Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80

Questionable editing by Isaacsorry

You have warned this editor last year about copyright violations and it appears they are still doing the same thing with these edits [1] [2] [3]. What do you think? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Almost all of the copied material in those three diffs is properly attributed quotations from reviews. I have done a little cleanup. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Isaacsorry has made another questionable edit, what do you think? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Cleaned. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
It's look like they doing the same again [4]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed; final warning issued.— Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for reviewing edits and sharing additional useful resources with me. I am improving my editing skills and your guidance means a lot. Keep Sharing, Keep Inspiring! :) AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Thanks so much for your feedback on Iris Bell's page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Missed revisions at Jehan Adam

Hi, sorry, but five edits by Dank YT needed revision deletion at Jehan Adam, and you deleted only one of them. Largoplazo (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up, clearly I'm not very savvy at making new pages. I've made some amendments and restored a little bit of the deleted material. Could you have a quick look to check if I have paraphrased it suitably? Hanjaf1 (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The current version does not appear to have any copyright issues.— Diannaa (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A Question: I'm utterly confused about 1RR

Is one revert, of say, 6 recent separate edits, or 15 separate recent edits, well within the policy dictates? I recently spent two hours, painstakingly trying to restore some semblance of a neutral, encyclopedic tone, to the article, stating my justifications in the edit summaries and citing the specific WP:BLP I was attempting to adhere to. But I was blanked not once, but twice. Not a single contribution of mine stands.

So as long as you delete all of someone's work in one fowl swoop, it's still 1RR?

And this is for a BLP? So all the ludicrous sources and the dubious accusations, labeling.. I mean, it's essentially a giant attack page. If that's what 1RR entails, that poor article is gonna be an embarrassment to us all for years to come.... 😞 TomReagan90 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, article is he BLP on Andy Ngo btw. TomReagan90 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't work in this area, so I'm the wrong person to ask.

Copyvio at Amoebic liver abscess

Hi Diannaa, according to Earwig's copyvio this edit added in this section has a very high suspected violation.Thanks and regards CV9933 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

political censorship Jagmeet Singh

This isn't violate copyright. I changed wording from the sources cited. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Cladeal832, Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. The rest I found manually by inspecting your edits and comparing with the sources.— Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with you on some of removals especially the context and additional information for a political leader. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a violation of our copyright policy to copy text unaltered from your sources. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please.— Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I think some of your bot's findings were just quotes from the politician. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The bot didn't highlight any quotes, and I didn't remove any quotes.— Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Well can't even see what you or your bot believed to copied and then removed anyhow.Cladeal832 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. That's what you copied from the CBC. From Global News, I removed the paragraph that begins "Singh also called on the federal government to scrap..." There was also a smaller violation from The Star, which I didn't remove, but re-worded instead. The topic was electric car charging stations.— Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
And I didn't add the part about electric cars nor the carding news article. I looked at your bot's report, but just get an error message The revision ID couldn't be found: 1031718241 Cladeal832 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
It's true that the content from The Star and Global News was there when you arrived. Sorry the iThenticate link is not working for you.
Here is your addition:

Singh also refused to denounce extremists within Canada's Sikh community who glorify Parmar as a martyr. On March 18, 2018, a day after a 2015 appearance by Singh at a Khalistan "sovereignty" rally ignited criticism, Singh reversed his position and agreed the inquiry's findings are not in doubt and he accepts that Sikh extremists were behind the attack.

Source says:

In an interview with CBC's Terry Milewski last October, Singh refused to denounce extremists within Canada's Sikh community who glorify Parmar's memory. A day after a 2015 appearance by Singh at a Khalistan "sovereignty" rally ignited criticism, the NDP leader said the inquiry's findings are not in doubt and he accepts that Sikh extremists were behind the attack.

Overlapping content is highlighted in bold.— Diannaa (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Lahore bombing

I do not understand why this User:Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty deletes these categories. Cerberon-900 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Lahore_bombing&type=revision&diff=1031474830&oldid=1031473410

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Lahore_bombing&type=revision&diff=1031964366&oldid=1031946147

  • Category:2021 murders in Pakistan
  • Category:2020s in Lahore
  • Category:21st-century mass murder in Pakistan
  • Category:Attacks on buildings and structures in 2021
  • Category:Attacks on buildings and structures in Lahore
  • Category:June 2021 crimes
  • Category:Mass murder in 2021
  • Category:Mass murder in Lahore
Maybe you should ask them.— Diannaa (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Eagle Foothills AVA

Hi, Diannaa! I'm concerned about this draft, which to me seems like it has a too-big chunk of copyvio from another website [5]. The edit that inserted it is this one, which basically is the edit that created the draft from a copy of a similar article. Do you think this is enough copyvio that it needs to be completely deleted, or is this something the editor can go in and paraphrase now? Thanks for any advice. —valereee (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor can't work on the draft, because they are blocked. They are not showing sufficient familiarity with our copyright policy to be unblocked at this time either. So I have cleaned the draft.— Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —valereee (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Public domain question

Hi Diannaa - hopefully a quick one - if an editor creates a page that is almost entirely copied from a USGS website (and so in the public domain), what's the best way for the source to be attributed? Thanks in advance Girth Summit (blether) 11:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Add {{PD-notice}} as part of the citation.— Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

On Emilio Sommariva

I reviewed the comments entered on his entry, and none represented a full sentence. All appear to have been referenced to a source. The closest to being a copy of a full sentence I could find is the one below, where the library entry states:

It includes 2,814 prints of different techniques and subjects and in several formats, and about 50,000 negatives mostly on glass, as well as ten manuscripts, mostly inventory and address books, and other documents.

And I state: The collection includes 2,814 prints and about 50,000 negatives mostly on glass, as well as ten manuscripts, mostly inventory and address books, and other documents.

You can argue whether this is true plagiarism, this is definitely a controversial point. I think you would be best to focus on non-referenced statements that include particular adjective, noun, verb combinations, and specifically those that are not trivial list of facts. I did not find your comment helpful.Rococo1700 (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rococo1700. Whitle it's true that list-like material need not be paraphrased, there was more copying beyond that. Please check Earwig's tool, which highlights the overlap. — Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

All of which had citations, none of which represented a full sentence. Again, much of which were item lists. Plagiarism definitions often include that the copied material needs to compose an idea. You need to look this up. If there is a source that claims that a car has 8 cylinders, and I use the phrase 8 cylinders, this is not what plagiarism is intended to note, and specially when it is referenced to the source, which it was. We disagree. I urge you to review definitions of plagiarism. Rococo1700 (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

There's an entire paragraph copied: In 1938, after his refusal to enrol in the fascist party, his patent of photographer is withdrawed. In the last air raid over Milan, in 1943, Sommariva loses his house and study, but the most of the original prints and plates are spared. That is not a list. So I have to disagree with you as to whether or not unattributed copying took place. I think it did, so sorry.— Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for letting me know about the copyright issues for Lee Goldman. I actually wrote his bio on Columbia's page, and our copy is useable under creative commons. Is it possible to restore the edit? Do I have to show any documentation? Thanks for your help! --Scidonymous (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a Creative Commons license. The page is marked as "© 2021 Columbia University". And some content was copied from Seilevel, and that page is marked as "© Seilevel, Inc. 2019, All Rights Are Reserved." So no, I won't be able to restore the text. If the copyright holders both wish to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Requesting copyright permission for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.— Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the clarification Diannaa, I will follow up! Scidonymous (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

My bad

Hi Diannaa, I was unsure on how to use invisible commenting and I accidentally triggered ClueBot for alleged vandalism. Please know that I am very new to this site, and I was not intending to vandalize in any way.

AdAstra77 (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)AdAstra77

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for fixing Mahadevi article. MRRaja001 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

CopyPatrol question

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T286383

Hi Diannaa. Small Farmers’ Agribusiness Consortium was flagged in CopyPatrol as a potential copyright violation, but was draftified before anyone dealt with it (now at Draft:Small Farmers’ Agribusiness Consortium). The cross-namespace redirect from mainspace was deleted, so the Community Tech bot marked the report as resolved [6]. However, the original text remains in draftspace and was not re-logged in CopyPatrol, presumably because there was no new text added, just a page move. Do you think this is a frequently occurring issue needing examination from the bot side of things? Has this been brought up before? DanCherek (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a new problem, since the ability to draftify without leaving a redirect is fairly new for non-admins. I don't know how many cases are slipping through unchecked this way. I have opened a new ticket, phab:T286383 so the techs can have a look. Thanks for the great suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) - In doing NPP, if I come across an article which meets the WP:DRAFTIFY requirements, but has a copyvio issue, I do one of two things. Either I remove the copyvio and place a revdel tag on it prior to moving it to draft, or if the copyvio issue is more complicated, I add the {{Non-free}} tag, and move it draft. Although that second option is much more rare. If I do add that tag, I usually leave it in mainspace, unreviewed. Perhaps a not on the NPP Reviewers talk page might help. Onel5969 TT me 17:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@GPL93: please have a look at the above discussion. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I found two chunks of copied text from two different websites. One of it is straightforward given that it is from a newspaper website. The other website has an unclear copyright status per their terms of use page. Would like you to step in and check if the second chunk of text needs to be redacted as well. – robertsky (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like the copyright statement is referring to the copyright status of their online digitized items. I think we have to assume that their own prose describing the collection or its creator enjoys copyright protection.— Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Asterix & Obelix: The Middle Kingdom

Hi there. Could you take a look at this discussion please? Another admin took a look at it, prior to my comments, but I'm utterly confused by this one. As always, thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Commented there. Sorry for the delay,— Diannaa (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa, lol. No worries, didn't have you on the clock or anything. Thanks again. Onel5969 TT me 22:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
An entire six hours! Escándalo!— Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa, thanks for making a comment on the Talk Page of Asterix and the Middle Kingdom. Unfortunately, it doesn't clear up why the above editor, onel5969, put a message on my talk page that basically accuses me of "unambiguous copyright infringement". It seems that onel5969 made that assertion because they found the Asterix page has some mirrors. This is what puzzles me. The Asterix page is not the page in question. I didn't create the Asterix page. The page which onel5969 labeled as "appears to be unambiguous copyright infringement" is Asterix & Obelix: The Middle Kingdom (which I created over a year ago). Is it possible for anyone to explain: Why does an approved page get hit with a tag for Nomination for Speedy Deletion, based on an editor's copyright violation check (using automated software) of a completely different page? It's not a "false positive" if the editor (posting the AfD tag) has not checked the page in question for copyright violation, but has instead checked a much older page, which is obviously mirrored elsewhere by scraper sites. Is there any way such a problem can be prevented in future? It's discouraging to me, as an editor of limited experience (only some 4,000 edits over 7+ years), to be informed that a completely original and fully referenced page seems to be "unambiguous copyright infringement" because of a seemingly incompetent check for copyright violations. I realize I'm probably being "too sensitive" in expecting a logical explanation, let alone an apology, from the editor who made the false assertion (a different editor, unsigned, did leave a short message on my Talk Page informing me of the removal of the tag). But I feel that it's important to improve the professionalism of copyright violation checks, as nominating original pages for AfD is unlikely to encourage new contributors to stick around. SiberianCat (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I see from the discussion at Talk:Asterix & Obelix: The Middle Kingdom that the link he was offered at New Page Patrol removed most of the title of your article, and instead did a copyright search on Asterix. He unfortunately did not realize the mistake until quite a bit later.
Competence is required, but not perfection. Mistakes happen; we all make mistakes sometimes. I am sorry this happened to you.— Diannaa (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa, thanks for clearing that up! That's all I needed, a clear, simple explanation of why I was basically accused (through a message posted on my Talk Page) of plagiarism. Editor onel5969 made a mistake, then didn't acknowledge or explain the mistake to me on my Talk Page, but instead posted messages elsewhere that "it's pretty wild" and "I'm utterly confused". A little empathy goes a very long way in building goodwill. I don't know if there's any etiquette protocol at Wikipedia, but when mistakes are made, it's helpful if the person responsible clearly acknowledges their error (I was left feeling perplexed - wondering why someone would accuse me of copyright violation and then not offer me any rational explanation - instead I was faced with a discussion about an entirely different page being mirrored). OK, that's enough petulant whining from me. I hope you'll be inspired to view Asterix & Obelix: The Middle Kingdom when it eventually hits cinemas/streaming services. Thanks again. SiberianCat (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

After checking "The Encyclopedia of Money", by Larry Allen, page 188, it is clear that the majority of the article Great Bullion Famine has been copied directly from this source.

Not sure what needs to be done at this point. I will leave it in your hands. -- (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear: It doesn't seem particularly clear-cut to me; I am not finding any hits on spot-checks, but it is quite closely paraphrased. So I am listing it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 July 10. Thanks for the tip— Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
OK. Well, I was going to do a re-write and when I checked the Allen source it sounded terribly familiar to the article. Thanks Diannaa!--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome to do a re-write if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

History of the University of Mississippi

So how to handle this. The copyvio report shows two major copyvios, however, the one is an obvious mirror, probably from James Meredith, the second probably from the university page itself. Should I just do a slight change, and put the attribution in edit summary? Leave a message on the editor's page? As always, your expertise is appreciated. Onel5969 TT me 14:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added the required attribution. I already left a message on the user's talk page back in January: Diff of User talk:HAL333 and he immediately removed it, so I don't see the point of reminding him again.— Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa, thanks. Will do that myself in the future. Onel5969 TT me 23:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

ZPAQ

Regarding the updates to the history section. I find that the github project [7] has a public domain licence. If I pull the tags [8] they reproduce the text from [9]. Can the tags be considered public domain? Does the public domain grant include the metadata that comes with the source??? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yours sincerely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.190.237.238 (talk • contribs)

The Github webpage shows a copyright status of "© 2021 GitHub, Inc." I found it at http://www.mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq, which does not have a copyright statement. 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. Have a look at some of the links I placed on your talk page for more info.— Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response.

https://github.com/zpaq/zpaq/blob/master/COPYING This is an explicit public domain grant. GitHub, Inc is a hosting provider. GitHub, Inc cannot override the licence of individual projects.

I do understand your point, but I don't agree with it. GitHub cannot override the license of the original document, which lives at http://www.mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq, which does not have a copyright statement. Under current copyright law, literary works enjoy copyright protection they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So we have to consider the page to be copyright unless proven otherwise. — Diannaa (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please explain in more detail why you think the following sentence on tipping points in the climate system is a breach of copyright... Yaklib (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This occurs when a particular parameter in the climate, which is observed to be consistently moving in a given direction over a period of time, eventually passes through a critical level - at which point a dangerous bifurcation, or fork takes place - and what was a stable state loses its stability or simply disappears.[1]

I don't believe that is a copyright violation. In fact that sentence is still in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tipping Phenomena And Points Of No Return In Ecosystems: Beyond Classical Bifurcations, 22 November 2020.

Wiki: Ingush People

Diannaa, Ingush people page has message "It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template". I wrote researched information for both Chechnya and Ingushetia. I copied a small portion of my own researches from Ingushetia page and added much more information which was not published before on history and anthropology section of Ingush people. I did research on Ingush people for over 30 years. Please do not let Ingush People to be vandalized by known nationalist. Sincerely, Kavkas (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Raad Shakir

Hi. I review articles at AFC. My social anxiety may have got the best of me, and I may have accepted an article too early. The article is Raad Shakir. I removed some obvious copyright violations, but I am not sure if there is too much close paraphrasing. What are your thoughts on this? Also, people were worried about it possibly being promotional, but I am no longer seeing it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you could tell me what I am supposed to be comparing it with, as Earwig's tool finds nothing untoward. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
If your interpretation is that Earwig found nothing unusual, then I guess that means I did my job in removing the copyvios from previous revisions. Using Earwig for an older revision might be good, but it is probably good anyway. Also, you removed some copyvios yoursef. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Rev del request

Hi Diannaa
I'm approaching you because you are on the list of Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and recently active - could you please rev-del the penultimate edit at Chris McPhee - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. I have contacted the oversight team as well. Thank you for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Message from User:Divine Connector

Hey Diannaa, thank you for the feedback on my contributions on umngqusho and for editing, I've made some amendments and rewrote a little bit of the deleted material using the correct copywrite guidelines . Could you have a quick look to check if I have paraphrased it suitably? Divine Connector (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Somebody has removed it for reasons other than copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Comfort Women

Hi. I'm no copyright expert but I've undone one of your removals citing a different source. See here. Please correct this if it needs correcting. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but CC BY-NC 4.0 license is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does.— Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The citation supports an assertion in a Wikipedia article saying, "Yoshiaki Yoshimi notes that more than half of Taiwanese comfort women were minors." The work which you say cannot be cited is the work in which the asserted claim was made. Nothing from the work is quoted in the article. Color me confused. Are you saying that works which are published under licenses which do not allow commercial use are not allowed to be cited in Wikipedia articles? If not, can you unconfuse me re this? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The content I removed says "A telegram sent on March 12, 1942, requested for 50 Taiwanese women to be sent to Borneo, and a later telegram requested for an additional 20 Taiwanese women because the original 50 women were overworked and exhausted." I did not remove the sentence "Yoshiaki Yoshimi notes that more than half of Taiwanese comfort women were minors"; in fact it's still present in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I see; most of that was copied directly from that source which restricts commercial republication. I was the source of my own confusion. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Need guidance

Hi Diannaa, I'm consulting you for guidance here. I intend to begin work on the article about Juan de Miralles, who has an article on Spanish WP but not on the English wiki. The Spanish article is little more than a stub that with translation whose present article would supply a starting point. I've found an excellent article with a lot of well-written information about him on a blog, the content of which is issued with the Default Creative Commons Public License (Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0). The author is identified only as "D. Sylva". I know that WP uses the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license.

I understand that the blog is not a reliable source and cannot be cited for a WP article. Sylva's article, however, is well-sourced with 43 reliable sources, some of them in Spanish which I can translate for relevant passages. I would like to adapt his work, using paraphrase and following his basic structure, with some condensation. I would add a note, attributing his authorship, on the article page and its talk page. How should I proceed? Carlstak (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The blog is not a reliable source. You would have to check each passage and verify that Sylva's citations actually support the prose. If so, and you wish to use/adapt some of their prose, attribution is required. This can be done by using the template {{CC-notice}}, or by adding the attribution manually, similar to what I did here.— Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Diannaa. I did say that I knew the blog was an unreliable source, and I always check given sources for verification. He has 43 sources that look good so far. And thank you for directing me to the template, which I will certainly use if I use/adapt his work, which may not be necessary, now that I've found the source that I think Sylva got most of his info from. That template will more than likely come in handy for future work I intend to do on other articles. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

PARC Management

Hey, any chance you can take a look at this article? A few years ago I removed what appeared to be a blatant copyvio from the company's website. It seems that material may have creeped back in, and there may need to be some revdel performed. oknazevad (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Have a break, please!)

 A cup of coffee for you!
Nothing warms the heart like the thoughtful and delicious gift of coffee. You deserve a coffee break. Thanks for your tireless efforts, professionalism, and the care you take with us, Wikipedians, to make sure all is seamless! :) --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 05:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Vakki

Hi Dianaa I came across this article at NPP. Earwig shows much of it as a copyvio of this but the problematic material is basically just a listing of exhibitions and I’m not sure how it would be possible to list exhibitions by name without committing a copyvio. Hopefully you can advise on the best course of action. Many thanks Mccapra (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a chronological list, and a false positive. No copyright issue.— Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Great thanks very much. Mccapra (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Joel C. Sercel

Could you please take a look at the history of this draft? Take a look also at the Talk page and the discussion at User talk:Ipigott (multiple sections in a row) for more background. I believe what happened is that the initial iterations of the article included copyright infringement, which Ipigott helped the author eliminate. I'm not sure if all of it has been eliminated, but even if the entire draft doesn't require deletion per WP:G12, I would think that at a minimum rev/deletions are in order. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done some more cleanup and the required revision deletion. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi Diannaa, thanks for fixing that text the other day. I have just come across a CC licence new to me, and can't seem to find any guidance on it. Is this one that is allowed on Wikipedia? Attribution 3.0 IGO (CC BY 3.0 IGO)? It looks identical to the basic 3.0 as far as I can see, so I don't know why it is further defined - or am I missing something? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a list of compatible licenses here. It says "CC BY, all versions and ports, up to and including 4.0" so CC BY 3.0 IGO is compatible. You might also see things like CC BY 3.0 AU (Australia), CC BY 3.0 ES (Spain), etc. I don't know why they do this - they all seem quite the same.— Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that. Yes, it does seem like a rather unnecessary complication. Perhaps there's a legal implication if/when a country's law changes or something like that? Anyway - another useful one to add to my bookmarks! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

re mission statement

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for the concerns you raised on the Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology page. I feel it should give some indication of the scope of the journal. Do you think this would be an acceptable wording:

Its stated intention is "to indicate to the physicist the great variety of unsolved problems awaiting attention in biology and medicine...[and to present]... novel approaches to studying and influencing structural and functional properties of the living organism."

Thanks DaveApter (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The essay says "Mission statements rarely tell us much and should generally not be transcribed in full in Wikipedia articles." Re-wording it doesn't change much. We're generally not interested in reproducing what a company has to say about itself, but rather what independent reliable sources have to say.— Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. When I have a moment, I will look around for a brief descriptive note about the journal in a suitable RS. I'm sure that will not be too difficult. DaveApter (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Parwan Detention Facility copyvio

Hi, I see that you do copyvio stuff. Parwan Detention Facility has much of its content copy pasted from https://web.archive.org/web/20150324191653/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/world/asia/parwan-prison-at-bagram-transferred-to-afghans-at-least-formally.html. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19544118 https://web.archive.org/web/20190403165300/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/world/asia/us-will-hold-part-of-afghan-prison-after-handover.html https://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/10/world/asia/afghanistan-bagram-prison-transfer/index.html and possibly other sources Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for reporting,— Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. You left a message on my talk page on July 21, 2021 regarding the Parwan Detention Facility. In your message you stated: "I have cleaned the article, and I have done some revision deletion in your sandbox as well. Please let me know if you have any questions." My question is wether the revision deletion you mentioned is documented somewhere because I can't find it in the history of my talk page. Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Text from USDA proceedings

Hi Diannaa, I have a quick question: Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area incorporates text from https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/21886, which indicates that it is PD because it was written by U.S. Government employees. However, the author actually works for the Tasmanian government. Do you think this is one of those situations where they agreed to release their work into the public domain when they submitted it? Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

A good question. The statement "This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain" leads me to believe that it is indeed public domain. That's because this page states that "Some materials on the USDA Web site are protected by copyright, trademark, or patent, and/or are provided for personal use only. Such materials are used by USDA with permission, and USDA has made every attempt to identify and clearly label them." So we have to assume since they have not identified the document as copyright, that it is indeed PD.— Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Text for Coronation Island

Specifically what text do you believe is in violation of copyright? sbelknap (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please have a look at this comparison, where the overlapping text is highlighted. You removed some of it yourself, and I removed the rest in a subsequent edit.— Diannaa (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. I had read in detail your guidelines on Wikipedia and Copyright and thank your efforts for highlighting the policies in detail. It has been my efforts always to follow these guidelines while editing any article to present them in neutral and independent point of view and different from the references while not disturbing the opinion.

  • As I prefer independent writing I would never prefer to copy or translate any information from the source but in case such event comes than I will follow the guidelines given by you putting as a direct quotation with double quotation(") marks in addition to citing the source with inline citation. Will have a refresher learning session from links provided by you in this regard.
  • The paraphrasing is done by me after giving lot of thought for any article while edit. Every edit is made to avoid copyright problems and following the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Also observe each article to see that it is not original research.
  • Have never used the copyrighted images and in case I have to use in future will surely follow the guidelines and see that the fairly used images will follow the wikipedia guidelines for the criteria.Will go through them again to have a fair reminder of the policies.
  • Currently dont have the privilege of owning the copyright of any source. However understanding wiki policies on donating copyrighted materials will be helpful for future.
  • Never involved myself in copying or translating any of Wikipedia articles. However will go through the guidelines for Copying and translation for understanding wiki policies in this regard.

I appreciate your time and efforts for highlighting the above guidelines as refresher and will be thankful if you have any particular edit of mine in your knowledge not following any of the above guidance.Gardenkur (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way I can have all my post removed?

I mean all of them... I got into a bit of a tiff with some posters and well, it didn't go smoothly.

I only have a few things up and I would love to have them all and I mean all removed. I don't want to be involved with Wikipedia any longer. I would really appreciate it if you could. Let me know. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not going to happen.— Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I know why? I heard you can ask to have post removed. According to others, my post are not correct, so why keep them up? I want to leave Wiki all together and I would like my post removed cause they are helping no one and no one is interested in them. So just a bit of clarification instead of "that's not going to happen." I just looked this up and it states "only administrators can delete them." So that means you can... but won't? Just help me understand why. Thanks (Sorry, I'm not the best at typing) Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  1. We don't remove talk page posts that have already been replied to. Removing your replies to other people's posts is not something we typically do either, even if no one has yet replied. So that's why we can't remove your talk page posts. It looks like your recent additions to articles have already been removed for various reasons.
  2. Stripping out other people's posts along with your own, like you did at Talk:Three tramps and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is disruptive and inappropriate.
  3. Any content you add here is released under license. In some respects that means that you give up some control over what happens to it.
  4. Removing your posts and deleting them are two different things. Anyone can remove content, but only admins can delete. Please see the revision deletion policy to find out more about the types of things administrators are allowed to delete. Deleting a user's posts on their say-so is not on the list of things we are allowed to do.
  5. If you want to leave Wikipedia, just go already. I see you are blocked, so this is a good opportunity for you to walk away and not edit Wikipedia any more.— Diannaa (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Help re Doping in China

(Redacted)

Hi. You have deleted the text above. Because of copyright. I am not familiar with the rules. Can you help me? Rewrite this text in a way that suits Wikipedia and leave me a message to add to the article. English is not my mother tongue. For the first time, help me to do it myself next time. Is there a site that can change the English text for Wikipedia (automatically) that is, leave the synonyms for us. Thank you and appreciate you. --CemasoV (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the copyright material from my talk page; it's not appropriate to add it here. Using machine translations is not a good way to create content to add to Wikipedia either. Showing you how to re-write this one edit is not going to give you the skills to write content for Wikipedia, especially if English is not your first language. My suggestions: 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. Select the parts of the text that you feel are most important to cover, and leave out the less important details. 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) 17:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Swansea

Diannaa (talk) Can I ask Why you Removed Something that the Church Provided to the Local Council that would make us the Church hold the original Copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrydatRealterryo (talk • contribs)

Please follow the links place on your talk page that have information regarding Wikipedia's copyright policies. In short, we don't accept copyrighted content, period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ingush people

Dianna could you please evaluate the behavior of the following Chechen User:Reiner Gavriel who trashes the "Ingush People" page. He registered 07 June 2020, didn't contribute much to Wikipedia. He threatens and falsely accuses me. I did research on Ingush for over 30 years and provided only referenced academic sources from the USA, Germany, England, Scotland, Russia etc. Here his latest false accusation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kavkas#Form_of_nationalist_disruptive_editing_on_Ingush_people_and_Ingushetia Brief description of the problem: Ingush are a minority of Russia, Ingushetia is the smallest state in Russia the result of ethnic cleansings, multiple landgrabs, and exiles of the Ingush people. As demonstrated by 1944 genocide, recent 1992 war over Prigorodny and the 2018 land swap deal with Chechnya, both North Ossetia and Chechnya seek to further carve up Ingushetia between the two republics, with backing from the Russian federal government. In contemporary times, both Chechnya and North Ossetia try to bolster their claims to Ingushetia through cultural and historical erasure in their educational materials, along with other forms of propaganda.Kavkas (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from throwing such accusations against me while trying to make me look like as if I have any political or ethnical intentions. Your account was registered in 2013 and your edit count doesn't surpass mine by a lot. You have vandalised, like several sockpuppets before, the Ingush people article with dubious claims, backed up by dubious sources. For example, >under the pretext of defense of lowland Ingush people from vassal Chechen, Kabardin, Dagestan and Nogai attacks, which were orchestrated by Russia< and >After multiple losses of Imam Shamil at the end of Caucasian War, Russians and Chechens unify their forces<. Also, your edits are either not sourced or only poorly sourced. You also contradict yourself constantly, >Vakhushti of Kartli wrote in 1745, that the inhabitants of the village Angushti were Sunni Muslims.< - >(1810) The rest of Ingush highland clans one by one joined Russia next decades. Religion-wise Ingushetia mostly pagan with Christian and Muslim minorities.<. You have vandalised the article with what looks to me like an attempt of nationalist editing. The article has been attacked by sockpuppets with the exact same information prior. I have kindly asked you to revert the article back to it's last non-vandalised state. I will have to report you for vandalism. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear vandalizer. You claim you have no knowledge of Russian language yet you put false quotes from Yakovlev's book "Ingusi", you falsely claim that Russian scientist Krupnov was talking about Vainakh architecture yet in Russian he was talking about Ingush architecture in his book "Middleage Ingushetia". I am a fluent Russian speaker and I've read both books. Now, you also added the phallic picture which has no relation to the current Ingush religion. Only Chechen nationalists use it to accuse Muslim Ingush or worshiping the phallic statue. I've done the research on both Chechen and Ingush, edited both of the pages. Calm down. You hatred toward the Ingush people is obvious.Kavkas (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. These edits do not appear to be vandalism but rather a content dispute. The first thing that should happen is a discussion on the article talk pages. If that doesn't result in a resolution, please try one of the dispute resolution methods mentioned at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please don't insult each other or make personal attacks either. That's not allowed.— Diannaa (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Message from 77.232.123.210

  • I don't understand why Dianaa delete my edit in the yemen citizens Visa requirements after making all these efforts helping Yemeni fellows! Kindly do not delete anything this is vandalism!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.123.210 (talk • contribs)
    • Your additions were removed because the text was copied from copyright documents already published elsewhere online. That's a violation of our copyright policy. Please see your user talk page for more information.— Diannaa (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Rev delete (maybe)

Hi, these revisions appear to be copied from this fandom page, the fandom page is CC-BY-SA, although the editor didn't credit the fandom page, and the edit have since been reverted (by me). Is a revision deletion justified here, or is it alright to leave the page as is? (earwig) Justiyaya 13:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Since Fandom is compatibly licensed, I don't typically do revision deletion. Removal of unsourced fanpage stuff is always a good idea though.— Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Louis-Eugène Cavaignac

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a moderate probability of potential copyright content in the Louis-Eugène Cavaignac, which appears to have been posted around July 10, 2021. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Listing at WP:CP.— Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note re Doping in China

Systematic doping of Chinese athletes in Olympic Games (and other international sport events) revealed by Xue Yinxian in 2012 and 2017. He has claimed more than 10,000 athletes in China were doped in the systematic Chinese government doping program and they received performance enhancing drugs in the 1980s and 1990s. He stated whole of international medals (Both in the Olympics and other international competitions) that won by Chinese athletes in 1980s and 1990s (1980 to 2000) must be taken back. This is contrary to previous statements by the Chinese government that had denied involvement in systematic doping because they are claiming that athletes doped individually. The International Olympic Committee and World Anti-Doping Agency investigating about these allegations.[1][2][3][4][5]

Hi. I tried to change the text and words as much as possible to comply with Wikipedia rules. Take another look at the text and help me if you can. This is my first attempt at writing and editing text. So please edit the text for me to find out exactly where the problem is. If have a spelling and grammar problem, correct it. Thanks--CemasoV (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The proposed versions is not okay, because it presents the same ideas in the same order as the source using identical or almost identical wording.
A second problem unrelated to copyright: we don't link common words (systematic, doping, medals, etc) and we don't link years. Terms should only be linked on first occurence.— Diannaa (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.dw.com/en/systematic-doping-of-chinese-athletes-in-olympic-games-revealed-by-former-doctor/a-41065227
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/oct/23/wada-china-doping-allegations-xue-yinxian
  3. ^ https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1073710/china-to-make-doping-a-criminal-offencechina-to-make-doping-a-criminal-offence-and-warns-athletes-who-test-positive-could-be-sent-to-prison
  4. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-doping-china-idUSKBN1CT09Y
  5. ^ https://www.si.com/olympics/2017/10/24/chinese-doping-scandal-1980s-1990s-ard-broadcast

July 2021 Thermal comfort

Hi, I have received a message from you about my contribution to the Thermal Comfort page. I am new here and I hope I am writing in the correct place. I also apologize in advance for not exactly understanding which sections you are referring to, but I find this system very confusing. However, I just would like to clarify that the great majority of the ASHRAE 55 Standard was written by researchers like me who contribute and edit the body of the Standard. For example, the ankle draft equation is an equation available in the public domain. You can use this link to access the original research paper in which the equation was published. ASHRAE does not own the right to solely use that specific equation. On the other hand, they are using an equation in their standard that is in the public domain. The same is true for most of the equations that are in the ASHRAE and many other Standards. Moreover, I was under the impression that if the original source is correctly cited it is okay to use some material from books or Standard as it is normally done in research papers. I would really appreciate it if you could help me better understand what was wrong. I am happy to share with you the relevant papers with you in which you can find the source code I added to the Thermal Comfort page. Tarta88 (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but our copyright rules do not allow us to copy text from copyright source documents. We don't have an exception for research papers; they enjoy the same protection under copyright law as books or websites or other sources, unless they are specifically released under a compatible license. The article you point to was first published in IndoorAir in December 2016 and is protected by copyright. All the content will be copyright, including formulas.— Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, sorry but I believe that your conclusions are incorrect. See, for example, the Elsevier guidelines stating that Authors can share their preprint anywhere at any time. The same, consequently, is true for the article I mentioned in my previous message entitled: Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied with Ankle Draft. The authors, for this reason, they could publish their pre-print manuscript on eScholarhip - Open Access Publications from the University of California. The authors have the right to share those equations publically. Please also read this webpage Elsevier - when permission is not required. They state that material can be freely used when authors released their work into the public domain. Hence, in this specific case, the ankle draft equation can be shown in Wikipedia. Moreover, equations can be used in public documents, articles, or Wikipedia pages even if previously published as long as they are cited appropriately. I am sure that Wikipedia shows the equation E = mc2 despite the fact that this equation was published in a scientific paper. As long as the equation is referenced correctly people should be able to use it somewhere else. It is not that the journal now owns the equations that rule our universe. Diannaa could you please revert the changes you made? Tarta88 (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC) I am also copying one of the authors of the paper in this discussion Stefano
Einstein's 1905 work is certainly in the public domain due to its age. Regarding the paper you copied, the author may have been granted the right to share his/her work, but that does not place the material in the public domain, and does not change its copyright status. Don't confuse "open access" with "public domain"; "open access" only means that we do not have to buy access to the work. So no, I don't believe I am wrong. — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, have a look here... ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that yesterday. I was pinged. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Quotation restoration

Hello Diannaa, I restored the quotation that you had deleted. This quote directly supports the text and citation. A quote from the source helps readers more quickly verify the text on the page without having to click the link(s). The citation tool has many options, including the ability add a quote. I understand removing or changing a quote that is not related to the cited text, however this quotation was directly supportive.[10] --Ooligan (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Adherence to our non-free content rules is more important than speed or convenience. The source is readily available, so the quotation is not needed in my opinion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

James Hanley (novelist)

Diannaa, an image has been recently added to James Hanley (novelist). This is claimed to be freely available for use because Hanley died in 1947. This is incorrect, because he died in 1985. I did not know how to handle this! Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The artist who created the painting is Sydney Earnshaw Greenwood, who died in 1947. The date of the subject of the painting is irrelevant.— Diannaa (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You recently warned me for copyright infringement. Can you please elaborate on this? I edited a page with words, I'm unsure what could possibly be copyrighted. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The content you added appears to have been copied from https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/christie-affair, which is not compatibly licensed.— Diannaa (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't realise that infringed copyright. Thank you for telling me. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

How should a Lead Paragraph portray a Historical Site?

Diannaa, you have worked tirelessly and commendably to "bring-up-to-par" several of the more difficult and conflict-ridden articles here, on Wikipedia. An Administrator recently wrote to me: "Every conflict in the world is a conflict on Wikipedia." And who more than you knows that this makes our work here all the more difficult, considering the range of diverse opinions and, especially, when there are different "ideological forces" at play and neither side is willing to yield. So be it. We can at least mention "the mainstream way of interpreting the lot," as well as mention "the other particular interpretations," so long as we give due weight to the mainstream view. And, in cases where the mainstream view is undecided or divided, we can give equal weight to both. My question to you is what do we do with a historical site such as the City of David. Should the lead paragraph jump right into the conflicting views, or should it, first and foremost, give a general overview of the historical nature/aspect of the site, and only later (in the subsequent sections of the page) treat on the site's different meanings to different folks? Perhaps you have a solution that will be agreeable to us all, for as it is now, some of the editors here are discouraged, as you can see by the exchange here: User talk:Arminden#Your contributions. Thanking you in advance for any help and advice.Davidbena (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section calls for the lead section to summarize the content of the article using 4 or 5 paragraphs. I haven't written leads for any places or historical sites, or delved into the world of Israel-Palestine topics, but the same manual of style applies to all articles. Right now the lead doesn't do that, it doesn't even begin to do that. Sorry I don't have the time or expertise to help any further.— Diannaa (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

PLMun Article

Hi Diannaa, this is from Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Muntinlupa, regarding the article of our institution posted in Wikipedia is there any way that we can send an accurate details of our institution or process that we can follow to correct the information posted on the page? Thank you.

You should post suggestions on the article talk page. Don't suggest that we allow you to copy text from the school website to Wikipedia; we're not allowed to host copyright content.— Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

SIEM Page

"Your additions to the above article include passages copied verbatim or nearly verbatim from a non-free source. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software. For copyright reasons, your contribution was deleted. Please review the Plagiarism and Copyright training module before proceeding further. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)"

NIST references are free for public use and distribution. Microsoft functionality such as logging functions to include a number and explanation are core functionality and is a matter of fact free for operational use - any interpretation removes any scientific rigor from the discussion and it is a function of computer science. This is also free for use and distribution from their website. Additionally, Linux and directories and files structures, again, are matter of fact, open source and free for distribution. The software may have picked up syntax that is 1:1 but it has no context to the actual subject or topic. Additionally, you have deleted completely original included in your scan. Please advise Diannaa. Jbuchanan 1 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to adjust the article, but do not know what direction to go in considering the nature of what was deleted including several paragraphs original work for computer functionality. Any help would be greatly appreciated Diannaa. Jbuchanan 1 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Jbuchanan 1— Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Harvard fixes

Thank you so much for cleaning up all my messes! I am trying to learn how to do Harvard style for multiple references by copying what I have seen elsewhere but clearly there is something I don't understand! I'll get it eventually! Thank you in the meantime, I sincerely appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777! When copying from one Wikipedia article to another, it's important to bring along a complete book/journal reference to go with your {{sfn}} templates (or other Harvard citation templates such as {{harvnb}}) to make the citation complete. Otherwise the wikilink generated by the sfn template does not point to a book in the bibliography. There's a script available that points out citation errors generated by this omission that highlights the errors in red. Please see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for the script that I use. If you need any help getting started with scripts, please let me know. Cheers, — Diannaa (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, when actually copying - not just observing and mimicking - I try to only copy from myself, if then, and since I don't normally use the harvard method, it wouldn't be there for me to directly copy. So I was adding that, and while I know it has to have a bibliography, and I did try to add those - apparently missing some - what I am actually unsure about is the sfn itself. Isn't it the same as the "name = ..." in the citation? You added in dates to fix the ones you fixed and I don't know why. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
It is not the same as naming a citation. It's a completely different system.
The source book/document has to be present in the article somewhere (preferably in a "sources" section but it can be elsewhere) and the source book/document has to be enclosed in a template (cite book, cite journal, cite web, etc). The date is mandatory in the sfn template if it is present in the template for the source book/document. (It's also possible to specify a different arrangement using the template {{sfnRef}}.) While some citations had missing dates and were therefore broken, In some articles, I removed the sfnRef specification from some sources and added dates to the sfn templates in order to make the citation style uniform throughout the article.
All authors need to be listed, and everything needs to be spelled correctly and formatted correctly or the sfn template will not create a clickable link down to the sources section. If you are using sfn templates, I recommend you read the how-to guide at Help:Shortened footnotes and it's best if you install the script too, so as to catch you own errors.— Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Bless you for your patience - and your help. I am still such a newbie in so many ways! I think I am getting the hang of it. I went through all the articles I attempted "sfn" on and tried to make sure of what you said here, and I think I got them all - at least there is no red left anywhere that I can see! I would be happy to install the script too - but I don't know what that is. Sorry - going now to read up on this. I sometimes find WP instructions hard to follow - as if written by programmers who don't quite think in the same way as the rest of us - that's a good thing of course, but sometimes makes it hard to follow them in English. Or maybe I'm just stupid... :-) Anyway, I am working on it and I appreciate your help. Maybe one of these days I will go back to Biblical Criticism and change out all the rps. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet another request

On July 20, an admin slapped {{copypaste|section}} at the Chandler Thornton article. Since then, no one has removed any infringing material and done the necessary rev/deletes. I found about this only because a new editor was trying to delete the section - and not for copyright reasons. As you know, I'm not good at this, so here I am imposing on you again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for fixing. I assume it was okay to remove the template from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes of course – I forgot to do that step. — Diannaa (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete

I allows you to delete the file a view of Encounter Marine Park— Preceding unsigned comment added by VNHRISHIKESH (talk • contribs)

The image will be deleted in a few days by an administrator on the Commons.— Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at this paid editing?

@Diannaa, Hi, not sure if it's something that you work on, can you take a look at this? Thanks. Tame (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What is it I am supposed to be looking for? I have no experience assessing drafts, if that's what you need. — Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Henfenfeld Castle Attribution

As you saw in Pfinzing Castle I copied from German Wikipedia and forgot to add attribution. I did the same thing with Henfenfeld Castle too. How can I add attribution to it? SiliconProphet (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Step 1: Make a small edit to the article, using an edit summary similar to this. Step 2 (optional): Add a template like this to the article talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Oddity

Hey Dianna, I got a post on my talk page about the Princeton, Texas page. Apparently I edited the page, which I had to check the history....it was in 2013. Anyway, the user who contacted me (User:Pinecar) is asking me (and many others) to get involved in a slow-speed revert-war. I'm not sure why they care about this lawsuit and I feel there might be some personal involvement there, because why would they be so keen on getting something from 2011 deleted if they weren't?

Regardless of that, the revert-war is concerning. Even more concerning is the user getting other users involved in it. I think this requires an admin's input, so I am bringing it to you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer. Sorry but I don't have the skill set to help deal with this matter.— Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Roger Wilco. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hiya! I just warned a good-faith user who has copied material directly from a British Museum large-print teaching PDF https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/Large%20print%20guide_Troy.pdf to the Heinrich Schliemann article. Sorry, forgot the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Schliemann&diff=prev&oldid=1036742203 All the best, Haploidavey (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have done the required revision deletion. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Al-Tabligh Verse

hello Diannaa ,Thanks for your tips and tricks,I'm a novice and try to do my edit better,I hope you help me in this

thank you kindly.

Greetings!

Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria

Greetings, Diannaa! Is there a way by which you can disclose the text of this revision to me? It will be very helpful as it would allow me to find free-sources for the removed material, and after copy-editing, I can add that to the article. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 09:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing what you use as a source does not make any difference from a copyright point of view. The prose has to be re-written in your own words. I can send you the deleted text via email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first.— Diannaa (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I've activated my email. Please send the text with the inline citations, or you can opt for sending the source of that complete revision. Thanks once again! Peter Ormond 💬 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Email sent. I see I removed copyright text copied from six different sources.— Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeated close paraphrasing

Hi, I've been noticing this user has been doing lots of close paraphrasing in multiple articles. Almost every one of their edits involves close paraphrasing. In addition, they were warned about it over a year ago here. The main pages I’m seeing this on are on 2019–2021 Sudanese protests, 2019–2021 Lebanese protests, 2019–2021 Iraqi protests, Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2020), and Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2021). Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If you could please provide me with some specific diffs where you believe close paraphrasing is an issue, I would be happy to examine them. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, I had no idea that the text came from that site, the information I got from the character came from Wikipedia itself. My edits were in good faith, I got the character information in her own article. This means that someone, before me, must have taken the text from that site and put it in her article. If I had noticed it before, I wouldn't even have put that text on the list. But overall, thanks, I'll pay more attention from now on. HealthKnight1993 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

HealthKnight1993, I have checked, and it looks like we had it first, and the other website copied from Wikipedia. Sorry for the mistake. You can help prevent this kind of mistake on my part by stating in your edit summary where you got the content when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another. In fact it's required by the terms of our license. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic.— Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yanceyville and Caswell County edits

Hi Diannaa, thank you so much for your input. I am heeding your advice. If there is any further issue just let me know. I will promptly correct it. Take care :) Peabodyb (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Saint John's Point, County Down

Hi Dianaa, I made a few alterations to Saint John's Point, County Down to stop the copyvio bells ringing but the user has since made new edits. Could you please check for me that it is OK now and strike out some of the edit history? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Better sourcing on section on Basal-cell carcinoma

Hi Diannaa, You requested better sourcing regarding the statement of BEC as natural treatment for BCCs. I would like to send you as well the approval of the European Health Authority for BEC / CuradermBCC as safe treatment for basal cell carcinoma on humans. And I have 9 more scientific papers (PDF), but they are not in internet. How can I send them to you?

I hereby attach some scientific studies and clinical trials that are in internet. https://www.curadermbcc.eu/single-blind-controled-clinical-trial-ak/ https://www.curadermbcc.eu/study-solasodine-glycoalkaloids/ https://www.curadermbcc.eu/study-nicotinamide-skin-cancer-prevention/

Looking forward to your response, kind regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernandez1978 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) states that we are not to cite medical information using primary sources (individual studies, clinical trials, and the like). We are to use secondary sources that summarize the current state of knowledge. These might include review articles in reputable journals or medical textbooks. Two sources you provided with your edit (here, here) are not any of these, so the proposal that BEC kills Basal-cell carcinoma cells has to stay out of the article unless such sourcing exists. The fact that all the sources you have provided so far are published by Curaderm BCC makes me wonder, do you work for them? If you do, you need to say so, as you have a conflict of interest. — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

ClemRutter

I see you blocked ClemRutter. Disappointing, but I guess you didn't have a choice. I offered him advice on how to avoid close paraphrasing. Feel free to correct me if you do not agree with it. This is how I personally write articles. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Scorpions13256. That's a good idea. I have added some more advice to make sure we have covered everything. Hopefully he will be recovered enough to post an unblock request soon.— Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. Honestly, your advice sounds a lot like another one of my approaches. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
One more thing. On his CCI, you appear to collapse sections that are not fully completed. Why? We normally don't do that unless they are all done. Is there something I am missing? Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a wee shortcut. All collapsed sections are completely finished. In the sections at the bottom of the page, where typically nothing is found, I only mark where I found something and make a notation in the collapse-bar such as "Clear except as noted". The tracking bot User:Amalthea/CCI/Overview knows that collapsed sections are finished, and it looks like Firefly's stats do so as well.— Diannaa (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

CreatorVRXAZ query

hey um can i talk to you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CreatorVRXAZ (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Photo of object

Dear Diannaa. Sorry to bother you. I would quite like to replace this photo with something better, but I seem to recall being told that photos of objects are not necessarily OK because the design of the object might be copyright. This was years and years ago, and apropos of the chewing gum art designs of Ben Wilson. I apologize for troubling you with this but my wibbly and confused attempts to find where it says it have not yet borne fruit and it is sometimes nicer* to ask someone who knows. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And yes, I know it's *nicer for me but not necessarily the recipient. Sorry. DBaK (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I use that philosophy myself for things like home repairs and car repairs - I don't have to know how to do it, I just have to know a person who knows how .
The information on photographing artwork and other copyrightable objects such as toys is found at commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. Making a long story short, it depends on the country of origin. For the UK, commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama says that the 3D object needs to be permanently on display in a public place. So my opinion is no, it's not okay. Since the company is now out of business, you might make a good case for a fair use image.— Diannaa (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that – interesting and very very useful to know. I'm not sure if I will have a look at fair use – the course of human history will not be too badly affected if I leave the current photo there ... and I would say please consult me any time about car and home repairs but it wouldn't really be a nice outcome for either of us. Nerdy corners of trumpet playing, perhaps, yes. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you, but I'm very confused as to why a sentence I written for The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady was removed and redacted on the grounds of copyright infringement when it was a sentence that I written on my own accord. The sentence I recall having made was:

″The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady is widely considered to be one of the greatest jazz records of all time and is often listed as one of the most important compositions of the 20th century."

Which I did not copy from anywhere- nor could I find said sentence on the site mentioned in the reversion- I had no knowledge of this site even existing until now. Hope this issue can be resolved. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I double checked and it appears to be a false positive. Sorry for the mistake. I am not going to re-add the content though, as no citation was provided for these claims.— Diannaa (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm bothering you because I need some assistance to start a discussion for this logo, which has a free rationale use in 5 different articles, which seems to be excessive IMO, considering that most of copyrighted football badges are not allowed in more than one article. Would you mind giving me instructions to start a discussion for this logo? Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The place to go is Wikipedia:Files for discussion. I notice that while there's 5 articles listed on the file, the image is only in use on 3 articles.— Diannaa (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Do something about this.

Dear Dianna, I see you had edited my contribution on article Penicillium maximae only to remove that nonsense 3 hour work I had written right? I credited that work to the respective authors of the journal where they had published it. Despite of that you only removed my "gibberish" because it was violating copyright issues even if you didn't remove my citations neither you removed the taxon keys on the template box provided in the page. Pleae reconsider the matter to withdraw the exclusion of my content in that page. I maybe not a big administrator like you but I have the same right as you to investigate into any article that might be a subject for copyright dispute. Sagardd234 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not okay to copy copyright material from journal articles to Wikipedia, even if you credit the author. It looks like your additions to the infobox are still there; not sure what it is you think is missing?— Diannaa (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Better Sourcing Basal-cell carcinoma (2)

Dear Diana.

I understand what you've explained so in order to clarify the issue, please find links that hopefully solve the matter.

Could add I this neutral reference to my contribution, instead of the two curaderm previous links ? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1913614/

By the way, I am connected to Curaderm being the distributor in Europe of the product. Looking forward to your response. Kind regards

PD (Sorry for open new section, but I didn't know how to answer the previous message)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernandez1978 (talk • contribs)

That's still a primary source.— Diannaa (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Colin Deacon Wikipedia Page

Hello Diannaa, you had removed some content that was added to Colin Deacon's Wikipedia page because of copyright reasons. However, since those sources (https://sencanada.ca/en/about/, https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/deacon-colin/); (https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/people/meet-canadas-newest-senators-2018/), and (https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2018/06/15/prime-minister-announces-appointment-senator) are some of the only reputable sources for the Senator's biography can you suggest what to do differently to ensure that the content doesn't fail copyright standards? Thanks in advance! Dicta89 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to re-write the text using your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Not normally one for Barnstars (and even less ones without very specific reasons), but I think you know the context of this one. Thank you for your tireless work and pay no attention to your detractors! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 01:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback! — Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for your dedication of clearing out copyvios at Copypatrol and clearing out sections at CCI. Your work at removing copyvios is greatly appreciated! Keep up the tremendous great work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciated.— Diannaa (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

David Meece

Hiya I note that you have claimed I have violated copyright with my changes to this page. I am curious what you are specifically referring to? The bulk of the text was already present and I simply rearranged. I searched for sources for the history and discography as most of the citations are secondary sources. Any additions, I believed were in my own words. Would love clarification. I note my failure to properly sign off. Thanks for picking that up. I wish Wikipeda did that automatically. Thank you Emjaikey (talk)Emjaikey

There was some content copied from his website: "as a concert pianist at the age of ten", "Meece won a nationwide talent show at the age of fifteen in 1967", stuff like that. I paraphrased some and removed some.— Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
As have I. Possibly at the same time! Emjaikey (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Emjaikey

Law of Canada

Sorry - editing on my phone and thought I was responding to a different edit. Will re-do manually. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

AlRawabi School for Girls: Revision history

Hi Dianna, I didn't place the copyright violations on the page- AlRawabi School for Girls. Indeed, I didn't notice that there were copyright vios until you did the removal. However, you blocked all of my legitimate edits. I believe they were made by the IP prior to my edits. Can you please unblock my legitimate edits? Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your additions were not removed, but were hidden from view because of the revision deletion of the previous edit. 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. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dianna - Ah, I see, it is a technical issue-ok, I understand. Even as a 15 year editor, this is something new for me, and I was really confused as I am a careful editor. I'm wondering if there is a template admins can come up with to explain to the editors whose harmless edits were hidden, what happened (a few others were hidden as well) - perhaps in the history page when you make the edit (as it may be too much to add to all of our talk pages)? Best -Classicfilms (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know of any such template. Not sure of its potential value— Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, You removed my contribution to Type I and type II errors#Etymology citing copyright issues. Please note that my original entry was paraphrased from the original sources and had cited those sources, with quotes in quotation marks. However, in case you felt that the paraphrasing was too close to the original text, I have now rewritten my contribution. I hope it meets with your satisfaction.

Rubinpsyc (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have again removed your addition, because it's still almost identical to the source paper.— Diannaa (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that that my entry is "almost identical" to the source paper. It is a paraphrased version of some ideas. Again, sources are cited and there is no breach of copyright here. To demonstrate the substantial differences, please see the following image, which indicates the differences between the text that I wrote and the key text from the published article. thumb I'd be grateful if you could reconsider your decision please or explain which parts of this text are problematic. Rubinpsyc (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Your addition (the second version; the first version had more overlap):

Notably, as Rubin (2021) pointed out,[1] Fisher was against the concept of a Type I error "rate," as proposed by Neyman and Pearson, because it makes the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population" (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020).[2][3] Nonetheless, Fisher (1937) advised researchers to use a significance threshold as a "convenient convention" for making provisional decisions about rejecting null hypotheses.

Source:

Fisher was against the Neyman-Pearson concept of a long run Type I error rate because it relies on the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population" (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020). Fisher was in favour of researchers considering the probability that they had made an error in provisionally rejecting their null hypothesis.

Overlapping text is highlighted with Bold. The first sentence is quite clearly copied, and the second is not adequately paraphrased, because it presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, using very similar wording. You can review by viewing the iThenticate link here.— Diannaa (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning to me.

You directed me to an iThenticate review which apparently shows a 77% text match. However, I cannot see the report because: “The revision ID couldn't be found: 1038691245.”

I’m also concerned about the validity of the process that was used to show a 77% text match. The “source” material that you used doesn’t seem to match the text in the published article. As you indicated above, you have used the following text as the source to compare with my paraphrased version:

“Fisher was against the Neyman-Pearson concept of a long run Type I error rate because it relies on the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population" (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020). Fisher was in favour of researchers considering the probability that they had made an error in provisionally rejecting their null hypothesis.”

However, neither of the sentences in this “source” text are direct quotes from the published article. In particular, the first sentence omits the word “firmly;” the citations to Fisher; the page number to Fisher (1955); and the discussion of the reference class problem. It also includes a reference to “Rubin, 2020” which was not in the original source. The second sentence excludes the opening clause “Despite his strong opposition…” and the citations at the end of the sentence, and it includes the word “their” instead of “a” when referring to “their null hypothesis.” These changes to the source text may have inflated the matching text percentage.

To obtain a more accurate appraisal of the text match, we should compare my paraphrased text with the text that is used in the published article. I have done this myself by entering my paraphrased text into Turnitin, which is a plagiarism detection software. The results can be seen in the following images.

Contrary to the iThenticate result of a 77% text match, the Turnitin appraisal only shows a 29% text match. Please note that this text match does not include the six quoted words “repeated sampling from the same population,” because this quote represents a small and appropriately cited quotation, and its use is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines under “fair use,” as indicated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use

Also note that Turnitin’s estimate of a 29% text match is an overestimate because it identifies paraphrased text as “matching.” In particular, the matching text in the first sentence “Fisher was against the concept of a Type I error” is paraphrased from the text “Fisher was firmly against the Neyman–Pearson concept of a long run Type I error rate,” and I’ve highlighted the omitted words here. Similarly, the matching text in the last sentence: “sample-specific decision about the null hypothesis” is paraphrased from the article text “sample-specific decision about rejecting the same substantive null hypothesis.”

In summary, I disagree with your assessment of my paraphrased text that “the first sentence is quite clearly copied, and the second is not adequately paraphrased, because it presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, using very similar wording.” The first sentence is not copied; it is paraphrased, with only around a 30% match to the original sentence. In addition, in my view, the second sentence is adequately paraphrased.

Please note that the Wikipedia policy on copyright states that: “it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely.” I think that the phrase “too closely” here refers to substantial similarity infringement, which is a grey area, full of subjective human judgement. Hence, I can totally understand if you continue to feel that my 29% text matches are problematic, and I would like to work with you to try to reach a satisfactory outcome here. Consequently, I have now revised my text for a third time to reduce any text matching even further. Please find the revised text below. I’d be grateful if you could let me know whether this is acceptable to you. If you are happy with this revised version, then I will add it to the relevant Wikipedia page.

Notably, as Rubin (2021) pointed out,[1] Fisher disapproved of Neyman-Pearon’s concept of a Type I error "rate," because it makes the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population," which he felt to be inappropriate in scientific contests (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020).[2][3] Nonetheless, Fisher (1937) advised researchers to use a significance threshold as a "convenient convention" for making provisional decisions about rejecting null hypotheses.[4] Hence, from this perspective, researchers may also make a provisional Type I error based on a one-off test of their null hypothesis (Rubin, 2021).

Rubinpsyc (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If you could write a brief summary of the above post I will reply promptly. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course…

SUMMARY

1. I added text to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Etymology

2. You deleted it claiming copyright infringement.

3. I changed the text to reduce the text matching and added it to the wiki page.

4. You deleted the text again, claiming “it’s still almost identical.”

5. I disagreed and provided evidence that the text matches were minimal.

6. You provided iThenticate evidence that the text matches were 77%.

7. I pointed out that the “source” text you used in your iThenticate analysis was not from the published article, and I provided a new analysis showing that the text match is actually < 29%. However, I agree that decisions on "substantial similarity" are rather subjective, and so I appreciate you may still have concerns.

8. So, I have now provided another revised draft of my text that reduces the text overlap even further.

9. I have asked if this revised text is acceptable to you. Here it is again:

Notably, as Rubin (2021) pointed out,[1] Fisher disapproved of Neyman-Pearson’s concept of a Type I error "rate," because it makes the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population," which he felt to be inappropriate in scientific contexts (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020).[2][3] Nonetheless, Fisher (1937) advised researchers to use a significance threshold as a "convenient convention" for making provisional decisions about rejecting null hypotheses.[4] Hence, from this perspective, researchers may also make a provisional Type I error based on a one-off test of their null hypothesis (Rubin, 2021).

Rubinpsyc (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

You are still presenting the same ideas in the same order as in the article cited in the iThentcate report. The sentence structure is the same, and a lot of the words are the same. By the way, I think you mean "scientific contexts" not "scientific contests"— Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on the typo. I’ve corrected that now.


You said that I am “still presenting the same ideas in the same order as in the article cited in the iThentcate report. The sentence structure is the same, and a lot of the words are the same.”

1. Can you please show me a copy of the iThenticate report that indicates the problems? I was unable to access it previously.

2. With regards to “presenting the same ideas,” the Wikipedia policy on copyright states that: “it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely.” So, I don’t think that “presenting the same ideas” is a problem here.

3. Re. “presenting the same ideas in the same order as in the article,” I only present two ideas here: (1) that Fisher disapproved of Neyman-Pearson’s concept of a Type I error rate, and (2) a Fisherian Type I error probablity is permissible. Logically, there are only two orders in which these two ideas can be presented. You are correct that I present these two ideas in the same order as in the article (i.e., 1 then 2, rather than 2 then 1). However, I don’t think that this represents an infringement of copyright.

4. With regards to “the sentence structure is the same, and a lot of the words are the same,” please see the Turnitin report for this revised text. It demonstrates that text match is now at 8%. So, I disagree with this point.

Again, I think that judgments on these matters are often quite subjective. Consequently, given our disagreement here, it might be helpful if we could ask for the opinion of another person. Is there someone else who think might be able to offer an expert view?

Rubinpsyc (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You can view the iThenticate report You can review by viewing the iThenticate link here. Click on the box that says "iThenticate report" to load the report. To get a second opinion, consider asking someone on this list.— Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I managed to access the IThenticate report. Couple of points:

(1) It refers to Version 1 of my text, not Version 3. As shown above, Version 3 has been revised to address your concerns about text matching.

(2) It counts “repeated sampling from the same population” as a text match, but this phrase is enclosed in quotation marks in my text, and so it should not be counted as problematic (see my previous point about Wikipedia’s copyright rules).

Thanks for the direction to the list of other people. I will see if someone is able to assist us. Rubinpsyc (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Jennifer Elisseeff entry

Diannaa -- Well, unfortunately I cannot seem to view my edits as they appeared to you (why is it that I cannot view my edits in the History despite your removal of them?). In any case, the majority of my edits appear to be intact. References made in your comments about copying copyrighted material from https://www.x-mol.com/university/faculty/72391 or https://esb2021.org/confirmed-keynote-speakers/, or http://www.jhu-bmb-phd.org/faculty/jennifer-elisseeff are inaccurate. This information was summarized by me based on a biographical profile given to me by Dr. Elisseeff herself. She may well have provided similar information to various publications and faculty, but I'm using first-hand information. If you'd like to school me on how to incorporate that to your satisfaction, please do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahs boy (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post text to Wikipedia that has been previously published elsewhere, even if you are the copyright holder or are acting on their instructions, 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 yourself, someone you know, or 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) 15:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Venturing

Hi Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the Venturing article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Here's some pastry and coffee for all your effort. Woodlot (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Diannaa, could you please have a look at this edit which I have reverted, and see if it should be RevDeleted? Thanks Melcous (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted the edit and contacted the oversight team as well. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Melcous (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Issue - Corneal cross-linking Page

Hi Diannaa,

Reaching out in regards to our edits to the Cross-linking page, as you recently reverted all of our changes. Was curious if you would be able to share specifically why these changes were overturned? A few months ago our changes were also reverted because the information was taken from livingwithkeratoconus.com. Is this the same reason for your changes?

If so, we wanted to clarify that this is in fact our website and don't believe that there would be any copyright issues. The Living with KC website is created by Glaukos, which is the company with the only FDA-approved cross-linking procedure. As the company with the only FDA-approved cross-linking procedure, we believe this page is inaccurate and changes need to be made. If you can inform us how to move forward so we don't run into any future issues that would be great. If there is a better way for us to connect, please let me know. Thank you.

LivingWithKC (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2021 (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. But there's another problem: Our medical articles have special sourcing requirements; see WP:MEDRS. So regardless of the copyright issue, this content is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.
Another 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.
The wording of your comments indicate that this might be a shared account. Does more than one person have access to your Wikipedia account? That's not allowed.
— Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Diana, You have removed my statistical analysis of the 2015 census in Transnistria and I do not understand why. I study the region and have deep knowledge about it. I have also written a couple of academic articles. Also, I hold the copyright for the article I mention and I have inserted a reference to it. Why was it removed? I saw that the Wikipedia user Robert Jensen suggested that it should be left there, but you went on and removed again. Why was my addition removed? This seems beyond my understanding. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdime (talk • contribs)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Empire of the Moghul

Hi, You have reverted edits about summary of books in the article Empire of the Moghul by stating the content is copyrighted from some website. But it is actually summary from the back cover of the book. I added the content back and please revert it back if you think it is inappropriate. ChikaToFlika (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

They are actually present on several different websites. Plot summaries from the back of a book are copyright too. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to say, it was user:Inna Mina Dika who re-added the plot summaries. Is that you?— Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

COI with editor

Hi Diannaa, I don't know where this should be reported. This editor, Macklevine, created an article about himself with this edit over three years ago, and since has created several more that indicate a COI problem. Carlstak (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard you could try.— Diannaa (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Diannaa. Carlstak (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the surgical corrections

Rappaccini's Daughter

Hi,

Thanks for the elaborate, surgical corrections here . If I understand well, that contribution in the talk had been there since 2007: I thought it was an original contribution of whoever had added it, and it was relevant for the article.

Some of the information that you have removed is important and can be easily reworded/rephrased. I hope it is OK if I proceed accordingly?

Ignisāra (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The truth is that the Wayback Machine shows that the content existed elsewhere on the Internet as early as 2006. So I had to remove it. Please feel free to re-write the content in your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

use non-free content with minimal extent of use & minimal number of items

Do you allow me to use the excessive non-free content removed by you with minimal extent of use & minimal number of items?WPooya (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

An appropriate amount to use would be two or three short quotations of one or two sentences each.— Diannaa (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I will use non-free content in accordance with the rules. Please reduce quotes if used too muchWPooya (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

According to Indian copyright laws, the whole speech is not protected by any copyright. Some have thought otherwise because they attribute the speech to Nehru, who died on 1964 and so protected for 70 years from the death of the author. But the speech is not a personal work of Nehru. It is a part of resolution passed by the interim Prime Minister of India on 14th August 1947 in the Constituent Assembly of India in the capacity of being a member in that assembly. The whole proceedings of that assembly, with the speech as an integral part, was published on 1950 by Lok saba, a body of Indian Government. By Indian copyright act of 1956 (chapter V section 25), any work by Government after 60 years of publication is in public domain. So, the speech is in public domain CXPathi (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

According to Indian copyright laws, the whole speech is not protected by any copyright. Some have thought otherwise because they attribute the speech to Nehru, who died on 1964 and so protected for 70 years from the death of the author. But the speech is not a personal work of Nehru. It is a part of resolution passed by the interim Prime Minister of India on 14th August 1947 in the Constituent Assembly of India in the capacity of being a member in that assembly. The whole proceedings of that assembly, with the speech as an integral part, was published on 1950 by Lok saba, a body of Indian Government. By Indian copyright act of 1956 (chapter V section 25), any work by Government after 60 years of publication is in public domain. So, the speech is in public domain CXPathi (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

India did not become a sovereign nation until 12:02 A.M., on 15 August 1947. It's debatable as to whether or not the Tryst with destiny is a government work, because Nehru was not yet Prime Minister on the day he gave the speech. Regardless, prior to independence the British Copyright Act of 1911 was still in effect. It says 50 years from death (2014). So the speech is in the public domain.
For The light has gone out of our lives, the Indian Copyright Act of 1914 applies. The copyright on that speech expired in 1998, if we consider it to be a government work. I have undone the revision deletion on both articles. Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received

Masoud Jafari Jozani has been nominated for several festivals, none of which are currently listed on his page. Can I create a page for a list of awards and nominations received by Masoud Jafari Jozani? for example, List of awards and nominations received by Alfred Hitchcock.WPooya (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Normally we don't create an awards page unless the initial article is already too large. That's not the case with this article. So no.— Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
In order not to prolong this article, I did not add the nominations and only wrote the winning awards, so I will add the nominations to this page and then create a separate page.WPooya (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Desperate Optimists Productions

Hi Diannaa, I realise I should have rewritten the sentences for the Desperate Optimists Productions page which was deleted due to copyright issues. Apologies. Is it possible to please somehow get back the source code for the lists and references and I will redo it in my own words? thanks, JKHB— Preceding unsigned comment added by JKHBlair (talk • contribs)

I have sent you the usable portion via email. Note the article in addition to copyright concerns was nominated for deletion for notability concerns as well. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I suggest you start working on the article as a draft, or it is likely to be speedily deleted again as not being notable enough for an article at this time.— Diannaa (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Doubt on copying text within sources

User:Diannaa I could copy a moderate amount of text within quotations as quotes inside the sources/refs, right? And this wouldnt violate copyright, would it?

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for the most part written in our own words. Short quotations are allowed, but only when absolutely necessary. Don't add quotations as part of your citations unless the material is controversial or likely to be challenged. — Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Diannaa

Thank you for the response. Would this edit be problematic ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039736657 )  ??? Its an edit in the infobox and I felt i should quote the relevant text from the source.

No. It's too much. Take those quotes out please.— Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay User:Diannaa

Thank You

Thank You! for helping me understand more about Wikipedia.--SNOW 977 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Seattle Naval Hospital

Dear Diannaa, I see you have added a copyright issue template in this article. Could you please help rewrite the section to fully comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. Best, Carl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl seattle (talk • contribs)

Hi Carl. Sorry, it's up to you to re-write the draft, not the patrolling admin.— Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hi Diannaa. I need a little help. Can you REVDEL a revision on the File:Askimam (website) logo.jpg. The one in the middle. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

or perhaps both of the old revisions........ ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Done. The image is a bit too big, so I've tagged it to be reduced a bit as well. A bot should come along shortly to do it.— Diannaa (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for all the work. ─ The Aafī (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass-movement of pages by a user

Hi Diannaa, I hope you are well. I am sorry to bother you with this query, but am not sure where else I can ask for assistance. Another user has recently mass-moved the biography of every Belgian prime minister (50+ articles) to their full names - thus Joseph Pholien to Joseph Clovis Louis Marie Emmanuel Pholien etc. This is pretty obviously in breach of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Is there any way that they can be moved back in bulk? Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know for sure if there is an automated tool to do this task. Perharps you should post at WP:ANI?— Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. In a fit of pique, I have done them manually. I hope that's the last of it though! —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Brigade Piron. I was tempted to do so myself :)— Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Your mentioned source in edit summary isn't original itself. I am confused.

https://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/2017/vol3issue6/PartD/3-6-76-983.pdf is almost exact copy of https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516809 p-13 . My source is also Bhattacharya, Subhas. “The Indigo Revolt of Bengal.” Social Scientist, vol. 5, no. 12, 1977, pp. 13–23. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3516809. Accessed 21 Aug. 2021. But I have done more alterations than your mentioned source. I have also given citations. It was also there in Reference list. Is it allowed? Or Do I have to write completely in my own words? Please guide me. Chanchaldm (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You have to write completely in your own words. No copying of copyright source documents is allowed.— Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Caswell County: request for assistance

Hi Diannaa, hope all is well. I wanted to ask you for your assistance when you have time. The reference section for Caswell County has many duplicates and I am not sure how to remove that issue. It's a code thing and unfortunately, I am inept at getting it right. Could you possibly go into the page and tweak it so it removes the duplicate issue? This way the reference section won't be as long. Thanks so much :) Peabodyb (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Working Stay off - not done— Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Peabodyb:  Done— Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Peabodyb (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Emirate of Ajman

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for your notes and edits to what I did. It's highly appreciated. I just need to clarify my understanding since I am a new contributor here. What's exactly wrong with adding a citation from an official PDF report? Is it because it is a PDF or it needs more paraphrasing or both? Also, please note that the citation from the annual report does exist and was part of the article even before I start editing it, I just found that it was from the printed source and thought to add the online version in case anyone would like to check it for themselves. Please guide me here. Thank you so much once again Jaa Noble (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaa Noble (talk • contribs)

Some of the content I removed was added by yourself, and some had been there for quite a while. Regardless, it's not okay to add copyright text to Wikipedia. Everything you add needs to be written in your own words please.— Diannaa (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thank you Jaa Noble (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT:Object Gain

Dianaa---thank you for reviewing my article. This is my first attempt at writing a Wikipedia Article. I must admit, I don;t understand why you feel I have copied copyrighted material,....I did not knowingly do so. I did make reference to the 1953 IRE paper, but did not copy any text from it in my Article. Please advise exactly what text you feel I have copied in this Article. Be advised, most of my Article content was taken from classroom notes that I generated in an Army training class in 1974-1975. Thank you.....SCADA-02091947 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.— Diannaa (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Read-only reminder

A maintenance operation will be performed on Wednesday August 25 06:00 UTC. It should only last for a few minutes.

Also during this time, operations on the CentralAuth will not be possible (GlobalRenames, changing/confirming e-mail addresses, logging into new wikis, password changes).

For more details about the operation and on all impacted services, please check on Phabricator.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before the operation.

Please help your community to be aware of this maintenance operation. Thank you!

20:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

An-My Le

Hi Diannaa: could you have a look at this page? I cannot tell if the pages listes as copyvio sources are simply copying us. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 06:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This one is a good one to compare with, because it has a date of 2007. Prior to 18:11, November 12, 2014‎ we don't have any overlap with that source. So that's where I am going to start the cleanup. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I have found another artist with copyvio that is too complex for my understanding: Earwig report. --- Possibly ☎ 04:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Bluecountrymutt

Despite your warnings on 28 May [11] and 20 June [12], User Bluecountrymutt continues to create pages that copy copyright material. I have requested a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, but as they continue to create new pages at breakneck speed, a block seems necessary. Can you do this or should I raise this at ANI? regards Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mztourist, sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. The user has been indef-blocked by another admin.— Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. best regards Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Against all odds, largely carrying CCI on your shoulders like Atlas, here's a baby chipmunk for you to pet! Best wishes, El_C 21:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Amen. You do great work here. BilCat (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you El_C and BilCat! — Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk page copyright

Is there a limit to how much material can be copied and pasted from a book onto an article's talk page with proper attribution? It is customary to provide a sentence or two on the article's talk page to verify the source is being used correctly. But can I copy and paste several pages? What is the limit? Thanks! VR talk 07:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-free content should be used only sparingly. Quotations of several pages length onto a talk page is too much. Please find another way – Is the book visible in preview at Google books? — Diannaa (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Technically yes but sometimes Google books doesn't let you preview it cause you've reached your limit. Anyway, this helps, thanks.VR talk 15:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Getting involved in WP:CCI

Hi Diannaa,

I appreciate the times you've assisted me with copyright violations. As I'm learning more about this topic, I'm realizing how important it is and I wish to become more involved.

I understand there's a backlog at WP:CCI, I was wondering what I could do to participate? What's the process for learning more about clerking? Or, if I need to learn more about Wikipedia copyright policy in general first, what would be the best way to go about that? I appreciate any guidance you can offer me.

Thanks! ––FormalDude talk 06:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude and thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup!
  • Moneytrees has written a guide to helping out at CCI: User:Moneytrees/CCI guide and might be interested in suggesting which case might be a good one for you to examine. When starting a CCI case, I like to start at the bottom of the page, where there are some small edits to be checked. Many of these can be eliminated as not-violations quite quickly, and you'll get a feel for the editor's level of proficiency with the English language and thus be able to spot potential violations more easily. If you're not sure about any item, leave it for someone else to check, or ask for help.
  • The place to start if you're unsure if you have adequate knowledge of our copyright policy is Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. There's several types of copying you might see:
  1. We don't want to see any copying from copyright sources at all. Content has to be written our your own words and not include any wording from the source material (other than things like job titles, names of govt programmes, names of schools, etc). Simple alphabetical or chronological lists are okay to copy.
  2. When copying within Wikipedia, attribution is required. There's more on this topic at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
  3. When copying from compatibly licensed sources, like for example many UK Government websites, we also need to provide attribution. Here is an example where I added attribution as part of the citations for some government documents that are released under the Open Government License. We do have some templates such as {{CC-notice}} that go at the bottom of the page.
  4. When copying from public domain sources, the template {{PD-notice}} should be included as part of the citation. There's also templates that can be placed at the bottom of the page.— Diannaa (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you very much! Wonderful advice. ––FormalDude talk 04:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Austin Barnes

Thank you. I knew there were problems, but didn't pick up on the scope of the copyright issue. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help.— Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Atyourpais (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) entry

Diannaa, thanks for posting on my talk page two months ago, I appreciate it. I'm curious - did I violate Wiki standards, or do something incorrect that made you reach out?

It looks like it was this edit on Christian views on divorce— Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

List of Australian flags

Hi Diannaa,

I expanded recently ,,List of Australian flags,, about many new sections and everything has been undone, because of some copyright problem. I have no idea where I did something like that. Maybe i just missed something. Tell me what I should avoid while restoring my edits? Whether one of these things was the problem?

- I needed to use 2 non-free files, so I put links instead. This practice was present in this article previously

- I copied 20 words from another article "The Union Jack was utilised frequently by the Centre Party during its existence, to emphasise their loyalty to the British monarchy"

- some files in the list are blurry, that's why I enlarged them all, also this file - Torres Strait Islander Flag - this flag is not free and legal present in article. Could this have caused a problem?

I'm waiting for help. 213.192.68.53 29 August 2021

I removed one paragraph about the New South Wales Ensign that was copied from this website. The larger removal was performed by somebody else with this edit. — Diannaa (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to say, non-free images are not allowed in list articles.— Diannaa (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
A lesson I didn't learn all too well when I tried to flex my auto-spamming prowess.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 18:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Another lesson: Linking to copyright violations is not allowed, per WP:ELNEVER. — Diannaa (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
What, my talk page is a list. A list of awesome! El_C 18:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is where all the types of spam cam be viewed.
I should probably make it clear that by auto-spamming I mean spamming with the auto-sniper. Some might be con-fused. El_C 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
While some talk page watchers might have misunderstood, I have to admit that I did understand you were shooting indiscriminately with your virtual weapon, and not with actual spam.— Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Heh, just call me Sure Shot. BTW, I'm sureshot this will be of great interest to you, so quoting from the site that shall remain nameless: Steyr TMP - A submachine-gun with a unremoveable suppressor. Good luck killing ANYTHING with this thing. For some reason this piss-weak abomination had some kind of cult-following in the early 2000s (italics is my emphasis).

Wait, did I start a trend? Actually, the TMP wasn't nerfed till beta 4 or maybe 5 (still 1999). Prior to that, this suppressed SMG was a headhot spammer of the highest order. The trick, never let go of W — and literally just run through everybody! With its high rate of full auto fire, in a couple of seconds, I'd be spamming tens of rounds in close quarters, making the chances of a headshot statistically quite favourable. And because it being such a light weapon, the running speed was super-fast, and with it being suppressed, the enemy wouldn't be able hear my fire (killing their teammates elsewhere on the map) until I was close, too close!

Anyway, I apologize for writing so briefly about this important matter. El_C 21:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

👍 Like— Diannaa (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For being the shining light of the hated and neglected realm of copyright, and the sturdiest, most long-suffering bastion against the wolves of copyvio. Please accept this token of gratitude and appreciation from me and the other editors comprising CCI's second wind. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vami IV! I appreciate the positive feedback. That is a noice barnstar.— Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Re: User talk:King Pius#Wikipedia and copyright

Can you point out which one exactly was the violation? Thank you. King Pius (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

There was copying from http://www.traditionalmass.org/priests/sanborn.php. The paragraph that starts "From Armada, Fr. Sanborn conducted an extensive search..." ; the paragraph that starts "After returning to Michigan in 1986, he acquired a large school complex" ; the paragraph that starts "In 1991 he founded Sacerdotium"; as well as other smaller copied segments.— Diannaa (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again. What do you mean by "coping"? Do you mean that the source should not be copied word-for-word? Or that the source was referenced too much? King Pius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
"Coping" was a typo. The source should not be copied word-for-word. Everything you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words please.— Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. King Pius (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Anthem of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Hello, so I say your thing about the copyright of the lyrics, just wondering, do you have any proof to prove that the lyrics are under copyright? Also its copyright would have been removed since the Islamic Republic no longer controls (most of the administration of) Afghanistan. - Chxeese (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What Wikipedia requires is proof that the lyrics are public domain or compatibly licensed before we can include them. No the other way around. The author's copyright rights don't get "removed" in that way either, to the best of my knowledge. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! 2

The Barnstar of Diligence
I’ve been following the recent AN goings-on and want to thank you for your tireless and often thankless work. Cheers. 28bytes (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much!— Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_77&oldid=1044573686"