This is an archive of past discussions with User:Diannaa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Hi Diannaa, thank you for your attention to copyright. However, the material you removed from the page Federal political financing in Canada was not in violation. It came from the Elections Canada website, whose terms and conditions ( [1] ) explicitly allow for non-commercial reproduction. I plan to restore the deleted material, but if you feel my reading of the terms and conditions is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks. :) Saul Bottcher (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi again Dianna, in attempting to restore the removed material I see that you have used a revision delete, and have chosen to delete a considerable amount of work in addition to the allegedly violating (but actually permissible) material. This is somewhat frustrating as I'm sure you can understand. Assuming it would be within your ability, would you please restore those revisions so this work is not lost? Thanks. Saul Bottcher (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Saul, the page you link specifies that "Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials on this website, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from Elections Canada". So if you do have written permission, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to get such permission on file with Wikipedia. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.As far as I can tell I did not remove any material not covered by copyright. Most of your edit remains in place. Please have a look at Diff of Federal political financing in Canada— Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
2nd request for attribution
Good day, I would like to ask regarding your messages on my talk page, I am pretty new to " licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material" thing, but I exerted lots of efforts in rewording/creating the wiki contents from online sources, can you please enlighten me how you check or determine for these on the wikipages? Thank you. Jp2593 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Are you wondering how I determine what the copyright status of a source is? Or is it some other question?— Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering how you are checking the words on newly created wikipages for possible copyright status. And as an editor how is it possible to know the copyright status of the internet pages for copyright status also. Jp2593 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
We have an automated system that checks all additions over a certain size and makes reports that we then assess for problems.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. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
GDibbern
As to respecting copyright: The text has been crafted by Dibbern-Biographer Erika Grundmann and thus been based on the text provided on her website georgedibbern.com. No copyright violation here.
We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. I'm not allowed to take your word for it. 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) 23:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The InBESTigators
Hey Dianna, can you rev-del some copyvio on The InBESTigators. Here's the copyvio report, and the source it was copied from, and the offending diff. I've already removed the copy-vio and also cleaned up some other misleading/excessive and IMDb content as well. It looks like you've already tried to discuss these ongoing issues with the editor — User talk:Bendybao, as have others. With all the multiple warnings/messages on their talk page, I'm concened that they are not communicating or taking on any advice. I left them a message on their talk page about their latest edit and communication is required. Thanks.Isaidnoway(talk)19:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
You show Si Siman as being the copyright holder. But the person who took the photo is the copyright holder. That's the person whose permission we require. If you know who took the photo and can get their permission, there's 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) 00:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Thank you for the information provided by you on my talk page (Vik5129) regarding the copyrighted content with respect to Chief Justice of India. I contributed for the appointment procedure, which will be done as it should be.
My question is :- Can we not refer to an external source?, as the source from which I cited to the above article is accessible without any copyright (I.e., available to the public). You can access it freely. Moreover, I had cited the source. Isn't it valid.
Also, advise what should be the correct method I would have followed regarding the same citation.
Hello Vik5129. "Publicly available" is not the same thing as "public domain". 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. Everything you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Have a look at some of the links I placed on your talk page for more information.— Diannaa (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Round Rock Independent School District
Hi Diannaa - sorry to bother you, but you have some "previous". On 10 February 2017 you rev-del'd 50 edits at Round Rock Independent School District for copyvios. Since 25 February 2020 there have been about 70 IP edits to that page (all geolocating to Round Rock), adding ELs to body-text and promotional descriptions, many of which come from the District's website. I am not sure how to identify these on an edit by edit basis, and the article wasn't that good before 25 February 2020 either. I don't know what tools you have to sift through the history, or is it easier and/or allowed to rev-del all the intervening edits leaving the current page (assuming that the current version doesn't contain any significant copyvios)? Could I please ask you to look at this - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I was wondering if you can check Category:Requested RD1 redactions. There's no backlog, but there's one request that seems to be there for more than a week ago (I only checked because I added a request, to be clear). If you think it isn't urgent, please ignore it.
Sorry I always contact you for these things, but you're the only administrator I see dealing with them. If you give the username of another administrator to annoy, I'll do so next time. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
We've put in text citations to Americo Paredes's book With His Pistol in His Hand. Could you direct us as to how we need to cite properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chr66 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
There should be at least one citation for each paragraph. A properly formatted book citation will include all relevant information about that book. Full title, author name, publication date, original publication date, name of publisher, location, ISBN, and page number as to where you found the material. Here is a correctly formatted citation for this book: <ref>{{cite book |last=Paredes |first=Américo |title="With His Pistol in His Hand": A Border Ballad and Its Hero |year=2004 |orig-year=1958 |publisher=University of Texas Press |location=Austin |isbn=978-0-292-79251-7 |page= }}</ref> For help getting started with citations, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Don't copy anything directly. Everything you add to Wikipedia has to be written in your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Diannaa, thanks for this. (I am the instructor for the students who are working on this article.) It would be great if you had time to work with them on these issues! The article is very much a work in progress, as you can see. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Copyright Vio Question
I found an edit which inserted copyrighted text (c.f. [2] or [3]). Would, and if so how, REVDEL be appropriate here? Other than REVDELing a couple dozen edits, I'm not sure what to do. Any advice would be appreciated (please ping me in reply) EvergreenFir(talk)05:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The second potential source you list is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA). Which means if the plot descriptions were copied from there, we don't need to remove them or do revision deletion. However, snooping around, I detect that the material was actually re-added from an old revision of the Wikipedia article; see for example Previous revision of List of Ben 10 (2005 TV series) episodes dated 00:45, March 31, 2014.— Diannaa (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite common for Wikia and fandom.com to copy from us and vice versa. They are compatibly licensed and okay to copy from, but the reason they were invented is to try to keep the in-universe pop culture stuff out of Wikipedia and on a separate site. But copying well-written plot summaries and the like is okay to do as long as properly attributed. — Diannaa (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects
Hi Dianna,
Thanks for your information about inadmissibility of mission statements from organizations like this. Actually I was trying to give some idea to the reader that this organization is a bit peculiar, actually quite different from what you would expect from a professional organization of all engineers and architects in a country. So, do you think I can just quote several selected "principles" from that list in a sentence or two? For this would give a fuller picture I think. Thanks... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I was wondering if you could take a look at Draft:Citrus Blight. The draft is promising, but I have noticed than several individual sentences are copied from this source, and some content may be copied from other sources. Any assistance would be welcome, as I hope this draft can be salvaged and moved to the mainspace. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi SamHolt6. It isn't just a few sentences - Earwig's tool shows a 75% overlap - entire paragraphs that have to be re-written. I can't fix this in the usual way (removal) without destroying the article and I don't have the time or interest to re-write it. The person who created the draft dropped the draft here and left so they will not be helping. — Diannaa (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Dianna, I understand that you are something of an expert concerning copyright violations on Wikipedia, and I've just come across what appears to be a rather egregious one. As a result of a discussion I was having elsewhere, I happened to look at the article on AWAY: The Survival Series, an as-yet-unreleased video game. Since the article appeared to be entirely promotional in its language ("a vast and beautiful world", "living, breathing ecosystems" etc) I initially tagged it as an advertisement. On further inspection however it appears that the article body is copy-pasted content from the source it cites. I'd like to be able to deal with the copyright issue myself, but from experience this is likely to be difficult when operating as an IP - not just because IP contributors tend to be distrusted when dealing with technical complexities, but also because my ISP has a habit of changing my IP at random, which can make any extended discussion of such subjects rather awkward. Perhaps then, you could take a look at what needs doing? If the copyright issue is confined solely to this article (I've not checked), it should hopefully be simple enough to deal with, and if it turns out to be more complex, involving multiple articles, I'm sure you are better equipped than me to tackle it. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Diannaa. This is regarding the article on "Renu Swarup". Thanks a lot for accepting the revised version. Could you please share, whats the next step so that it can go online; publicly available. Thanks again for support. Regards Nehamidha (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dianna!
I am Mukarram Ali. I want write sevarel articles on wikipedia. But I don't know it's coding. Can you help me in writing articles. Or can you help me in learning coding for writing articles on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukarram0126 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Just looked at that source and it says "List of animated works with LGBT characters - Wikipedia!" meaning it took information FROM wikipedia. What show did the copyrighted content apply to? I think it was One Piece but that isn't mentioned in that link?Historyday01 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your note and I do apologize, I was careless (and probably tired!). Can you let me know if you would agree if I integrated some of the content (which is best appropriate) of the Economy section within the characteristics section? And delete the Economy section altogether. You see, the characteristics section has been created as a timeline by the original editor (unlike the Millenials page, for example) and you cannot differentiate the economics (or politics) from the shared experiences of the generation. What is your thought on this? Would you delete my changes if I went ahead with this? Do let me know.
Many Thanks,
It's okay to add content to the article in whichever section you dseem appropriate. But make sure it's all written in your own words and not copied from your sources.— Diannaa (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Re:Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Dear User:Diannaa, thank you for your message on my talk page. In it, you noted that "If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required." If you check the history of the British Raj article, you will note that I am the sole author of what I copied into the Protestantism in India article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk14:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello — Diannaa
Thank you for your edit on the Antisemitism page on the citation, but I had already placed the license attribution under 'sources'
Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO Addressing anti-semitism through education: guidelines for policymakers, UNESCO, UNESCO. UNESCO. To learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles, please see this how-to page. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.
Thanks,
— besalgado —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the user called "Udai singh joara" has been vandalizing and editing articles without sources and does not seem to plan on giving up. I have tried reverting several of his works. Perhaps you can give him a warning or take some steps against him.
Hello Gutriel. Adding unsourced content is not the same thing as vandalism. Please try talking to the user on their talk page. They may not even be aware that you are intentionally removing their additions, or why you are doing so. — Diannaa (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
André Freire page: a response
~~KaiserViriatus~~
Dear Dianna,
Thank you very much for your useful tips on our Draft page André Freire, and I am sorry for my late response: we spent these few days studying and revising our work.
I would like to say that I’m a research assistant, currently being supervised by Professor André Freire (check his public profile here: https://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/authors/andre-renato-leonardo-neves-dos-santos-freire/cv). I’m named Viriato Queiroga, and you can check my public profile, on my universities’ website, here (https://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/authors/viriato-queiroga/cv). We decided that it would be quite pertinent to write Professor André’s Wikipedia, since he’s built a very relevant career in both Portuguese and international political science. Many students tend to look for his articles and his biography, and a quick way for them to access his biographical information, would be to have it on Wikipedia.
I wanted to let you know about this since this text you pointed is, actually, original work from Professor André Freire (with some help from me). Thus, it should not disrespect copyrights, since these texts are his words. However, in order to avoid any potential copyright conflicts, we chose to change his biography on the university’s CV Summary (here: https://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/authors/andre-renato-leonardo-neves-dos-santos-freire/cv), so that it is not the same text. We will, instead, be using the text we’ve already posted on our Draft, however, we will, if you find this to be advisable, quote 3 phrases from the CV Summary in his university website (mentioned above).
As such, I would like to ask your opinion on the matter, and I’d like to point that we will be changing the following:
1 – Freire’s picture and the mention to respective the source (without copyrights)
2 – Inserting the Quotes from his CV Summary at ISCTE website (no copyrights because Freire is the author, no royalties involved);
3 – Insert the websites of each and every publication (except for 3 pieces, one 2020 book that is still forthcoming; and 2 articles in a printed Portuguese journal which is relatively old and has no website). We would like to keep these publications even without link, unless you tell us otherwise (in that case we will collapse these 3 publications)
I would also like to ask the following:
1 – Could you tell me (or point me) how to definitely publish the article, instead of having it as a Draft?
2 – Could I contact you through email and, perhaps, quickly get your approval as to if it is ok to publish like that? If so, here’s my work email: (Redacted)
Thank you very much for your help and attention, and I hope you're safe of this pandemic,
HI Diannna,
I understand that i should have modified the text rather than copy and paste , though they were just short parts....but i did add and correct a lot more than just those paragraphs, so is there anyway of recovering that edit so i can then go from there, and re-write the copied parts ?
You could have just edited the words, rather than removing them. I'll find the information again and edit it to fit and then do it, since you couldn't be arsed to.--DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Help creating acceptable addition to Svchost.exe article
Hello Dianna,
I noticed your removal of my additions to the Svchost.exe article. As the information currently in the article is no longer up-to-date, I would like to re-add the information in a way that doesn't cause any copyright issues. As I'm inexperienced in contributing to Wikipedia, I would appreciate some help though.
The first few sentences of my addition, I paraphrased from the source text that I cited. Would it be OK to add those sentences to the article? I followed then with a few bullets that detailed the information and were directly copied from the original article. I can imagine that that is too much copying. On the other hand, the list is a very precise summary and any edits to the wording would make the information less precise. So the only thing I can do then is to remove the bullet text at all? Or is there a way to include the exact list that would not make it an copyright infringement?
You could have just edited the words, rather than removing them. I'll find the information again and edit it to fit and then do it, since you couldn't be arsed to. Also, can you send me the original addition I made so I can start working from that wording instead of having to start all over again?
Thanks for your response.
Regards, Beat Nideröst (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Your initial addition was identical to the source document https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/application-management/svchost-service-refactoring so you can work from that. Sorry but I am under no obligation to re-write the content for you. The article was one of around forty I assessed this morning; this represents four hours work on my part. So re-writing all those additions that had to be removed today would have consumed double or triple the time, i.e. eight or twelve or more hours per day every day working on Wikipedia. I can't do that, because it would destroy my health, so sorry. I see you have written a short summary of the removed content, which is great. If you can't figure out a way to write the material in your own words, you will have to leave it out, as to add material copied from elsewhere online is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Sorry for the "arsed" part. I didn't mean to write that, it was a sentence of the previous person that talked to you which ended up in my comment somehow (probably because of an error of me). Of course you have no obligation to re-write the content for me! -Beat Nideröst (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dear Dinna
Thank you for reading the article on Posterrorism.
Should this article be deleted?
This is an internationally recognized event.
Please let me know.
I respect the opinion of the wikipedia managers
Thank you
--Hesamlv (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The article probably qualifies for speedy deletion as a non-notable event. Someone will be along soon to assess it.— Diannaa (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Diannaa
So please test all aspects.
With a search on the name of this event on Google you can see its popularity
Thanks
--Hesamlv (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You need to find secondary sources that cover the topic in-depth ("widely covered in diverse sources"). Please see WP:EVENTCRIT for how to establish notability for an event.— Diannaa (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Copyright?
Hi,
Regarding your message about my edits on 1883 FA Cup Final, I must clarify that I did not copy the content in textual form (in fact, I wrote it with my own words), apart of having cited the corresponding source.
Therefore I don't understand why you removed that content so I did not infringe any copyright at all. On the other hand, it's a pity that you have erased all the previous edits (unless there is a way to recover that content so you can verify what I say is true) - Fma12 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. The only thing I did was remove the copied content; no other edits were disturbed. You can see that by checking this diff. — Diannaa (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest: Clarification by KaiserViriatus
Dear Dianaa,
Thank you very much for your message and help. Your help is quite valuable to us!
I would like to point that, regardless that I am currently employed as a research assistant under André Freire’s supervision, the biographical text can be all certified through his University’s institutional website (http://cies.iscte-iul.pt/np4EN/equipa/?i=467) and through his institutional Online Curriculum Vitae (https://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/authors/andre-renatoleonardo-neves-dos-santos-freire/cv). Nearly all publications (all except two old ones in a Portuguese journal of wide diffusion) may also be checked through web links (which I’m available to send you through email, if you so please, and to add to the page we’ve been talking about). Moreover, I dully declare that I have no conflict of interest in this domain because, on the one hand, I did this on a total voluntary base, without any intervention and following any request of André Freire, and, on the other hand as mentioned, all information contained in the proposed webpage is factual and can be easily cross validated.
As such, all the information available on the Draft page is factual, which means that, on my opinion, there’s no conflict of interest, as it is. My objective, with this page, is to inform in a concise and rigorous way, and not to simply divulge work. The page is of a notable person, who’s been working for decades on relevant issues, such as Ideologies, Political Parties, Economic Crises, Political Behaviour and others, thus, I see this page creation and publication as an important tool for students, professors, researchers, journalists, politicians and common citizens interested to reach relevant information in a quicker and more efficient manner.
As to me, as an ISCTE employee, I am also providing a link with a signed PDF with a solemn declaration (please check here my Solemn Declaration about the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solemn_Declaration_Wikipedia_VQ_Signed.pdf) of why the information provided is true (and above all can be cross checked), and that my personal opinions or institutional affiliation do not affect the information contained in this proposed Wikipedia webpage about André Freire. I am not being contracted to construct this page, but I am building it since I judge it to be an important tool, in terms of science and mass media communication (please check here my Solemn Declaration about the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solemn_Declaration_Wikipedia_VQ_Signed.pdf). I am also prepared to disclose the “Connected Contributor declaration” (which I’ve already done in the Talk link: [4]).
I hope this message helps clarify our work. Thank you very much for your help, once again,
PS: sorry for the edit: I had forgotten about the tiles (~)
If you still intend to add material already previously published online, you need to see WP:donating copyrighted materials for instructions. There's a sample email at WP:Consent. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you need to add a declaration to that effect on your user page or user talk page. Please see WP:PAID for instructions.— Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! First a question: Is there a way for me to get notifications for this page? Because I was waiting, and I did not receive an email.
I'll be studying the links you posted.
As to being paid to edit Wikipedia: I am not, I'm doing it on my own initiative. If you still think that I should write a declaration of some sort about it (besides the one you've already posted) please let me know.
Thank you!
Best,
KaiserViriatus (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
DowntonAbbeyFan, the quotations were okay to add, but not the surrounding prose, whether from the website where I found it or from a book published in 1984, which still enjoys copyright protection.— Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Principles for Digital Development
Hi Dianna. I'm trying to edit the Principles for Digital Development wikipedia page. I understand you removing the descriptions of the Principles and the youtube video, I am working with my team to get a Creative Commons license fixed so we can post on wikipedia. But you also removed the list of endorsers that I carefully and painstakingly cultivated. Can you explain to me why? I don't want to spend all day putting those back in just to have you remove them again. Thanks Abigail.shirley (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't remove that - it was removed by a bot because of the YouTube link. The bot posted a message on your talk page as to why this was done.— Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi Abigail.shirley. I'm wondering if you could clarify what you mean when you say I am working with my team because to me that sounds like you might have some kind of connection to the subject of the article Principles for Digital Development that goes beyond something that's merely casual. I've added some information about conflict of interest editing to your user talk page just in case you do have such a connection; if you do, then please take the time to carefully read through it and do your best to follow the guidelines listed as closely as possible. You need to be particularly careful if your editing falls under Wikipedia:Paid-contributions disclosure because undisclosed "paid" or "compensated" contributions are not allowed per the Wikimedia Foundation's wmf:Terms of Use. COI/PAID editing is highly discourage by Wikipedia, but it's possible to do both as long as relevant guidelines and policies are being met. There are quite a number of editors who have successfully figured out a way to do such a thing, but many more who haven't who have ended up having their accounts blocked as a result. Please try and understand that I'm not trying to scare you off of Wikipedia; I'm just trying to let know about something that you might not be aware of since your account is so new and since all of your edits so far seemed focused on this one particular article. Some other pages you might want to look at are Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause because you might find them informative and helpful as well. As for the long list of companies you've re-added to the article, I don't really think it's something appropriate for the article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Long lists of endorsement-like content like this are usually the kinds of things you'd find on some organization's official website, but an official website and a Wikipedia article are not the same thing and such content at least gives off the appearance of being somewhat promotional. So, it might be better to scrap the list and develop more prose type content instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
copyright questions
Hi Diana,
I see that you have removed all of my edits from the page Sarah Morris. I did not realize that text could not be copied even when a citation was provided, so I apologize for that. However, I am frustrated that ALL of the changes I made to the page were deleted. I updated the "Personal Life" section to better reflect the artist's education, like providing the artist's major at Brown University. I cited a biography that included this information. Why was this deleted? Additionally, I changed the wording from "a stint at Cambridge University" to something that was more encyclopedic and informative in its phrasing. Why was this deleted? Lastly, I updated a few lists, including the artist's solo exhibitions (under Exhibitions) and Public Collections to provide a more comprehensive list; currently, the lists are not comprehensive. Why were these changes deleted? My changes, all cited, increased the accuracy of the lists, and to revert them only makes them less factual and representative. Lastly, I updated the "Further Reading" section with additional texts. Why were these changes deleted?
I would greatly appreciate more information on all of this. I am a student researching this artist and I am new to Wikipedia. I am greatly frustrated by the deletion of all of the content I updated, all of which provided more coherent and comprehensive information on the artist.
Fetterw (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Witt
Hi Diannaa, I was wondering if you could provide what the hxw guideline is for non-free images? The one I question is File:Los Angeles Chargers logo.svg as it is currently 455x201px. I usually keep them under 300x300 but another user is saying the current size is fine. Any guidance on this would be helpful! Thanks, Corky18:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The bot will multply the two dimensions. 455 x 201 = 91455, so this pic is okay, as it comes in under the 100,000 pixel limit. — Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the information provided by you on my talk page in regards to the copyrighted content with respect to Mirza Shirazi.
Just to clarify, I copied the content as it was basically a "good translation" of the content about Mirza Shirazi from original sources (Arabic books). So none of the information from the Iranica page is actually original (it's information from books in Arabic, just translated), but I understand that, that is not how it works with copyright. Apologies for that.
However, the content deleted is a mix of copied content and my personal writing, so would it be possible that you grant me access to my old revision, so I can take out the copied information and keep my own please? Because it seems you have deleted a few revisions as I can see on the history page. Also when I edit Wikipedia articles, I do it all in the visual editing section, and not like an outside Word document, so I don't have the article saved anywhere else.
I come bearing another copyright problem for you, thanks in advanced for any help/suggestions. I was encouraged to reach out to you by SandyGeorgia about extensive plagiarism of copyrighted material I found while editing the page HIV/AIDS in China beginning a few weeks ago. At the time--and up until now--I was unaware there was a way to really handle it besides wholesale rollback or manual deletion of the offending content (which I have since done, more or less; 85.3% of the text as it stands was written by me. I was not aware the offending material also had to be purged from the revision record. I imagine that is something beyond the scope of my powers, so I wanted to see what initiating that process would entail. I tried to document what I found in all my edit summaries and as best as I could in Talk:HIV/AIDS in China after the fact. If there is any other information from me you need, please let me know and I can get an additional writeup of some sort to you ASAP. Thank you very much! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi WhinyTheYounger and thank you very much for your hard work cleaning this article. The majority if not all of the content you removed was added way back in 2007, so I don't think it's appropriate to hide all those hundreds of intervening edits that took place in the intervening years. So I won't be doing revision deletion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I wasn't really sure who to ask so I hope this is not an issue. I noticed that Richard the 1st is still a class c article, with the rest of the Plantagenet monarchs being good or featured. Is there a reason for this? As in, is this the result of a lack of nomination(s) or are there some issues with the page? I'd love to edit and improve the page but it seems pretty thorough already. So if you could point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.
Hello Aza24 and thank you for your interest in improving this important article. There's sixteen "Citation needed" tags on the page – that's what's holding it back from advancement to "B" Class, which is the next step. If you can locate and add sources that cover the sections that are currently without sources, please do so, and then I suggest requesting an assessment for B-class at the Military History wikiproject.Good Articles and Featured Articles go through a formal assessment process. Please see Wikipedia:Good articles and for Featured Articles see Wikipedia:Featured articles.— Diannaa (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Sezer777
I'm afraid that most, if not all, of this user's edits other than those at the Turkish transport article are bogus. Assuming that none of them is necessary even if not incorrect, and given how much effort it would take to review all of them, does it make sense to do a blanket reversion? Largoplazo (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback, I am trying to delete this and re-create a brand new one, How can i delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeMesmar (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
How can i delete it?
I have another question Diannaa, I would love it if you could assist me further into getting my Article approved to Wikipedia, but of course by providing all exclusive details & without violating any rules over here. Is there a way i can reach you for this matter? My account is old, but I barely know how to function over here haha :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeMesmar (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Diannaa,
I would love your help on finalizing my Article, one of the editors rejected everything about me as i provided legitimate information. I listed so many sources and information about me to prove my work. Is there a way i can reach you via email or anywhere else? I have a huge feeling that you can help me out on this one :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeMesmar (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Would you mind looking at this creative commons image which I just uploaded at Commons. A lot of open access sources like this have been appearing lately in marine biology with comprehensive diagrams and elaborate summary captions. These diagrams can provide excellent graphical summaries in Wikipedia articles. But I am not clear what the limits to acceptable use are here. I have used the example image I just gave you on Marine food web, and have included, unabridged, the caption from the original source. Since I am finding and uploading rather a lot of images like this at the moment, would you mind looking at the manner in which I uploaded this particular image, and also at the manner in which I am using the image and its caption in this Wikipedia article. This is a rather extreme case, but in cases like this, I am unclear what best practice would be and just how far boundaries can be pushed before they become a problem. Would you please advise me. — Epipelagic (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Epipelagic, good to hear from you, hope you are well. I love that so many journal articles and wonderful images such as this one are now available for us to use. CC-by-4.0 is a compatible license both for prose and for images. It's okay to copy the caption (or other prose from a compatibly-licensed article), but we need to provide attribution. This can be done either by using a {{CC-notice}} template or manually like I did here. — Diannaa (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
But why would they assume they needed to do that? Anyway I've added a note to say "look at the history"; and the offending edit has been reverted in the face of widespread opposition to it. Bermicourt (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the edit to the sfn template is reverted (this has not yet actually taken place), there's a lot of clean-up to be done. For example Black Lady is still showing citations to six different source books that are not mentioned in the bibliography (the five that are highlighted in red, plus Kansil). I for one am glad that citation errors were highlighed - I found one on Adolf Hitler that had been there for circa six years. The rest of the articles I've worked on were clean.Your fellow Wikipedians are pretty savvy; folks know to check the page history if they see something unexpected.— Diannaa (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I cannot stress how much your suppressing the log plot at State number of non-repatriated cases by date shocks me. You could have moved it. You could have duplicated it into two versions. You could have explained it. But you didn't. The best representation for showing positive and negative trends - relief or panic - and your reaction was deprive of information and unembarrass a government. Brava! Shenme (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The explanation was in my edit summary: "remove deceptive logarithmic scale for total cases - most people will not realise, and will end up being misinformed." Most people don't know much about math, and will not realise the implications of a logarithmic scale, or how it distorts the curve. The log scale gives the impression that the cases have increased along a flat line, whereas the increase has actually been exponential. It should look like a hockey stick curve, not a flat line. — Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at this article, the copyvio detector says 0.0%, and the URL comparison times out before any data can be retrieved from the source. But a visual comparison between the source and the following sections clearly indicate that it is copied verbatim: early settlement, key dates in history, mayhew library, quarries, schools, shipyards, historic buildings, cemeteries, historic and archaeological resources. I didn't see a copyright notice on the source, but it does use references that may be copyrighted. I stumbled across this article fixing a ref error, someone had added a name to the Notable people section using whitepages.com, then I noticed all the unsourced section tags and investigated, it just looked suspicious. Thanks in advance, (hope you are staying safe).Isaidnoway(talk)22:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that you have removed my deletion proposal for this article. The article was written by the professor herself and all links point to her own websites. Such biography should be reserved for well-known people and Wikipedia should never be used as mean of self-promotion as mentioned in Wikipedia policy, which is evidently the case for this article. I have reverted the deletion request and properly formatted it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditor2219 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Dealing with an editor who doesn't (know how to) communicate
User:NABFNJ has made about 500 total edits. All seem to be in good faith, if not based on an understanding of how Wikipedia works. You have made copyvio warnings here and here. The editor has also made edits that remove sourced content based on misunderstandings (including this edit, this edit and this one). You and I have left warnings on the user's talk page, but the editor has never responded. I have explained my edits in edit summaries, to no avail. I have also left comments inside the article in the hope that the editor would see the text, but no luck.
He's never made a talk page post or user talk page post. I don't usually handle that sort of problem - I don't know what to do. Maybe a talk page watcher knows how to get things started? Or try a different admin?— Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Edits on the Stasi page
Hello! I saw that you left a comment on my talk page saying that the edits I made on the Stasi page represented a violation of copyrights, so you reverted them. Can I please ask you why? I actually rephrased the text taken from the source, but I am new on Wikipedia, so I am still learning how it works. I may have missed something. Thank you for your time and insights.
Seemona97 (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
In my home town Meßstetten Germay is a new book: Page 277 Oskar Riegraf 20. 4 1945 Oskar Riegraf * 19.07.1911,+under wrong name in Canada) killed 2 persons.[1][2]
It's not a very good addition fora couple reasons. (1) It's a bunch of bulleted lists instead of prose. Prose would be more informative. For example,saying "Rules" with a link to the rules - in German- is not very informative, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, and most of our readers do not speak German. (2) Your English language skills do not seem to be very good, which means even where you did write prose, it's difficult to understand.— Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
References
^Sigrid Hirbodian, Andreas Schmauder, Manfred Waßner, ed. (2019), Die Geschichte von Meßstetten: Eine Stadt im Wandel, Gemeinde im Wandel 19 (in German), p. 277{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
Hello Dear Diannaa
I wrote an article and am completing it.
The administrator has removed this article as a candidate.
In my opinion, this person is famous in his field.
I've put together a list of its titles and award along with the source.
Please help improve this article and stay there
Thanks
--Hesamlv (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer to my post at User talk:Imavailable, relating to the unblock request there. Here are a few thoughts that were prompted by your post. You may or may not find them interesting.
I was interested to read your comment "I suspect if unblocked he will not even resume editing". I have found over the years that a truly remarkable number of blocked editors post several unblock requests, and work quite hard at trying to get unblocked, but when the unblock comes they never edit again. I won't be at all surprised if you turn out to be right.
You said "I'm not sure he really understands our copyright rules". I would go further: I am sure he doesn't, but I thought that if he sticks to his undertaking "I'll never use contents from any site" it wouldn't matter whether he understands it or not. However, re-reading his comment, I'm now not sure he didn't mean "I'll never use contents from any site ... which is non-compatible", in which case a failure to understand copyright rules could well produce a faulty idea of what is and what isn't "compatible".
I'll ask him for an unambiguous undertaking not to copy anything at all, and if he gives it I will consider whether to unblock. I admit that unblocking is unlikely to actually benefit the project, as he doesn't seem to have any interest in doing anything other than self-promotion, so very likely he will either never edit again (as you suggest), or continue to try to self-promote. However, in the first of those two cases it doesn't matter in the least whether we unblock or not, and in the second case we can just re-block, so not much will be lost. I am a great believer in giving second chances to blocked editors, more so, I find, than most administrators; however, on the other hand I am also more of a believer than many administrators that when an editor has been given a second chance and thrown it away then it's time to say "enough is enough". JBW (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Question on citations
Hi,
I just had some quick questions:
1. In the Hector Berlioz article, there are no citations in the intro. This surprised me as it is a featured article. Is this because if the same info is cited later and simply repeated in the intro you don't have to cite it? Or are there supposed to be citations?
2. And also I keep referring to Wikipedia page's opening paragraphs as "intros" is there a standardized term for the indtroductionary paragraphs on a Wikipedia article?
3. If I see a statement that needs a citation or a reference, can I enter a "citation needed/reference need" template thing? Or can only administrators/extended confirmed users do so?
Hi Aza24, these are good questions. We call the introductory section the "lead section" or "lead" (you might also see it spelled "lede"). The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. This means that everything in the lead should also be present somewhere else in the article. If the article is done properly (as is mandatory in Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class articles), each statement should have a supporting citation. Since the citation is already present in the body of the article, typically you won't see the citation repeated in the lead unless it's a quotation or a statement that is controversial or likely to be challenged.It's okay for anybody to add "citation needed" tags to articles, but don't add them to the lead (especially please be careful with Featured Articles, Good Articles or A-Class articles) unless you are sure that the statement is not supported by a citation elsewhere in the article. — Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Clarification on Battle of Kendari
Hi,
Regarding the draft for the Battle of Kendari, I was just about to add the citations when you removed them. The sources are already listed in the reference as well for your information, so thanks, if gratitude are due at some point.
Sam
Samuel Pattinasarane 01:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampattinasarane (talk • contribs)
Can you clarify which part did I copy directly from the source, since I have retyped the source that I received into the article and not copy them directly. Samuel Pattinasarane 02:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampattinasarane (talk • contribs)
It looked like quite a bit of it, and I strongly suspected the remainder was copied from elsewhere as well, so I removed the entire addition.— Diannaa (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have provided every references available , since it was formed during 1910 and disbanded in before 1936,that too as a regional regiment at thallassery , i didn't find much places in books regarding indian history or army.
Hi Diannaa! I don't know the exact way to report copyvios, but since I have seen that you often deal with this problem, I want to bring the following case to your attention.
Recently an editor turned the redirect Makassar Malay into a full article, resorting however to blatant copyvio, copypaste from other articles without attribution, and unsourced data (possibly OR, but I suspect another copyvio without citation).
I think TNT back to redirect is the best solution here, with the copyvio edits struck out from the hist. Jukes (2019) is a good source for the topic, but that should be started from anew in a way conforming to WP policies. –Austronesier (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article and warned the user. Whether or not the article should be turned back into a redirect is a decision I don't want to make, as I don'tknow anything about the topic. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, many thanks for the quick action! Ok, I will vet the remaining content, and decide how to proceed. The sourced intro is from the main article Malay trade and creole languages, but everything else is unsourced. The topic is within my range here on WP, and also tangentially related to my research IRL. It's still underpublished in RS. Have a great day! –Austronesier (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Fastily: maybe you could make the tagging for Now on Commons for Fastilybot become its own program. Now on commons bot might be a great idea? Right?--Hippymoose17 (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you using my build of MTC! with BotPasswords? If so, give it the edit permission, because MTC! already does just that. -FASTILY03:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shearonink, I am well. Good to hear from you. In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden.— Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the mysteries of being an admin... OK, yeah, I was just thinking that I had maybe done something that wasn't Wiki-kosher. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Removal of information from the article "Harumi Sato"
Hello! First of all I would like to thank you for your input on my edits on the article "Harumi Sato".
I saw your notice that you removed a large part of the information in the article since it appears to have included copyrighted material. You added the website https://kprofiles.com/e-girls-members-profile/ as the original source. After checking it, I have to inform you that this website is no creditable or official news outlet that holds any rights to the information they give. It is simply a forum created by fans that gives information without any creditable sources. On the other hand, I translated creditable and independent sources for the information I wrote into the article "Harumi Sato". Thus I would like to revert your last edit. If you insist on crediting https://kprofiles.com/e-girls-members-profile/ even though they do not cite any sources for their information, I will put a link into the external link section of the article as the creator of the fan page in the forum noted themselves. Kyugium (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I see! Thank you for this information. I will try to get in contact with the creator of the fan page in the forum and come to a conclusion about this issue with them personally. I hope you stay healthy and safe! Kyugium (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft Alba Ventura
Hi Diannaa,
thank you so much for your message.
It is true I was just copy pasting info about Alba Ventura from her management webpage.
Is it possible to rewrite it on my own words + adding the website as a cite?
I was adding other websites to confirm what I was writing was true (reviews, concert programmes, etc). Is it okay?
It's okay to use that website as a source as long as you re-word everything thoroughly. However what you need to do in order to establish notability is to locate in-depth coverage in two or three good sources that are independent of the subject of the draft. — Diannaa (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
RE: File permission problem
Hi Diana,
Thank you for the messages in regard to file permissions to img files Peter Hotez250.jpg and Vincent R. Racaniello.jpg. I have written to both persons and asked them to verify the permissions through permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
That being said, I would like to use the opportunity and ask how it is decided what the infobox image will be? Suppose there is an existing one and I consider that I have a better fit - what are the guidelines on this? I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate!
Hi GeorgeTopouria. Images are like any other content; if you think you can improve an article, go ahead and do it. If you think your edit will be controversial, open a thread on the talk page first.— Diannaa (talk)
If you could give me some clues as to what to look for (or look at) that would be helpful. Am I supposed to check the current version of the article, or the stuff that was recently removed?— Diannaa (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Further developments indicate that the whole article has been used unnatributed in an incredibly expensive book, so my suspicions were sort of unfounded. The Talk page has some details now, and another expert commented. Thanks very much. -Roxy, the PROD. .wooF18:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I am pretty confident that this is a copyright infringement, but the author died in 1966 so just wanted to check whether the copyright would still be valid. The author has made a number of similar articles, which I'll address, just wanted to check that I was on the right lines with the copyvio. GirthSummit (blether)13:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Please see commons:Commons:Hirtle chart for an overview. In most cases it's not so much the year of death of the author as the publication date of the work in question. Currently material published in 1924 and earlier have fallen into the public domain. Everything published after that date we have to assume is copyright unless proven otherwise. This particular poem appears to have been published in the author's 1930 book Laconics which would still enjoy copyright protection. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Lightning Brigade (US Army of the Cumberland 1863)
Hi! Sorry to bother you. I'm writing this to make sure this gets to you. Would you be so kind as to double-check the attribution on the Lightning Brigade (US Army of the Cumberland 1863) page? I think I did it correctly, but a second set of eyes always helps. Amazing, I've been making edits here and there for over 10 years and just recently got around to taking it seriously. I'm playing catch up. Sorry for the bother. Thanks so much! Hhfjbaker (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I see you have deleted File:Yacht Club De Beyrouth albert kahn 1919 liban ref a19796 musee departmental paris.jpg, as a redundant copy of File:Yacht Club De Beyrouth 1919.jpg. But I can't find a file with the latter name. Has it also been deleted, or am I looking in the wrong places (en:WP and Commons)? Maproom (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I saw that you changed visibility of a revision I made to CARPHA and I'm not sure I fully understand. Is it just that that revision had a problem because there was copy-pasted text but the subsequent revisions were fine? If so, I'm definitely in agreement. I was trying to get the page up to date and remove the warning about a lack of citations, but I had my doubts about how to do that along the way. Just want to make sure it's fine now. --Vaughan (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Some of the content you included in the diff that is hidden was copied from the source. But you removed it with your next edit. The current version is okay.— Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
It's technically not a violation because it's a quotation. But on the other hand, there's no reason why original prose could not be prepared. For example "...they didn’t announce the news until weeks later, because of the upcoming elections, held on February 21."— Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that the account of Olokun and Osaara's rivalry was removed from the "Pataki" section of the goddess' page. I understand your concerns about the copyright issues (I'm not sure about whether I share them, though: I edited quite a bit of the source article, and I added a word or two, so the quote arguably wouldn't be the same as it is in the source), but I am concerned about altering the tale so extensively that it is changed in substance.
Perhaps you could help me and take another look at the quote, or otherwise advise me on how to change it so that it's acceptable and yet keep its spiritual essence intact.
Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Diannaa... This was just what I needed.
I hope all is well with you, with all the nonsense in the world. While with ton of free time I decided to spend some time on an article of a subject that I like.
I happen to take some time with the article of the shortest leading men in film history who also happens to be a death defying stunt performer and a first rate martial artist named Weng Weng. Philippines' first international celebrity in the 1980s... One of these unreal page.
For years while notable no information on the subject was available, so a lot of unreal stuff was made up about him and became mythos, while other unreal stuff said about him is true. I wrote in a section for the "debunked and truth".
Eventually a documentary and a book on the subject came along. I own both and are my prime source of citations. The author is now considered a film historian and his work is accepted by academia since he is now a lecturer on Filipino film history. I own them both and decided to help with this page that was in dire need of citations while old rumors where published as fact.
A lot of information on Weng Weng are accounts by his family, former co-worker, and friends. No interviews with the subject have survived the passing of time, so it's accounts and recollections by others. In regards to subjects intelligence some say he was slow while others said he was normal. I try to be fair and show both sides of the story.
I usually say who said what, but on several occasion I forgot and write "it is said", by not mentioning whom. Which was a complaint that other editor had in which he may be right.
Below are links in the history section, so you can compare my cut to his.
That user wrote me on my talk page and I wrote him back. If I find a reasonable agreement with this user or he just leaves fine, but if not I thought I would let you know in case it reaches new heights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Filmman3000#April_2020
If there is any wrongdoing or wrong-editing on my part please let me know. I personally can't think of any, but who knows...
I do not want your help on any article per se, just guidance when there is hiccup. What I am asking, since it never happened to me before, are these tags any correct? But do what you must first until everything gets back to normal, or not it's all good.Filmman3000 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Diana, I wrote the Bio of Professor Peter Kareiva from UCLA and you recommended me to re-write the text. Following your recommendation, I've edited the article and re-wrote all the text in my own words. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neyranaz (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio question
Hi Diannaa, a new user recently posted this on a project talk page. It's mostly copied from here. I removed it from the talk page, but does it need to be revdeled or oversighted too? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:39, 9 April 2020 (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.
Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 17:08, 9 April 2020 (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.
Good afternoon. Here is a little puzzle. I am starting to work on the article School website which was worse than dire.Could I ask a few questions and bounce around some ideas. All the definitive documents will be government documentation and clearly labelled as OGL. The crux is that HMG forces maintained schools to publish set information on their websites. Will those details, as published, also be OGL. academy schools must do the same, even though they are technically trusts. So is that automatically OGL or what? Independent schools must also publish infomation on a website- who has copyright on that?
So who does own the copyright on the contents of a school website- the typist, the boss, the headteacher or the governors, the trust or local authority or the DfE. (There was a incident at St Olave's Grammar School about the head wrongfully using the design of the school seal for a personal company.) And then the images?
To illustrate the school website article I hope to get one of the companies to donate a few pngs of reference sites, otherwise we could have a photographer, a web designer, a programmer and a board of governers putting in copyright claims!
A second question, as a proud Canadian can you tell me whether the provinces or the country have defined what Canadian schools must display. Is there any equivalent to Ofsted policing school websites? To start with. I am writing the article from a UK perspective- and am aware that I need to internationalise it. So then we will have to widen the questions above!
I believe you missed one revision with copyrighted content, the one following the one you revdel'd. Can you also revdel that one as well? Thank you! =) —Locke Cole • t • c04:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Diannaa you have no goddamned right to remove the material you removed from my recently deceased brother's wiki. If you cannot restore it then DELETE IT! - Mike Montgomery Gumaraid (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Olan Montgomery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gumaraid (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Gumaraid
Deletion review is the wrong place to request a review my removal of violations of the copyright policy, but nevertheless I will add a comment there. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Russell Cook (Musician)
How do I edit the bio on my father's page without having someone protest that the additions are a copyright violation? I obviously have permission to update his wikipedia page. Please advise moving forward so that I can make the edit permanently... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coryscook (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 April 2020 (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 or editing an article about your relative 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) 15:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I'm working with Gumaraid to try to get the biography of his brother up to snuff. We'd like to request a refund of the copyvio-tainted version of 21:46, 9 April 2020. Since restoration of potentially copyvio material on-wiki may be inappropriate, I'd like to ask that you email me the entire text at shoehutch@gmail.com, preferably the wikitext as a Word document attached to an email. I guarantee to you that any new version restoring information from that earlier version will come back copyright clear.
The author is a newcomer to WP and may not have a complete grasp of copyright law or encyclopedic style. He does seem to have his heart in the right place although he was obviously bitterly unhappy about the deletions. We're going to work through things off-wiki line by line.
Hi Carrite. Hope you are well and thank you for taking on this task. Most of the content was copied from the subject's webpage and the obituary. Text in the obituary was very likely written by a family member and hence cannot neccessarily be considered an independent source. The email is on its way - please let me know if there's any issues in receiving it or opening the attachment.— Diannaa (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It didn't seem to come through for some reason. Please try again or use the alternate account MutantPop@aol.com. The new editor is pretty insistent in working from that particular version. I can't see it since it is revision-deleted. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the letter M got dropped from the end of the email address somehow. I hope you get one or both of these! Hopefully fixed! Note to self: Periodically need to clean crumbs from the keyboard. — Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about our copyright policy and wikileaks
Thank you for letting me know about this discussion. However, commenting on matters regarding Wikilinks and/or the US government is not something I am going to do.— Diannaa (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I was just trying to figure out which board would be the best place for the discussion as I don't think an article talk page is. I don't think that would involved you with the subject. Doug Wellertalk17:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that Shaggy151 has learned their lesson even after repeated warnings about posting copyrighted material. Perhaps a block is in order? --Drm310🍁 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Chris O' Hare. Here is a link to the bot report. I looked and looked and could not find any evidence that this passage was copied from Wikipedia. So I had to assume that the material was copied from the website that the bot found. You can help me in the future by saying in your edit summary where you got the content when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another or translate material from another-language Wikipedia. In fact doing so is required under the terms of our license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Copying without doing this is a violation of our licensing terms. I have checked the Samish wikipedia page and find the material to be a match like you say. Sorry for the mistake.The reason you keep seeing me on your talk page is because the bot keeps finding material in your edits that appears to be copied from elsewhere online. I am one of a handful of people that assesses these daily reports and am the person who does the bulk of them. To do so is not harassment.— Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Yes I agree I should have mentioned in the edit summary this was a translation from the Spanish wikipedia. This is why as I said perhaps its a good idea to discuss first on the talk page before making a speedy deletion like this. I dont know why you automatically assumed the material was copied from that website since you could see that I added about 6 sources to my edit. Assumptions are not the way to deal with deletions of edits. When unsure or in doubt or when sources have been added such as in this case its better to discuss first. Thanks.Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
In an ideal world that is what would happen. But 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. This represents anywhere from eight to 20 hours of work. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical.— Diannaa (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you, for fixing our page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Colorado. Have a great week. I hope this is the right place to put this. GunnisonMarmot (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dianna, A lot of what you removed under copyright was not added by me. I thought I was protecting copyright by adding the source on the meatpacking story; the howling story was added by another wiki editor. Thank you for fixing our page, and I will figure out what exactly you thought I did wrong. Thanks again.GunnisonMarmot (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not okay to copy prose unaltered from your sources. Short properly attributed quotations are allowed.— Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but I wasn't certain. I was off Wikipedia for about 6 months, and have forgotten a lot of things I used to know. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dianaa, thanks for your message re me adding the quote on the Wellington Page. I'm new on here. So learning on a steep curve...! I thought that with a Ref I had done enough. WIll check what you have added, and learn. Thanks Arjanvanderboon (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Visa policy maps on Wikipedia
Hi! Just wondering how Wikipedia’s visa policy maps are created? I would love to help improve a page (South Korea’s visa policy) as the map on that is now outdated! Thanks. Ire96 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Dianna. Regarding the issue you brought up on my talk page, firstly, I would like to apologize for making you or may be "your bot" work on my texts once again. Never meant to do this, sorry. But to make things clear once and for all, I would like to ask handful of questions in a New York minute:
1. In an ideal world, to what extent should a "mortal" editor reformulate third-party information he/she intends to add to Wikipedia's articles?
2. How does it work with a translated material?
3. Where can the content hastily removed because of the copyright stuff be retreated if a couch potato decides to properly restructure it?
Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. You are correct: " the whole structure and phrasing of the information need to be thouroughly reformulated".
A translation of a copyright document (including a Google translate) enjoys the same copyright protection as the original.
By "retreated" I presume you meant "retrieved"? Here is a link to the bot report for Turkmen tribes. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. Interpreting results often requires a certain amount of finesse and hunting within the source document for documents that Earwig's tool cannot access.— Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah right. I appreciate your suggestion on how to retrieve the content removed for the above reasons, but frankly, that hyped Ithenticate tool made my day (in a negative sense, of course). Therefore, I have a suggestion to make it a better shot. You guys might consider giving editors who you think have violated your sacred copyright rules, a second chance by moving parts of the content you believe are not in line with copyright guidelines, to some sort of a draftspace within Wikipedia so that they could later work on paraphrasing and restructuring the corresponding information within the established (by you) time frame. There can be unpleasant consequences, but sometimes it's the only way to get something important done.
After all, we are people for a reason). And I think it's up to you (admins) to improve Wikipedia as you are surely heard and noticed out there. Have a nice day!. — Visioncurve (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa, Regarding your message on my talk page, I did not move any text from North Richland Hills, Texas to Richland Hills, Texas, but I did use the format of the Government section in North Richland Hills to create one similar in Richland Hills. The text in Richland Hills is unique to that article, and does not duplicate anything located in North Richland Hills. Please advise if using a duplicate format is allowed. Thank you. PhillyHarold (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking this, Harold. I also have a similar question regarding copying templates such as navboxes, but replacing all the actual content, except perhaps for heading, section titles, etc. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi PhillyHarold, BilCat: When using an article, template, or any other content as a basis for your own addition to a different article, you should say so in your edit summary please. PhillyHarold, your edit was similar enough to the source article for a bot to have noticed the similarity, so it's not all that unique as you might think.— Diannaa (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't have to do that unless you want to. It's okay to copy/adapt from other Wikipedia articles as long as you say in your edit summary where you got the content.— Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Copyright issue - request for review
Hello, Diannaa! Thank you for your great work on Wikipedia and helping to uphold the project's integrity. The pandemic has brought me to reading Wikipedia a lot in the last few weeks. Recently I've been looking at some entries at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and noticed several improper taggings of copyright violation on pages that have no such issue. Upon looking further, I realized the user tagging is an experienced user who is also an admin (MER-C).
You are one of the most active administrators in handling copyright issues so I am hoping you'd be willing to spare a few minutes in reviewing this. Could you please take a look at those pages to see if they actually have issues that warrant deletion? Much appreciated. Thanks! Potatoesandbiscuits (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
These are presumptive deletions, as is permitted per the rules at WP:CCI. No reason to suspect foul play.— Diannaa (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Copyright Review request: CPL Aromas
Hi Diannaa,
Hope you are well and keeping safe. I have sent you an email with this request, before I realised that this is how it's supposed to be done. Apologies.
I am the Global Director of Marketing for CPL Aromas based in Dubai. I made some edits on its Wiki page (CPL Aromas) updating its history and changing some out-of-date info, and today I got all of it reversed on the grounds of copyright. The only texts I copied were from our own company's website (for the History section) so I believe there is no ground for copyright infringement?
Could you please review?
Many thanks!
Alejandro.-
Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Rock music
Hi, I assure you that there wasn't any violation in copyright policy in my edit in Rock music. My procedures for editing, in all the language versions of Wikipedia, don't include copypasting, and I always comply with the procedures of writing non-copyrighted text and using references.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
That must be because of the two arguments about the Youtube model at the end of that article, but then again, I wrote them in reported speech, they weren't copy pastes.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This article not only has a poor title, it seems written more like an advert. Also, it's not just hair and nails that morticians do, its makeup, especially for female decedents. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not clear what you think I should do about it. Or are you looking for suggestions as to what you should do?— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The article says the word "Desairology" was coined in 1980. There's a few places online where I see the term in use. So that might be a good title. Cleanup would involve finding sources for or removing any unsourced content. Another alternative would be to copy any sourced content to the article Funeral director and change this article to a redirect. If you need guidance on how to move a page or how to provide attribution when copying content please let me know and I will locate the appropriate help pages for you.— Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I did remove some quotations because Wikipedia articles are mostly supposed to be written by Wikipedians rather than being a lot of quotations strung together. The article still contains 356 words of quotations in a 1040-word article - in other words 34% of the article as it stands right now is quotations. That's excessive, because it's too much non-free content. I will give you reasoning here for removal of two of the block quotes as examples of my thinking.
The types of munitions used, the breadth of the area targeted and the duration of the attack strongly suggest that the attack was meticulously planned and ruthlessly carried out by the Syrian air force to purposefully hinder the delivery of humanitarian aid and target aid workers, constituting the war crimes of deliberately attacking humanitarian relief personnel, denial of humanitarian aid and targeting civilians.
This was immediately after the sentence which said The attack was described as "meticulously planned" and "ruthlessly carried out" so I thought this quote was a good candidate for removal since this much shorter sentence is an apt summary of what the larger quote says. The second quote was
"The Commission therefore concludes that United States forces failed to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law"
which did not make sense to leave in without the preceding material that I had to remove for copyright reasons. Besides, it would be easy to paraphrase this material and avoid using the quotation altogether. For example, it could be re-worded as "The UN Commission concluded that the United States violated international law, as their armed forces failed to prevent the death or injury of civilians or damage to their property".I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can see for yourself what was removed.— Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for undoing the revision deletion. I have tried to tidy up the page so hopefully it is acceptable now. CowHouse (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Dianna, In view of recent events, I came to a conclusion that it would be better to inform you beforehand that I have created a new article, which I hope is in line with copyright policy. The article is about San Diego Country club (which is my favorite and features one of the best golf courses in California). Will you kindly check to see if it complies with fair use and adheres to copyright law? Considering Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research, I was forced to use only available materials, which come mostly from the club's official website. Thank you in advance! Have a nice day and stay safe! --Visioncurve (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Dianna (again). I hope you are doing well and staying safe. I started using that awesome copyvio tool you told me of last time, and I inevitably found one suspicious article (Mahmud of Ghazni), where significant parts of one of its main sections (Ghaznavid campaigns in Indian Subcontinent) were taken almost word by word from "https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-first-invader-in-India". Assuming that all material we find online is copyright, should it not be deleted even though it's only "Quora"? I placed ((copyright)) tag at the top of that section and followed the corresponding instructions afterwards, however I have swiftly become a target of mild hostility by couple of editors, who constantly remove the copyright tag. Would you please check that for me? Thank you in advance. --Visioncurve (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
"a target of mild hostility by couple of editors.."
Too bad Visioncurve can not find the article talk page and explain their actions. FYI, the Quora answer is dated July 27, 2017 while that section of Mahmud of Ghazni has existed since before 4 July 2015. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't understand why every time I try to edit something on a page titled as my own company, everything is quickly removed without possibility of reversing it.
I suppose that whoever does that is very knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works, knows well the wiki style and editing rules, and even has administrative functions. But it is not my case.
I only pretend that if someone writes something that I know well, because it concerns me directly, and that what is written is false but it is published for others to read in the future, I should try to correct it. Taking advantage of the apparent facilities to edit the information provided by Wikipedia, I spend some time correcting it. But I cannot spend much more time and do not intend to become a professional editor. That spent time is too much for me. So much so that I cannot even correct all the incorrectness of the page at once and I program it to do it in instalments.
But, if every time I access to the wiki and make a change, an administrator deletes everything, the only option I have is to request that all references be removed.
I understand that due to my ignorance and little experience editing in Wikipedia, what I write, or its format, may not meet any of the strict requirements. It is a great opportunity to let me know and I will be delighted to correct these errors, ask others to do it for me if I do not know how to do, or provide the evidence or references that are in my possession.
But it doesn't seem like a reason to remove all the work done and the information provided. And much less to keep written what someone else has been able to publish and for which it seems that the demands were much lower.
I am willing to send you previously the corrections I intend to publish for you to review them before. Or, if I publish something and it does not meet any standard, you could let me know and correct it quickly. But not to devote an afternoon to digging to see where in Wikipedia someone has written something that is not correct, or even false, and correct it to see that in a few hours some other one has eliminated all that work.
Thank you
P.S. While it was still in process, the most correct and updated information about the RWC is in the version dated 18:50, 14 April 2020. I would like you to send me (privately?) a copy of it (I even didn't keep one) in order to make any further modifications above it.
I can't send anything to you privately because you don't have a Wikipedia account. The copyright material I removed was copied from http://www.renwks.com/principal/history.htm. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Please don't add unsourced material to Wikipedia, material based on your personal knowledge. That's not how Wikipedia works, because we have a Verifiability policy, which means that everything you add needs to be sourced and citations added.— Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, I still don't understand. If you know that the added text is very similar to the one that can be read at http://www.renwks.com/principal/history.htm, in my opinion it is easier to put such a source or citation (or even ask me to do it and I will learn the difference) than remove all the work already done.
You can always send me a private message to the email address stated in all the pages where you found the info source, that is: (Redacted)
We can't re-add it, even with a citation, unless the copyright holder has released the text under a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No sorry. I don't have time to read all that verbose. If you cannot re-add what I wrote and you removed, why you offered that solution in your previous answer?
There is not a 'copyright holder' for the text that I wrote about Renaissance Workshop Company. It is my own text. I created it from some published and living references. All the information about the history of Renaissance Workshop Company Ltd is free of copyrights providing that it is not distorted. The true history of RWC is written in several media. What is not allowed is to publish false information. And that is what Wikipeda now has published in its page.
If you do not allow pages about companies and their history, please remove the complete page of RWC. Otherwise do not help to contain false information published by others.
The copyright notice in the RWC site is a common footnote for all the pages in it and tries to avoid copies of the pictures, design and information about the products. But the history of the company is public, that's why it has been published. The history itself cannot be protected by copyright laws.
I do not have the literary ability to tell the same story with different words.
So, I'm going to delete all the false information in the Wikipedia page without add anything else.
Thank you
Information Science
Hello, @Diannaa:,
the day before yesterday I had extended the article "Information Science" by the 5 axioms for indexing by Robert Fugmann, including the definitions underlying these axioms. Yesterday you deleted this part because you suspect that I may have violated copyright rules.
The referenced texts are from a talk by Mr. Fugmann in 1985 and I received them from him personally so that I could add them to Wikipedia.
Especially with axioms it is important that they are not only roughly reproduced and possibly corrupted, but that reference to them is made very carefully.
Obviously, this must be documented in some form. Could you please tell me what the process is to document that the use of the texts is done with the author's consent.
Thank you very much for your support!
--MRewald (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Since the material has already been published elsewhere, we can't host it here unless the copyright holder releases the content 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) 12:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hola Diannaa--
I see that I have run afoul of the WP's plagiarism policy--this was not intentional, and I will get onto it and do the needed work to rephrase. That it happened was an error on my end, I am a new WP editor, this is my third article, and as I worked between different drafts of my piece I lost track of what I'd rewritten and what had been cut and pasted into my work area to be rewritten.
I'm curious to learn about the process by which things get flagged. Is it possible to have the bot automatically highlight the areas that triggered the violation warning? From my end, that would make the rewriting a lot faster--though I do understand that from WP's end, this information might be proprietary or the thought might be that it could further lead to bad practices. Just trying to work the issue through.
A big thanks for the work that you do on your end, the more I have contributed here the more I understand the repetitive nature of the problems that raise themselves. Thank you for your patience with those of us who are coming in and trying to learn to be responsible citizens here. Sicklemoon (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sicklemoon, these are very good questions and I am glad you are prepared to learn more about how to edit Wikipedia. It's best if you don't copy copyright material into Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. That will prevent you accidentally copypasting copyright material. I would suggest that you not copypaste at all, not even into a Word document, but rather read through the source material and re-write the content in your own words. In this case the bot (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en) found a snippet and I discovered the rest through manually checking using https://copyleaks.com/compare. Another tool we use is https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ but it was unable to read this particular source document. One way you could use https://copyleaks.com/compare yourself is to compare text to text prior to even adding your new material to Wikipedia. How you would do it is to prepare your proposed edit in a Word document and then copypaste your text into Copyleaks and compare it with text from the source document. There really shouldn't be any overlap other than unavoidable things such as job titles, names of schools, and things like that. — Diannaa (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll work through it from my end and get back to you if I get lost! Again, thank you for your patience with the repetitive aspects of my questions.
This said, I do have one question. The main article I am using is a piece from the Jefferson Digital Commons, which describes itself as an "open access institutional repository." I have been trying to add this information to my citations from that piece, but can't seem to get the code correct despite visiting Help:CS1 errors. Am I conflating two concepts inaccurately? Is a "digital commons" not the same thing as an "open library"? Thanks, Sicklemoon (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
"Digital commons" and "open library" are meaningless terms from a copyright point of view. These terms just mean you don't have to buy the article or pay to view it. But I'm pretty sure you actually want to know how to format your citation. For this particular citation, the software is looking for an "open library identifier" which is not something I am seeing on the source document. The template documentation gets pretty technical but if I am reading it correctly you should omit the field |ol-access= for this particular citation because citations that use the parameter |url= are assumed to be free to read, and we don't have an Open Library Identifier to add in the field |ol=. —
Thank you. No, I was just asking about the common terminology that had left me confused. Eliminating fields that aren't WP relevant is not a problem. And--a big thank you for the link to the copyright sites. I found a couple of things I would not have noticed with that tool.
Okay, I believe the article is now good to go. I'll resubmit, and hope it doesn't create any more issues. Again, thank you for your time. I'm invested in making my work as accurate and as WP appropriate as possible. All best, Sicklemoon (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to check back to say thank you, I'm glad to see the article processed through. I appreciate the work that you're doing. And it's very cool to check in at the various medical pages that Reimann had a historical attachment to/involvement with and see the WP links that have been gone live.
Hi Diannaa. I came across this article after see User talk:JJMC89#Bongo on JJMC89's user talk page. It appears that a discussion about this was started at WP:CP#26 November 2019 but never was resolved. Some attempts to restore the article have been reverted (rightly in my opinion), but at the same time those trying to restore it do kind of have a point. Would you mind looking at this to see if there's anything that can be saved or whether it's a case of WP:TNT? It seems like the subject is going to be notable enough for an article regardless so perhaps someone at WT:MAM can rewrite whatever remains into a viable article after the copyvio content has been removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
We've had the overlapping content in https://www.awf.org/wildlife-conservation/bongo since at least 2007, so proving copyvio at this point is impossible, as the oldest version in the Wayback Machine of the purported source is dated April 13, 2013.
Verdict: The purported source webpages are all (or likely all) Wikipedia mirrors and the article can be restored. I will post these results at WP:CP and do the restore.— Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Chronic COPYVIO issues from editor who doesn't respond to talkpage messages
This edit by User:NABFNJ to the article for Morris Township, New Jersey is almost a complete cut and paste from this source. This is not the first time that this editor has had clear COPYVIO issues. You've had no luck with your warnings and I've had none with mine. Any ideas on how to deal with chronic COPYVIO issues from an editor who doesn't respond to talkpage messages? Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
He's actually only received one (mild) warning for copyright. I've given him a harsher templated warning and will watch his edits for a while. — Diannaa (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Earwig's tool shows nothing, and I can't find the text anywhere online using manual Google searches. You could remove it as it is lacking any sources whatsoever.— Diannaa (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks for checking. I did some manual Google searches as well. I was planning to try to engage the editor about proper sourcing, but wanted to first make sure that was the "right" conversation. MB15:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I apologize for my improper edits on the wrongful conviction page. I have rewritten and shortened the entries and compiled all the proper sourcing information in order to comply with Wikipedia's standards. If you will not let me add the entries, could I submit them to you? Thank you. 02:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Now that you understand our copyright policy, please feel free to edit the article again once the protection expires. We have a bot that checks for violations of the copyright policy, so there's no need to get me to clear it or check it for you.— Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
April 2020
INRE, 1st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry I am adding and editing the article now. Mea culpa, I didn't include PD notice on a couple of references. Of note, Acton Memorial Library does not hold the copyright on the text it has posted as they are from two of the three PD ref's I listed. That is why I disregarded the high rating I got from Earwig's Copyvio Detector. If a work is in the public domain and another web site copies and pastes large swaths of text onto 1st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry site, surely that doesn't give them a copyright does it? Hhfjbaker (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Massachusetts Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines in the Civil War was published in the 1930s and therefore still enjoys copyright protection. It's not in the public domain. Dyer (1908) is in the public domain.— Diannaa (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
But it is a Commonwealth of Massachusetts government record held in archive and "those records created by Massachusetts government agencies and institutions held by the Massachusetts Archives are not copyrighted and are available for public use." This is why Acton Memorial Library could copy from it. Also, National Guard records if one wanted to consider them federal would also not qualify as no U.S. government records are copyrighted. According to the library, they say it IS public domain (and not just because of the Bono Act exclusion for libraries). Hhfjbaker (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Use of content from "public" documentation of free/open source software
Hi Diannaa: You recently removed part of an edit I made to the article File attribute.
The part that was removed was a table of "one line" descriptions of individual file attributes used on the Linux operating system that I had sourced (and copied verbatim) from within Wikipedia itself: specifically from the article chattr, where this content is used with no apparent attribution or permission record, other than the statement "File attributes on a Linux file system according to the chattr(1) Linux man page".
In fact, the original source wording from the file atrribute descriptions of chattr's man page documentation (as distinct from the tabular rendering thereof in the Wikipedia article) appears widely across the internet (e.g. a Google search for the exact string "A file with the 'i' attribute cannot be modified" returns over 2,000 hits, including Wikipedia's own chattr article as the first hit!), including the supposed source of the copyright infringement match "https://www.carta.tech/", that is not authoritative in any way but simply a "restyling service" for presentation of this "public" content.
I also note that that there are many other examples on Wikipedia of wording (from snippets to large blocks) copied, directly or indirectly, from the (intentionally widely redistributable) documentation of various software projects that are published under the GPLv2 or other similar "open source" software licenses that are intended to promote sharing of the "source code", but which do not explicitly address the distribution of documentation extracts.
I could try to request explicit permission, but this seems both overkill and pointless since the nominal "author" (current maintainer of the e2fsprogs software) is (a) a busy major figure (Theodore Ts'o) in the world of free/open source software/systems development, and (b) probably not the actual "author" of the wordings in question, and so unable to approve distribution under another license.
Can you please advise/explain how/why text such as this is apparently allowed in many articles, but not in the (identical) addition I made?
The source webpages at the article chattr do not have a copyright license. A copyright notice is not required under current copyright law; prose is automatically copyright unless the author releases it under license or into the public domain. The fact that material has been widely reproduced online or copied into Wikipedia does not mean that it's in the public domain or correctly licensed for us to use. It might actually be copyright material that needs to be removed. It's up to the person who adds content to document that the text they are adding is appropriately licensed.GNU General Public License alone is not a compatible license. Here is a list of compatible licenses.— Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hi - thanks for the message re. my first edit (Trimontium, Newstead)...looks like I made a rooky wiki error of assuming content I have permission for could be used directly...lesson learned and I'm rewriting now :) thanks for the advice, Rob
Dear Dianna I am having trouble linking two Wikipedia articles I have written. I wrote one in English and another one in Portuguese but I cannot seem to link them :
This is false because the translated Portuguese page exists and should be able to hyperlink. When I try to link the Portuguese page to the English page the same message appears : "Não foi possível encontrar uma página "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continentals_(gang)" em "enwiki".
O site cliente externo "enwiki" não forneceu informações da página "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continentals_(gang)".
You need to add the name of the page, not the full url. Add Continentais (gangue) not https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continentais_(gangue) — Diannaa (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Copyright query
Hi Diannaa - Long time, no speak. I hope you and yours are keeping well. If you have time, I wonder if you'd take a look at this, The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay. I began a GAR, here, Talk:The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay/GA1, but hit an Earwig-identified potential copyvio issue. I'd like to do the Review - the nominator's clearly worked hard on the article and, to my eye, the outstanding similarities aren't too much of an issue, e.g. "constructed from stone and timber with clay roof tiles". That's just a fairly literal statement about the building's construction, although it would be possible to rephrase it. But I don't want to pass as GA, and, aside from any copyvio issue, it clearly is GA, if editors more experienced in copyright think there is an issue. Grateful for any advice. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
It's still not enough, as some of the material has been only lightly paraphrased or minimally re-ordered. For example, "The two-storey building is constructed from stone and timber with clay roof tiles, though originally the roof would have been a thatched. Four ranges (or wings) are arranged around a central courtyard" becomes "The building has two storeys and is constructed from stone and timber with clay roof tiles. Originally, the roof would have been thatched. Four ranges are arranged around the central courtyard." It's pointless to try and replace words like "stone" or "clay" but we can definitely do better than this.— Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Diannaa - really helpful as ever, and what I feared you’d say. I shall get back to the nominator. Thanks and all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Envato Page Deletion
Hey there Diannaa,
A couple of days ago I tried recreating a page that was deleted prior for a reason I am not really sure. I work for a company called Envato and I used the appropriate tag to enclose that information at the top of the article. I am obviously doing something wrong and I would like some help. Can you explain why it was deleted this time and how to avoid deletion in the future? If I am not the right person to create this page can you point me to the right direction for the creation of the company profile within Wikipedia?
Thanks for your time. Hope you are keeping safe!Tolkinas (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I deleted it because it was the same as an article that was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envato. Our rules prohibit re-creating an article that is identical or essentially the same as one that was previously deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. Also, the terms of our license require that the original authors of the article receive credit for their work (that's the "attribution" part of our Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license), and you didn't do that. By the way, we write encyclopedia articles here, not "profiles" like you might see on LinkedIn, so it looks like you've misunderstood Wikipedia's primary purpose, which is to provide a compendium of knowledge, not a site on which companies can post profiles. The original article was deleted for not meeting our notability requirements for corporations and companies, which you can review at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)— Diannaa (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Removal of Edits to Competitive Advantage Page
Hi Diannaa... How can I recover my edits to a page on Competitive Advantage in the section on Core Competencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_advantage#Core_competencies.
My edits aimed to highlight the role of knowledge-based firm assets as a source of competitive advantage.
Your message to me identified a problem with use of copyrighted material. I THINK that the problem was that I included JSTOR links for references, thinking this would be a positive. (One has to have paid for JSTOR for the links to work, I thought.) I'd be glad to remove those links, but would like to get access to my edits. I did not copy and paste anything from those sources that I cited. If there are issues with my text, I'd be grateful if you would point them out.
Can you please restore my edits or send me a message with my original text so I can easily restore my work and amend it? Thank you.
John Lynch colorado.edu/business/leeds-directory/faculty/john-g-lynch-jr
The problem is that you added copyright material to Wikipedia without any evidence that the copyright holders have given permission for you to do so. The source paper is https://www.jstor.org/stable/259057 and the content is nearly identical - from pages 680 and 683. I do indeed have JSTOR access (paid for on my behalf by the Wikimedia Foundation), and we have received a donation from the Turnitin people that allows our automated copyright detection system to see behind many paywalls. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.— Diannaa (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Another copyvio from a repeat customer
This edit appears to be largely taken from this source, including the promotionalism of the word-for-word claim that "Lying between the cultural and business excitement of the metropolitan area (within an hour's drive) and the superb recreational advantages of northern New Jersey, Kinnelon is poised between the rooted past of the hills and the bright promise of future growth, hopeful of preserving the best of both worlds."
Hi, I did updated the page of the company MorphoSys because outdated of 10 years. I updated the introduction, the history and the technology section and I also did add a pipeline section. Since I want to do this good, I wanted to ask your motivation of the changes you did to my additions. In particulat the shorteninf of the technolgy section and the removal of the pipeline. Thanks a lot.
--Erica Fiore (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. — Diannaa (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Whiteboard
Hello Dianna. I recently made an edit to the "Whiteboard" page (History section) that I had thought was appropriate yet it was removed. The information written there now comes directly from the [1] source yet that still remains on the page while the info I added (which is from the exact same source) was removed. I am confused as to why. If the source is considered not reliable then all information should be removed, no? Thank you very much. Michael4092 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not a question of the source not being reliable; the prose that remains sourced to that page is not directly copied from that page. See for yourself; there's no overlap. On the other hand, the content you added was copied unaltered from the source, and therefore was a violation of our copyright policy. That's why I removed it.— Diannaa (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I believe I understand what I did wrong now. So perhaps if I add my own interpretation of what the article says it will suffice? Michael4092 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Feel free, just make sure it's all in your own words; your original edit was partially paraphrased, but some of the sentences were identical. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
question
hi Dianna, I saw what you wrote to me on me edit in Social network (User talk:Zvi grossnass) I work for professor shlomo havlin - one of the authors. what can I do to keep the edition to the article? (User talk:Zvi grossnass)
Hi Diannaa! I would like to know if I can access my version of the wiki which was reversed I think, and I can't click on it. I would like to see my changes and work on them from your comments. Sadly now although I have your feedback, I don't have anything I can work on. The article lacks information, has broken links, and weird phrasing, which I unfortunately spent a lot of time on. Is there any way for me to view my verson?
Cheers, Nyoome (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Corrections such as broken links and phrasing were not altered, but I had to remove copyright material you copied from four different sources. We can't use any of that material, as it's against the copyright policy to do so. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words. I can send you the removed material via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first.— Diannaa (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Done— Diannaa (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ELN#Citation link question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
