Agesarchos) looks to be in the clear (though it's on thin fucking ice re. WP:V and WP:N!); one (Thryphosa of Tralles) has the first paragraph copied from here but the second paragraph apparently okay. I wasn't sure that was G12 eligible, so I've had a go at rewriting the copied content. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. — Diannaa (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this yesterday. I've attempted to revert back to your last version, with predictable resistance from multiple editors. At this point there probably needs to be a lot of rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I have gone ahead and done the revision deletion. Thanks for letting me know. I will watch-list for a while. — Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I can't do much of anything, unimpeded, without backup from experienced admins. another six month vacation may be in order. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Came across this article, Joshua Bennett, today during NPP. The picture used, File:Joshua Bennett.jpg was uploaded with the rationale of "email". This editor has uploaded quite a few photos like this. Is this kosher? Wouldn't we need an OTRS ticket? Thanks in advance, as usual.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Spot checks reveal many uploads already have OTRS tickets attached. (I did not check them all - there are 133 uploads). I have tagged this one.— Diannaa (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As always, thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in Draft:Suita conjecture. I would like to add an external link, like Reductive group#External links, to make it more accessible to SGA 3 in the Identity component, does wikipedia's policy allow this ? --SilverMatsu (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The content guideline for external links is at Wikipedia:External links— Diannaa (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Seymour, Indiana § Late Century Citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. Is there any way to check (perhaps quietly) an article for copyvios which might come from newspapers.com? I thought some of the formatting and phrasing of some of the content being added by this editor was a bit odd and newspaper-ish, but none of the sources they were citing were available online for checking. It now appears they've got lots of stuff via downloads from newspapers.com and their recent comment in the above linked discussion about copying and pasting has me a little concerned. If this turns out to actually be a problem, then they've been heavily editing the article for the past few weeks and there might be lots of stuff in the page's history (removed by other editors) that needs to be taken care of as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You might want to also nuke File:Clipping 97178872.pdf. They uploaded as non-free to try and explain what they were doing with the citations, but it really has no justifiable use (even as non-free content). -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor says they have not been copying text from newspapers but it would take a lot of work to be sure. There's been 500 edits this year and a huge expansion of the article. Some of the citations are for newspapers that are already in the public domain. That said, I did locate and remove some additional copyvio sections from the article. Please consider listing at WP:CP for further cleanup.— Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The comment made about "copying and pasting" was clarified after I posted here, but thank you for checking on this anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed sometimes there is directly quoted text from books or websites in citations or notes that are sometimes quite lengthy. For example: [2]. Can you tell me what copyright rules apply in these cases or if there is an exception for them? If the same copyright rules apply to citations and footnotes, what is the best way to handle them? Thanks for your help. --Chefallen (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding quotations is not a copyright violation but it can be a violation of our non-free content guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text. Quotes must be clearly marked as such and should only be brief excerpts added where necessary. Extensive quoting of non-free text is not allowed. In this case the point is already covered by the quotation in citation #1 so I have removed the quote from citation #3.— Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and assistance. --Chefallen (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa

Thanks for contributing to my Talk page, your help is very appreciated, could I impose on you a little bit more by asking you to just check that I have submitted my request for the name change for Sliabh Beagh correctly?

It seems that I now do nothing and wait for an Administrator to authorize the name change.Bibby (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't used that page before, but yes, your request looks properly filed. I think you could also post on the talk page of both articles (both the article and the redirect) and see if anyone has any objections or wants to discuss the proposed move.— Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa and Is123Biblio, I think that the article name and redirect name need to be swapped and have commented on the nomination. TSventon (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning your edit. I do not recall what was the edit about, since you have hidden the edit, I can't checking your claim, and or improve upon. --Nilsol2 (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.— Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Again the edit information is hidden from me, it shows a link I have never seen before and that the script seem to involve word count. If I recall correct, I was trying to fill the background gap between 2014 to 2020, linking to Minsk agreements and complementing the assessment there that while the agreement significantly reduce fighting in the conflict it never achieved it purpose, with reasons why. Otherwise there is very little you can do in one succinct sentence for each position, where you have to use direct quotes and specific terminology counts (i.e. reintegration, special status, proxies, confederation, veto) without deviating from what the source says to opinion land. Not sure script word count measurement is suited here, and without the edit info to improve upon I am likely to trigger it again.--Nilsol2 (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Since I have no access to view my edit, and seemingly no discussion of your revert is forthcoming, what is the appeal process here to reveal my edit --Nilsol2 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I did answer above as to how to view the edit using the iThenticate link. The content you added was from this webpage, and it started " The Minsk agreements, brought an end to the worst of the fighting..." and then included some text from further down in the article "Moscow saw the deals as a way to force Kyiv to absorb its proxies into a confederation...". The citation you gave was to this webpage, which is another copy of the same article at the url that I provided.— Diannaa (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The information you removed doesn't constitute a copyright violation. Please do not errase previous versions, this makes it very difficult to find out what you took issue with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Content was copied from an article in The Guardian. As I mentioned in my edit summary, this was a minor violation, but this does indeed violate our copyright policy. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. Most of it is quotations, which I did not remove.— Diannaa (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I believe you have altered some information on my page, saying it was a copyright violation. I have all the sources for my information attached in the paragraph and covered all my bases. The information you removed does not violate any copyrights of the sources. We can talk through specifics if you would like, but please do not erase. Ssimpson07 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ssimpson07: The content you added was copied from several pages of the organization's website, which is marked as "© 2022 International Republican Institute. All rights reserved." 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) 14:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

I have been tracking the edits on the IRI page for months since my last comments on the talk page. The edits submitted by the above user were also pulled from my suggestions that were underpinned by my COI that was reported. That legally waived an copyright concerns you may have had, and the above user sourced their material. Please pay attention to talk pages as you edit as these details matter when legal claims are made. AAkers3939 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to go up against Diannaa with regards to copyright, you better be 100% certain on what you're saying. The edits she removed were indeed lifted straight from the pages mentioned above, and we would need permission from them to use the material, which we do not have. A COI someone may or may not have, does not remove copyright concerns. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My position is legally authorized to waive copyright claims on behalf of the International Republican Institute, which is what was submitted in my COI notification and why I did not edit the page directly. However, the other user did use my suggested edits from the talk page and provided supporting citations. If the editor had participated in the the talk page to discuss the suggested changes that came from there, this would have been seen. Nevertheless, the suggested edits and any perceived copyright infringement by the previous user are waived. Happy to attend arbitration on the matter. AAkers3939 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website and have released the text under a compatible license. 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) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you please run Russian information war against Ukraine? Given the topic I want to be particularly careful, and I have a three-week-old account fluent in Wikipedia policies on edit protection and BLP who has just posted a very close paraphrase into the section on Faked videos. I don’t want to try to edit it into compliance because then I may find myself talking to you about somebody else’s work for a third time, and that would be bad for my blood pressure. I am particularly concerned about the deepfake bullet point in the Staged videos section. Actually, I am working on that section also, let me put in in a Deepfake section so I don’t have to contend with that notice it you get the hit I think you will. There may conceivably also be something inadvertent I have done with the snippets in the timeline section, and I may as well find out about that now if so. Therefore if you have to run the whole article, then so be it. I am trying to be mindful though, and will go back over that section again tonight, in case. The fewer ways the article can be discredited the better. Elinruby (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to check an article, Earwig's Copyvio Detector is a good tool to use. You can use it to check an entire article or check an article against one website. Checking the NPR source in the section "Deepfake" against the article shows a minor bit of copying - "lay down their arms and surrender" could easily be amended to "surrender" for example. This was too small an overlap to have triggered a report at CopyPatrol. I have tried checking the whole article using Earwig's tool and repeatedly got an error message "502 Bad Gateway" so I won't be able to do that for you, at least not now. Regardless, doing so would give you a lot of false positives due to the large number of quotations in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks. Still intellectually interested in improving the tools so wondering if perhaps this was due to the aricle’s length? Or maybe the foreign language sources? As for the section, was just told the account has been indeffed so I guess will rewrite a bit therefore, if I am not going to get my hand slapped for it. It’s definitely notable but, well, thanks for the answer; glad copyright is not a concern. Elinruby (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why the bot failed to work. It's working now. — Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Earlier this afternoon you suppressed three revisions at Women's Declaration International. I was wondering if you could take a look at the quotation in this edit on the talk page please? I suspect it too might be partially afoul of the copyright requirements as it contains the text verbatim from the WDI website. The rest of the comment is fine I think, as is the discussion after it. I'm just unsure about the quoted text. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Done— Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my proposed wording which I posted on the Talk page of Women's Declaration International: I have had a look at WP:COPYVIO. This includes:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote, Quote, or a similar method.

My proposed wording complies with this, in that it is (a) brief, the copied part being 104 words, and also being only a small part of the material published (b) properly attributed WDI have published a summary of their Declaration on their website, which reads as follows: … (c) it would also have been cited to its original source and (d) specifically indicated as a direct quotation (WDI have published a summary of their Declaration on their website, which reads as follows: … ) and, on the Talk page, indicated as a quotation by the use of turquoise print.

So I don’t understand why you felt it necessary to redact it.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The tq template indicated to me that it was your proposed addition. Not a quotation from the website. In fact it was a lightly paraphrased version of text from the website, and as such could not be included, either in the article or on the talk page. In other words, if you are using a quotation, it has to be identical to the source, and not paraphrased at all (and of course quotation marks and/or a block quote template must be used). If you are paraphrasing, it needs to be completely re-written in your own words, not just superficially modified. Your proposed edit was somewhere in between, and thus unusable.— Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not paraphrase the text – I copy-pasted it from the summary here [3]. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay I see it now. Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa

Thanks for your message. As a new user to Wikipedia, I didn't realise I had caused this copyright issue. How can I revert my changes that were made last week? do i manually remove the changes via the "Edit Source" tab and then save them by clicking "Publish Changes".

Hope you can advise. Thanks Mar9254 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of the content you added was copied, but pretty much the whole article appears to have been copied from http://www.lcia.org/LCIA/history.aspx and https://www.lcia.org/lcia/organisation.aspx. It's been there since the page was created in 2006. It's okay if you leave this one for the experts at WP:CP to clean up. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Mar9254 (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content added in March 2022. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thanks for reporting,— Diannaa (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for suggesting me. You are great. I always try to give my best. Your suggestion helps a lot. I will research it again, and never repeat that type of mistake if I found. Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. The entire references section of Draft:William looks like it might be totally copied and pasted from a newspaper article. Would you mind taking a look when you get the chance? — Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: Another administrator removed and revdeleted the problematic content. The draft was asked about by it's creator at the Teahouse and the other admin often answers Teahouse questions; so, perhaps that's how he found it. Anyway, nothing more needs to be done here (I think). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There were several copies of the draft under different titles and they've now all been removed. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for still checking on this. I was only aware of the one asked about at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You should grab your adminship and then you could look at deleted contribs lol. Ha ha only serious— Diannaa (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good evening! Stopping by to invite you to have another look at International Republican Institute, where the same editor from last week has re-added most of the content that was revdeleted, with a few superficial changes from the original source. I have reverted, but I'm not sure if this also warrants revision deletion. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at https://scholar.archive.org/ . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio in the history of Porters (TV series) going right back to the first edit, unfortunately. Think revdel is needed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. In this version, I've tagged for a possible copyvio introduced in this version (as far as I can tell); the entire sentence is copied from the cited source. I'm wondering if you'd be able to determine if it is a copyvio or a WP:CLOP; and do a revdel based on that? Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed the violations but have not done revision deletion, as hundreds of diffs would have to be hidden for a fairly minor violation. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Diannaa:

Can you please remove italic heading of the article on Indian Navy. I tried to find but there were no ((Italic title)) or ((DISPLAYTITLE:)) tags.

Regards Soap Boy 1 (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Soap Boy 1. The italicizing of the article title was being caused by the use of the template ((Infobox book series)) in Indian Navy#Document. Since that particular template tends to be primarily used in stand-alone articles about books, it will automatically italicize the article title unless you tell it not to do so by using the parameter |italic title= and setting it to |italic title=no. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, on this article I created a new user has added some copyvio. The text (Redacted) traces to [4] also (Redacted) was taken from [5]. I was going to revert it but it probably needs to be hidden. Can you take a look if you get the time, thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a mess of a copyright problem for you. It turns out that every major content addition to University of Putra Malaysia ever was plagiarized from some subpage or other of its website (except maybe the article's creation, which I am unsure about, and some stuff that was translated from Malayan facebook posts that I guess doesn't count because it's translated). Anyway, I've spent the past several hours scrubbing this article of copyright violations, and now there's something like 800 revisions that need to be deleted. Specifically, the following oldids: 184383077 through 215498395, 215498827, 215501581 through 215505237, 215800636 through 217309278, 217309449 through 220710233, 223476196 through 1079647785. Alternatively, a lot of those gaps are spots where the page was just blank or a redirect, so if you don't care about keeping those versions, you can just revdel two ranges instead: 184383077 through 220710233 and 223476196 through 1079647785. Thanks. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727, sorry but I am not going to do revision deletion of hundreds of diffs going back to 2008. That's not the way we are using revision deletion any more.— Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for checking. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa, can I create the Meresha article? Ftrbnd (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be okay as long as it is written in your own words and not copied from the deleted versions. I recommend you start it in draft space. Please see Wikipedia:Drafts for how to produce a draft.— Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I just wanted to ask about transcribing content from legal documents such as Acts of Parliament. Are they covered by copyright as well? Just wanted to check if the legal provisions sections for my articles Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Act 2022, Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022, and Draft:Russia Sanctions Act 2022 would pose any copyright issues for Wikipedia. Just wanted to be on the safe side of things. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Andykatib and thanks, that's a very good question. You need to check each source document carefully as many but not all government works in New Zealand and Australia and the UK are released under compatible licenses. For example the copyright page of the NZ Parliament website states that their material is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. So their stuff is okay to copy as long as you provide the required attribution. This is done by not only listing the source as a citation but specifying that it has been copied. This can be done by using a template ((CC-notice)) or by adding details manually like I did here. If you can't find a release under license you have to assume that the material is copyright and is not okay to copy verbatim.— Diannaa (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks very much for your advice. Will read up more about the CC notice and the licenses. Cheers. Andykatib 01:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you possibly revdel everything up to the current revision of Draft:Carey-Ann Burnham for copyvio, and if you have a few moments to check my rewordings and rephrasings to make sure they're good, I'd appreciate it. It's still showing up with a high match in earwig's tool, but a lot of it is names of journals and awards and the like. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Drmies was kind enough to do the revdels for me, so I moved the article into mainspace. If you find yourself with a bit of spare time I'd still appreciate a quick look to make sure you agree there is no copyvio issues. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sweet - procrastination pays off sometimes. The overlap is still large, but it's job titles, names of schools, etc. No huhu— Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I did what I could with that. Before it was a literal copy/paste job, so I think it's as good as it's going to get when 60% of the prose is "such and such chair of this famous person at this university award of too many words." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally attended the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too, which would probably be enough words in sequence to trigger the bot. — Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That movie reminds me of WP:ANI ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

So true!!!— Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)!

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content added on March 22, 2022 in the Agwu Nsi article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the report,— Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, Thank you for your kind information and help on this subject - here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jegi_Angelski You wrote " I've added the attribution for this particular instance" - I compared your version with previouse and I could not see any difference. Could you please tell me where you added the attribution so I also learn abuot this issue in my own art. Best regards, Camdan (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The attribution is provided via the edit summary. Please see WP:CWW— Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, would you have time to visit Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 29 and tell us about copyright in lists?—S Marshall T/C 10:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Shalom Diannaa! Am I correct in understanding that I may paraphrase material from online sites but not quote their text verbatim? Thank you in advance for your time. Cheers! Shir-El too 15:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Content you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words, not closely paraphrased from your sources. Short properly attributed quotations are okay, but only when there's no alternative. Make sure you use quotation marks when quoting.— Diannaa (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Will repost as soon as I can amend the article [and hopefully find additional sources]. Cheers! Shir-El too 03:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

PS The TIME CLOCK for my location is 3 hours behind, but I have no idea whom to notify. Is it the same throughout WP, I wonder? Cheers! Shir-El too 04:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We use UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). This is what time it is in London at the Prime Meridian, excluding any use of Daylight Savings Time. You can use UTC if you like (I think most of us do), or if you would rather the clock show your local time, you can change it in Preferences→Appearance→Time offset. — Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, not sure if this needs a revdel. You're the house expert, so I thought I should ask you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting— Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course. One question: do copy-pasted song lyrics merit revision deletion as rule, or was it because of the nonstandard orthography this particular one used? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A google search reveals that these are copyright song lyrics. I do revision deletion on copyright song lyrics when I spot them. Not sure how orthography applies?— Diannaa (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't certain offhand whether it is possible to enforce copyright against mere simple transcriptions of song lyrics. I asked because that particular one wasn't written in standard English and therefore not a mere simple transcription; someone had made creative choices about how to represent the dialect-specific contractions, pronunciations, etc. in writing that would be copyrightable even if the underlying words were not. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. You might want to take a look at c:COM:HD#use of privately owned photographs because it's about some images you tagged for speedy deletion over at Commons. In addition, there are also likely some WP:COI and WP:SHAREDACCOUNT issues at play as well that probably mean more on Wikipedia than they do over on Commons. Since you've already engaged with this editor at User talk:MDA2022 over WP:COPY stuff, I thought it might be better to let you try and explain these other issues to this editor first to avoid unnecessarily confusing them with multiple posts different editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added what is hopefully some more direct instructions/explanations in plain language. — Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey there my intention was to not copy or violate any rules however I found the crime in the UK article very one sided when it came to sexual grooming and the content I have added is very relevant to the content of the article and helps provide a more well rounded view of this topic I haven't diverted or changed the content to a different topic I just found information which seemed very appropriate and missing from the article thanks anyway for the heads up 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I understand that you are an important guardian of copyright on Wikipedia. There is an article on the above slogan (I could not link to the article as an edit filter blocked the swear word), and the Ukrainian postal service has now decided to commemorate it in a new postage stamp (I cannot link to the Guardian article on this as the edit filter is also blocking it). Is this something that could be considered and added to the article under WP:NFCCP#8? If so, is there someone who can upload it as I don't think I have the authority or access to do so? thanks. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think you have a case for inclusion as non-free content, as an image of the stamp fails NFCC#1 (no free equivalent). Inclusion of an image of the stamp does not tell us anything further about the phrase, beyond what prose alone can do.— Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for your reply. When you say it fails NFCC#1, are you saying that someone could take an image of it and therefore it would be free? I am not sure I understand the point, as the only images of it I could find in the internet are all licensed? thank you. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

NFCC #1 reads "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." In this case the freely licensed alternative is prose that we write ourselves, not an image. — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

But wouldn't every image fail NFCC#1 - ie you could always try to explain every image in prose? Sorry if I am not getting this. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Some examples of valid inclusions are photos in biographies of dead people, where no freely licensed photo is available; complex corporate logos; film posters; album covers, book covers; pics of non-free currency (coins, bank notes), etc.— Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. Would a picture of a stamp not be the same as a picture of a non-free currency (ie a stamp in a way is like a coin?)? Anyway, I have probably used up too much of your time. Thanks. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sure it would be allowed if the article were about the stamp itself. The article is about the phrase though, and a picture of the stamp does not tell us anything about the phrase other than the fact that the stamp exists, and we've already said that with words.— Diannaa (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that Diannaa. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy to help. A lot of people find the NFCC confusing because it is so strict. — Diannaa (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted Supercinema for copy vio. I have no complaint about that. This is a how to question. I often encounter text that looks suspiciously like it was copy and pasted. What tool do you use to check for copyright violations? Thanks for any guidance. Constant314 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Constant314 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting the issue on Phabricator and for clearing the rest of the reports. Hopefully we get some more credits soon! Feeling weirdly idle right now... DanCherek (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You might consider tackling some of the listings at Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations! Or just enjoy a little hiatus or random wiki edits! Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Both have been interfered with in the past 3 hours, including my last text to you, which dose not show up here on in my contributions. Do you know what's going on? Cheers! Shir-El too 11:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

BTW updated/upgraded Wolfgang Hoffmann. Shir-El too 11:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what malfunctions may have occurred. (It was still the wee hours of the morning here in Alberta at the time). I have checked your new edit to Wolfgang Hoffmann and there were still copyright issues with the new version. Please check — Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I give up: too many changes to cope with. Will continue searching for more data on the web, especially as there seems to be more interest in him now. Thank you anyway, and stay Safe and Warm in Alberta (it was C36/F97 today here in Eilat). Cheers! Shir-El too 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for dealing with my report a couple of weeks ago. At 13 Reasons Why, I found copyright violations in the supplementary Beyond the Reasons episode summaries—it's three synopses of a sentence each, so do you think this rises to the level where revdel is needed? — Bilorv (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I won't be doing revision deletion for that, as it hides too many diffs and multiple years of edits.— Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem—thanks for taking a look. — Bilorv (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In this edit [6] I think there may be copyvios from two places, the most likely being the earliest (2006) [7] or (2015) [8]. Both are used as sources, neither of which are reliable IMHO. Alerting User:Back ache. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I havew done revision deletion on that edit and warned the user. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

In this edit [[9]] I have removed what I think likely to be a copyvio from [10] but even using WikiBlame I have found it difficult to disentangle. Hopefully you will not begrudge time helping again?SovalValtos (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

We have had that content since 2008 so I will not be performing revision deletion. You were right to remove it though.— Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, hope you're doing well. Sorry for bothering you, but I am suspecting some ongoing sockpuppetry, and therefore I really need to know what banned user CeRcVa13 added to the Mushki on the 8th January [11], could you be any chance send it to me? Thanks in advance! --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It says exactly what you posted in your edit summary when you removed it. By the way, the user is blocked, not banned. There is a big difference. — Diannaa (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand? I did not remove the information :(? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You removed it, and revision deletion was done, but you also copy-pasted it into your edit summary. diff — Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay sorry, I was looking at the wrong article. I will send you some diffs via email.— Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that a recently blocked editor moved Hazelwood College to Hazelwood Integrated College via cut and paste move instead of the page move tool. I was wondering if you could do a hist merge. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I have done further checking, and it appears that he also did it at Parkhall College and Hazelwood College. I think they all need histmerges. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging to get the help of an admin with experience with histmerge. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm on it. Thank you for the speedy reply. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please could you have a look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_flag_copyright_violation_in_an_article?. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Article is already cleaned. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. Thank you for constant class, and copyright watch! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda!— Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa, I just deleted a sentence from Khin Ma Ma Maw that ended in a 15-word copy from this source.

Looking back, it was added in this edit, at which point the copyvio was 21 words long; it was reduced when the date was displaced in a subsequent edit by another editor (but without the wording actually changing).

I was hoping that, with your experience, you could determine whether the edits with the text need to be hidden, and also if you could check to see whether other similar issues exist in the current article. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thanks for reporting. I have checked what I could, and found nothing further— Diannaa (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, recommended over by EN-Jungwon, would like to ask you if revdel 403 revisions for Twenty-Five Twenty-One is feasible? This is from revision 1073070188 on February 20 to revision 1083170986 on April 17, section concerned is the Episodes section where Profzed has been copying-pasting the episode's short summary from the show's Netflix page onto the article, this went uncaught till today when I caught them doing the same to Business Proposal with this this revision in which I scanned through their contributions as precaution that they are not doing the same to other articles but sadly they are with Twenty-Five Twenty-One. If it's not feasible, is there alternate solution that would prevent the same exact content from being restore? Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Paper9oll.Thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. I'm not going to perform revision deletion for that many diffs. You did right to remove it though. — Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries, will keep a lookout in case the exact copy get restore. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I'm wondering if you are able to determine if the latest addition of content is a copyvio (report). Thanks for your help! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I am listing at WP:CP to give the editor the opportunity to repair it. Thanks for reporting— Diannaa (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In this 2012 edit [12] material was added by IP [13] which appears to come from [14]. I am not sure of the date of the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives text, so it might be a mirror of Wikipedia, but the tab [15] asserts copyright. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa -- thanks for the heads-up via your edit summary about the move of information from the page on Simek to the Germanic peoples page. Unfortunately, the original source was editorialized and/or improperly translated by the individual who added it. Since the addition was also improperly formatted given the citation style and the source was misquoted, I corrected it accordingly. Feel free to check the translation differences between mine and that of the original contributor. @Ermenrich: (likewise fluent in German and English) must have also been alerted to this erroneous translation, since he "thanked" me for the edit. --Obenritter (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for everything.— Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have been down a rabbit hole for almost 2 hours now. Long story short I am looking for a five minute animation that aired in 2003 alongside the 22nd South East Asian Games. I happened upon the Wikipedia page for it and decided to try to find it. After exhausting my options I decided to look into the past edits made onto the page and saw that you were the only user to make major edits after the main contributor (who was banned so we could not see their page or the changed they made). I doubt you would have any extra info for us but maybe you'll bear the proverbial torch we have lit in trying to find this animation of a supposed golden bull and brown bear competing in friendly sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.217.112 (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about 2017 Southeast Asian Games - my only edit to the page was to remove some copyright text back in 2017. I don't know anything about an animation, so sorry.— Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You removed "Also, “Eichman...in court...replied: I never saw a written order. All I know is that Heydrich told me, the Führer ordered the physical extermination of the Jews.’”" as unsourced. "I never saw a written order. All I know is that Heydrich told me, the Führer ordered the physical extermination of the Jews.’” appears in The Capture And Trial Of Adolf Eichmann by Moshe Pearlman Chapter 11 p. 210^[1]. The same quote is in The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy (also entitled The Holocaust: The Human Tragedy and The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War) by Martin Gilbert Chapter 29 p.168 with note 29 on p.845 giving its source as Eichmann cross-examination: Eichmann Trial, 19 April 1961, session 10^[2]. There's a very similar quote in Eichmann interrogated: transcripts from the archives of the Israeli police edited by Jochen von Lang in collaboration with Claus Sibyll; translated from the German by Ralph Manheim page 81^[3]. Mcljlm (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa:You don't appear to have seen my reply at Talk:Adolf Eichmann#Gerhard Klammer reference. Mcljlm (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why the sentence above appears with the unusual spaces. They didn't appear in the preview. Mcljlm (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw your question but chose not to reply. I don't see what difference it makes which citation we use.— Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the ping worked because I mistyped initially in my vague recollection is correcting a ping after it's posted is too late. In short, an editor is trying to use material from the Canadian encyclopedia and not accepting my position that it is subject to copyright. While I should be able to sort this out with a little more back-and-forth, I'm scrambling to tie up some loose ends so that I can leave the country for a couple weeks. The thread is here: User_talk:Ak-eater06#Recent_edit_reversion S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have commented there and will watch-list for a while.— Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the Sumykhimprom article that was added in March 2022. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)