Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 11:40 PM where this user lives in Alberta. (Purge)

Talk page archive
Send me no flowers
List

EPN sock?

Do you think it's possible that EsotericJoe is an EnglishPatriotMan sock? He's edited Rassenschande, Margaret Thatcher, Elvis Presley and Arthur de Gobineau, all EPN favorites. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention several Nazi Germany related articles, which EPN favored. Kierzek (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing with the two most recent named accounts is convincing as well. Blocked.— Diannaa (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go out, no time right now to reverse any edits. Please feel free to do this step, or not.— Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it, will probably do more tomorrow. Thanks for updating the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list is very useful. Thanks for setting it up.— Diannaa (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Medjugorje

Can you tell me, what content exactly? I was very careful, so I doubt I made any violations. Please, indicate to me, what part of text is problematic, and I'll sort it out. Thank you! --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 prose has been only superficially paraphrased, with the same content being presented in the same order with only a few words substituted. That's not okay.— Diannaa (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, point taken. Thank you for your advice. I will rewrite the problematic part. --Governor Sheng (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the guidance about citation and content policy on Wikipedia.

Chinmay (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to check my attempt at incorporating CC4.0 material on a page

Hi! You have helped me in the past with public domain material. Right now I am incorporating CC4.0 material in a page, Energy diplomacy. I am basically doing straight copy and paste, but converting academic citations to Wikipedia citations, cutting footnotes and figues and then amending the text. Do I have to mention this in notes? Johncdraper (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't.— Diannaa (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Apollonia (Cyrenaica)

Hi, I am the sole owner and author of http://www.ancientportsantiques.com/a-few-ports/apollonia/ and I feel free to copy from it! Can you please tell me more about "releasing under a compatible license" so I can perhaps change this on my web site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artreve (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right now each page of the website says at the bottom "© 2020 Ancient Ports – Ports Antiques". One way to make it available to us is to remove that and replace it with a compatible license. Alternatively, send an email to the OTRS team specifying which license you are using. See WP:DONATETEXT for detailed instructions.— Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Friendly and helpful. Very much appreciated! Ryancoke2020 (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bel Decomposition

Hi Diannaa, I received your message on the use of "copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released" in the Bel decomposition. As explained in the Talk:Bel decomposition topic, I did not write that content, in part or in whole. Each of the lines I added had was the content of its own individual article that seems to have all been started by the same user in 2006 (with a disclaimer in the talk pages of the original author stating to no longer trust the content of the pages) Each of these sub-articles had a single sentence and no references. I therefore used the blank-and-redirect technique to erase their one line each and moved those unreferenced lines into the Bel decomposition article. Your reversion of my edit replaced the links to the non-existent pages. And your comments about the copyrighted nature without references apply to the original sub-articles, which I previously blanked-and-redirected into Bel decomposition. I apologize if this wasn't done appropriately, but I noticed the other articles did not meet standards for Wikipedia, such as Notability and Verifiability and assumed no one would object to their blank-and-redirect status. I am not sure what to do about the pages, but I figured I would let you know they are messed up. Also, I would prefer to not be "blocked" just for trying to help. I did start a talk page topic that discussed this issue whenever I made the change. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. In the future, when copying within Wikipedia, please add attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. You did hint at it in your edit summary but I did not understand what you meant. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I apologize for that, I went back to read about blank-and-redirect and it did say that when merging content I need to specify it explicitly in the summary so that it is easily tracked, it even gives an example. I am still learning the ropes, but should have read that more thoroughly. Thanks for understanding. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

page protection

Hi. I saw you as recently active, hence contacting you. Would you please decrease the move protection level of Wikipedia:Transclusion, and Help:Transclusion to extended confirmed so that I can swap them, and perform other "post move clean-up edits"? You can see the RM at Special:Permalink/973707206#Requested move 11 August 2020. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Transclusion does not appear to be moved protected and I am pretty sure it would not need to be moved. The protection log for Wikipedia:Transclusion states that the page is "linked in mediawiki interface". I don't know what that means or whether or not it is still true. So I have not done anything. — Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COPYVIO

Hello Diannaa, a recently added image in the Medgar Evers article appears to be under copyright. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image is on the Commons. File:PHO-09Feb11-150096.jpg. There's no evidence of permission. I have nominated it for deletion. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna

Back as "Madonna The Queen". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for English recordings

Hello Dianna. Could I ask for your help again please? In adding to the "His Masters Voice" wikipedia page, i want to post links to sound recordings this company published in England up until the 1920s. Sources would include the British Library and YouTube. Would this be permitted? thank you for considering. best wishes, User:Stuart1900. —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to supply links as long as the source webpage has permission to host the links. The British Library should be okay, but each YouTube link would need to be assessed individually.— Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for your time and advice, Dianna. Stuart1900 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

All the content I added to Students for Justice in Palestine was written by me and I didn't paste anything. Are you perhaps looking at a bot that reports possible copyright violations? That bot appears to not take quotations into account and therefore reports loads of copyright violations when there are none. ImTheIP (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the passage was not marked as being a quotation. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can review.— Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it this revision? I admit that the three first sentences resembles sentences on page 223 of that book as I used that book as a source, but I didn't copy them (you can't copy-paste from Google books). I tried to be careful and rephrase them enough to not run afoul of copyright issues. ImTheIP (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The content is on page 223-224. Your edit presented the same ideas in the same order using almost identical text. That's a violation of our copyright policy. Your version:

Weeks before the event, public debate about it broke out which attracted national media attention. Opponents criticized the Political Science department for co-sponsoring the event and called for it to withdraw its sponsorship. Among them were the Anti-Defamation League, several assemblymen, ten members of the City Council and right-wing political commentator Alan Dershowitz who called the event an "anti-Israel hatefest." City Council members threatened to withhold funding to BC unless they cancelled the event. The event, however, took place with around 200 attendees and 150 anti-BDS protestors who had gathered outside.

From the book:

Weeks before the event, a sharp public debate broke out which attracted national media attention. Opponents criticized the department for co-sponsoring and called for it to cancel the event or withdraw the sponsorship. Among them were the Anti-Defamation League, mayoral candidate William Johnson Jr, several assemblymen, ten members of the City Council who wrote an open letter to the college's president, and right-wing political commentator Alan Dershowitz who called the event an "anti-Israel hatefest." Anti-BDS students circulated a petition and City Council members threatened to withhold funding to to all of Brooklyn college unless the conference was cancelled. [...] In the end, the panel took place with police outside checking bags of the 200 attendees whose names were on an approved list, as 150 anti-BDS protestors gathered outside the building.

Overlapping content is highlighted in bold.— Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same ideas in the same order because both texts describe the same event. The text is similar to the source because that is how citations work. For example, I cannot write "many assemblymen, ten members of the City Council" instead of "several assemblymen, ten members of the City Council" because that would be presenting a claim not supported by the source: many != several. Reformulations of a few sentences that follow the original source are common in academia and I don't think they violate wiki policy. If you don't mind, I'll try and get a second opinion. ImTheIP (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all. Please go ahead and do that.— Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) ImTheIP, I'll offer you a second opinion. The relevant wording at our CV policy is Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. In my view, the content you added is a very close paraphrasing of the book's content; whether that is common in academia is moot, it is a violation of our policy. The content would need to be substantially reworded to be compliant. GirthSummit (blether) 15:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The above example of close copying without proper paraphrasing (Weeks before the event, public debate about it broke out...) might indeed be a common practice in academia, where it is called plagiarism.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when you don't cite your sources. But the point is that I did use the "ref" syntax to link to the page of the book I used as a source. This is permissible by copyright law and I'd argue that it is also proper source usage. The text you are writing must of course reflect the content of the source, meaning that its structure necessarily will be similar to the source. Here, we're talking about three rephrased sentences and a fourth separated by ellipsis, there is in my mind no way that this is a copyright violation.ImTheIP (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is about as plain of an example of plagiarism as one could get. Citing your sources does not mean you can copy phrases and sentences directly and close paraphrase them, obviously. Matching sections of text of ore than 3 words or so should be within quotes. As Oxford university says you must ensure that you do not create the misleading impression that the paraphrased wording or the sequence of ideas are entirely your own. Anyone can see that the (Weeks before the event...) example above has not been properly attributed: they look like a wiki editor wrote them, but the majority of the text actually came from the book's author. Removing this copyvio from the WP article is the correct thing to do. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ImTheIP Again, the idea of whether this is common practice is beside the point - it is a breach of our policy, and is not permissible. Please accept that, rewrite your content, and don't do it again. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. The material that I removed was 91 words that are almost identical to a passage in a copyright book, without quotation marks to indicate that it was a direct quote. That's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Quoting this passage is not a good alternative, because it could fairly easily be re-written into copyright-compliant prose.— Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Ramnad riots

Hi Diannaa. I'm wondering if you'd mind checking on WP:THQ#Copy paste content. I first did an Earwig with the url the OP provided, but it came up as this, which doesn't seem to be a problem. However, I then is a more general Earwig search and came up with this, which does seem like quite a problem. Earwig seems to have found a September 2019 blog which is quite similar to the Wikipedia article. After looking at the article's history I found this August 2019 version of the same section which seems to pre-date the blog post; so, I'm not sure if the blog actually got the content from Wikipedia. I'm not sure I've done all of this correctly, but I even more not sure about what (if anything) should be done next. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. Both of the pages listed on the Earwig report are Wikipedia mirrors. We've had most of this content since 2006. — Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:School of Engineering, JNU

Hello Diana, I saw your messages.I am not sure that what I am doing is plagarism, the page I am writing about is my college (School of Engineering) it is a government college in New Delhi, India. All information I have written in my page is available in public domain such as brochures, website etc. I have tried citing news and articles. Can you please point out in detail what seems to be plagarised(if possible). I am willing to change the wordings but they would ultimately convey the same information. I look forward to become a good editor and I dont want to be banned. The content I am writing is available in public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnuite (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being publicly available is not the same thing as being in the public domain. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August

August

Thank you for the sad fish image! - MP 24 August has one of "my places" (click on August) pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COPYVIO 2

Hi Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright violation in Transient expression. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for reporting— Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Certified Professional Coder

Hi Dianaa,

Thanks for your comments on, Most of this was copied from Clinical coder. — Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC).

I have added attribution in edit summary section. Jamesinhere (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste of a campaign website

Hi Diannaa. I've come across a bit of an odd situation. So, the Michelle De La Isla page (she is the Mayor of Topeka, Kansas and is running for Congress) had some red flags that looked to me like they might be copyright issues. I checked out her campaign bio, and sure enough, there were portions that were directly lifted. See this version of the page from November 2018--it's just a copy and paste of her campaign bio. Now, it gets a little weirder because at her campaign bio they are actually linking back to her Wikipedia article. The links in her bio are inter-Wikipedia links. And the hot-linked footnotes track back to the footnotes on her Wikipedia page. Weird, right? So it's like a campaign staffer wrote her Wikipedia page and then made the official campaign bio into a mirror of Wikipedia? Anyway, wanted to get your thoughts on the situation. In the mean time, I left a note on the article talk page and put a COI tag on the article. Marquardtika (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that is a match, and pre-dates the addition of the "humble beginnings" version to Wikipedia: https://web.archive.org/web/20180713232019/https://www.topeka.org/mayor/. The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Can you take a look at Al Busaidi House. Much/most is a copy/paste of House of Al Said and I don't see any attribution. Despite apparently having gone through AFC, I'm not even sure what is going on here. Is the subject sufficiently different or is there more work to be done. Something is not Kosher. Thanks. MB 17:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica calls them "Āl Bū Saʿīd dynasty, also spelled Al Busaidi" so we may have our article at the wrong title. Rewgardless, this is an inappropriate way to do a page move, so I have turned the new article into a redirect to the original.— Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query about the copyright status of a book

Hello, Diannaa. This query is regarding a book authored by Jadunath Sarkar (died: 1958) as a historian of the Jaipur royal family – links of the book: [1] & [2]. Sarkar was commissioned by Man Singh II to write the history of his ancestors, and the manuscript was completed by him in 1940: [3]. But its publication got delayed by over four decades. It was published for the first time in 1984 in revised and edited form, and is copyrighted to "Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum". Here's its review: [4]. Its editor notes that the author had misrepresented documents multiple times, which he has fixed: [5]. He also states that he fully revised the dates in the book.

So, is this book copyrighted now? If not, was it copyrighted in 2008? - NitinMlk (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer this question, we use the Hirtle chart. It says that for works created before 1978 and first published with notice outside the US from 1 January 1978 through 28 February 1989, copyright protection exists until 31 December 2047. Yes, it enjoyed copyright protection in 2008. — Diannaa (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

photos not uploaders own work

Hi. Just a few minutes ago, an editor Evelynbreit1 uploaded a few photos, and then added them to The Not-Too-Late Show with Elmo. They are obviously not the copyright owner, but I am not sure if the photos are in public domain, or copyrighted. From the looks of it, the editor seems to be a kid; and I didnt know how to approach. However, I left them this message. Would you kindly take a look into the photos? And if possible, would you please converse with the editor in question in normal way? I mean, avoiding the templates, and other wiki jargons? I have also watchlisted their talkpage, so I will be around as well. Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi usernamekiran. The images were uploaded to the Commons. They are screen shots of a copyright TV show and/or are promotional shots for the show, and we will not be able to keep them. Unfortunately this might come as a bit of a shock to them. I will tag them on the Commons and leave them a message there as to why it has to be done.— Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. It is appreciated a lot.
the way, did you know I'm auto patrolled on commons? Hehe
See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the Commons, I am "filemover, patroller, rollbacker". Oh by the way that looks like a hella good TV show; I gotta get me some HBO.— Diannaa (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is. There are some snippets on YouTube. Hoda Kotb's show has uploaded a clip of Elmo's show of minute or two, after she had been on the show. It was actually a reference within her show, "yay, I was interviewed by Elmo". Felt like cross-promotion. But still, it's totally worth watching. Random YouTube users keep uploading full length shows, but YouTube takes them down. Fortunately, I got to see two episodes that way. And yes, I just saw your user rights from commons when you were in the middle of editing on commons. Appearances of Jimmy Fallon, John Mulaney, and John Oliver are good too. I was hoping to see Stephen Colbert on Elmo's show, that's how I had first found about Elmo's show; from Colbert's show. But then I realised Sesame street, and Ed Sullivan Theater must be far away. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinap, Erdemli

Hi, I have removed a chunk of Turkish text added to Sinap, Erdemli on 6 April 2020‎. Earwig suggests that it was copied, possibly from https://www.facebook.com/Ali-Ceran-Ceran-Fidan-1366197393523823/groups. Please can you revdel if appropriate. The editor only edited on 6 April so I have not warned them. TSventon (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hi Diannaa. I hope you've been well. It's been nearly a year and a half since I agreed to stop editing the page Vivienne Goonewardene (due to my work being based on copyrighted content). Since then, I've significantly developed in terms of my work, and now have a GA, and another GA waiting to be reviewed under my belt. I was hoping to seek your permission to begin re-editing the page, piece by piece. I'm aiming to get this article to GA, and the article is covered under Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I just wanted to write my assurance that I am fully aware of Wikipedia guidelines, and that the article will contain nothing of my previous mistakes, from which I have learned from. Be assured, I'll be completely averse to copyrighted content – otherwise this will never pass as a GA! Best, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not forbid you to edit the article, I only suggested it was not a good idea to do so. Besides, you have been editing the article, since April. So Why are you asking me.— Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make it clear that I am now completely aware of the rules, and that I intend to do this article correctly. (I was hoping to disclose that I aimed to start editing again now, in order to avoid any confusion in the future). Thanks anyway! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More