User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Copyright issue with Robert J. Bentley

Hi, I just wanted to check that what has been recently updated fell within the parameters of no copyright issues. I tried my best to take the suggestions you made into account on my talk page. Please see Robert J. Bentley. Joffejs (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Joffejs: I see you have put all the copied material from The NY Times in quotation marks. Now it is not technically a copyright violation any more, but it's not a very good practice. For the most part Wikipedians write the articles ourselves in our own words rather than stringing a bunch of quotes together.— Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue for draft of Draft:Template Numerical Library

Hi Dianna, recently I have created a new wiki page draft about Template Numerical Library which is being developed by our group. The page was deleted because it appeared like a direct copy of a post on NA Digest - http://performance.netlib.org/na-digest-html/22/v22n02.html#3. This post was submit on NA Digest by me and it just contains the same list of the main features of the library similar to the project main web page - www.tnl-project.org. The same list was written even in the wiki page draft. So there really should not be any copyright issues. Thanks for your help, Tomas. Oberhuber.tomas (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.— Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

K-rex = DSpace @ Kansas State University

The text you obliviously deleted was a paraphrased description of open source software. You should not have admin tools. This is another example of your sloppy work. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.— Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits of WikiMaster2K15 in List of Gunsmoke television episodes

I have been making edits in List of Gunsmoke television episodes beginning Jan. 9th. I watch each Gunsmoke episode and write a brief synopsis, careful to not give away the plot. I also add the cast as they appear at the end of the episode, similar to what I did for List of The Rifleman episodes. On Feb. 1st, WikiMaster2K15 started his own edits in the same page. Currently this user is rewriting my edits. The user's source is the IMDb website and is copying storyline verbatim (examine season 2). Episode notes are copied word for word from IMDb trivia section. Research shows you have had a problem with this user in the past. I reach out to you for guidance. I don't want to get into an edit war, but WikiMaster2K15 does not use original thought and some information is not pertinent or is simply untrue. Please advise. Demoon57 (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I have restored the 12:58, February 10, 2022 revision as that's the last clean version. At least some of the plot descriptions in that version are copied from Fandom, which is compatibly licensed and okay to copy as long as attribution is provided. So I have added an attribution template at the bottom of the article to cover that. I will watch-list the page for a while.— Diannaa (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A bit confused

An administrator declined my RD1's on Machimia dystheata, and four other pages from that genus. They claimed that it was in the public domain. However, it was published in 1945. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This page says it is still copyrighted. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

After realizing I was looking at the copyright info for the wrong volume, it looks like the volume in question is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, which fails COMPLIC so redaction may indeed be warranted, unless copyright on the volume was never renewed, in which case it would be PD. I can't locate any information regarding whether the copyright renewal happened, so I will defer to your judgement on this matter. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just so we have the RD1 requests all in one place, for convenience: Special:Diff/1071500630 Special:Diff/1071500990 Special:Diff/1071501901 Special:Diff/1071502854 Special:Diff/1071503551 --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Check out the Commons:Hirtle chart: look at the section "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad, 1927 through 1977". I am not seeing a copyright notice on the title page of the book, which means the book was published without compliance with US formalities, since such notice is one of the requirements. Australian copyright law for anonymous works is 70 years from publication date or from author's death if the authorship is known. Which puts the copyright expiration date in the country of publication at 2015 for a work published in 1945. This date is after the URAA date (1996), so the chart says that the copyright expires 95 years after the publication date. Thus the work is copyright until 2040, if I am understanding things correctly. — Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you to decide if to redact. It seems that it would be PD if it were Canadian. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Garrha cylicotypa, Garrha interjecta, Garrha micromita, Garrha oncospila, Garrha platyporphyra, Garrha pyrrhopasta, and Garrha rufescens have all had copyvios removed. The source was the same book as the one we were talking about. I have not tagged them for RD1's. Again, I am letting you decide. Sorry if I am putting you through too much work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They are copyvio in my opinion, so the content should be removed and the material revision deleted. It would be really helpful if you could please proceed with removing the copyright content and tagging them for RD1. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll tag them right now. I didn't tag them because I wasn't sure that you'd approve. But I see that now you do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Done! Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been feeling a little overworked lately, so I really appreciate it.— Diannaa (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove the copyright tag in Hare Krishna Konar

i have remove the content now please remove the copyright tag from this page 1234comrade (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what you want me to do. There is no copyright tag on the page, and I already removed the copyright issue by rewriting the content in question.— Diannaa (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I need help File:LSU-Ozamiz Seal.png

Hello Dianaa. I don't know where to get help so I came to you. I just uploaded a brand new version of the image MisamisUniversityPhilippines.png and it was stated that it was someone's own work. Since it was a non-free logo for a school, I copied the licensing from the LSU-Ozamiz Seal.png and now there's something wrong with the page.

I apologize for the issue I have caused.RobloxianMoth (RobloxianMoth) 18:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC +8:00)

Sometimes there's a caching issue when a new version is first uploaded, and the image looks distorted or weird. On my computer, the image looks okay now and is displaying okay in the article too. if it still looks funny to you, wait a day or two and check again. I am going to tag the image for removal of the old version, as we are only allowed to keep the current one. The old image will be removed/hidden in a week.— Diannaa (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

NextEra Energy Page

Hello

Why did you remove the following quote?

"It's going to be a crusher for the solar industry," said Rutherford, who predicted he would have to lay off much of his workforce. "For 90% of the people that work for me, this will be a significant blow for their pocketbooks."

It is a quote after all.

Were you concerned with the Nevada section? The section was reworded.

Why did you delete parts of the history? It is now difficult to see what exactly you had issue with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs)

I had to remove the surrounding prose for copyright reasons, and it didn't make sense to leave the quote in without the surrounding explanatory prose. The reason for removal was because most of the paragraph (which included two quotes) was copied from CNN. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. I will send you the removed paragraph via email so you can rewrite it. — Diannaa (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Is there a way for me to do an iThenticate test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No, but there's other tools you can use to compare text before adding it to Wikipedia. Try one of these:

• https://copyleaks.com/text-compare
• https://www.copyscape.com/compare.php
• https://smallseotools.com/page-comparison/

After you add it to Wikipedia, comparison can be made using Earwig's tool.— Diannaa (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Talkback

Re dupdet, you have a new message, "Restarted the webservice. Should work now." --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 18:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

New message, on the same page, says "Please try now". --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

New message, on the same page, about v2. --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio issues

Hi Diannaa, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you've been giving Chaya5260 a lot of copyvio notices over at their talk page. I've dealt with similar issues with them copying content in science articles over the last few years, but it seems like they just continue on. It just seems to be a really odd case where they don't respond or heed warnings even though they're contributing content. I'm honestly not sure at what point WP:COMPETENCE blocks would come into play here on this one, but I thought I'd give you a heads up, and I'd be curious what you think on this one. Thanks. KoA (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They've had five warnings for copyvio over the years as well as several for failing to provide the required attribution. I will add a final warning to my most recent message. Thanks for the heads up.— Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hey

Mkjory (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Copying Within Wikipedia

Ya sorry, I thought it was obvious.

Catherine Best

Could you please take a look at this. It has a CC notice, which would make it eligible for a cut and paste edit like this, but it is from this source. However, the copyvio report shows it also came from the university's page. Not sure which came first, if it's the university, then how could Orcid have the right to give up the university's copyright? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:onel5969: Sorry for the delay in replying. It's impossible to day for sure who had it first, since the Orcid page was only archived once. The university has had the prose since 2015 at least. My feeling is that the subject supplied the same text to both places. You could consider listing the page at WP:CP — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

copyright question

Earwig is flagging a problem with Hi Jolly Monument having too much similarity with an entry at waymarking.com. The text is similar and was put in the WP article on 6/22/18 by Bluesnote. The text at the website was "posted" by "bluesnote" on 6/18/18. That site has a copyright notice on the page, and the terms of use say if you post there, you give them complete rights to the IP. There would have been no issue if the author had published it here first, but does them having posted it on waymarking.com four days earlier really mean I have to re-write it? It's clearly the same person posting the same text at two crowd-sourced sites nearly simultaneously. Your thoughts? (The article is properly sourced to other RS, waymarking.com is not used as a source) MB 05:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MB, I think you might be misunderstanding section 3.D. of Groundspeak's Terms of Service. What it actually says is that, by uploading any content you own the copyright of to their services, you are granting them a royalty-free licence to do most things with it. It does not say that you grant them the copyright in any way. It's reasonable to assume that it was first published on waymarking.com, and due to the short duration between it being published there and on Wikipedia, that both users are the same Bluesnote. However, I see that the enwiki user is still relatively active, so it might be worth sending a message and asking. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Our rules require that if text was previously published somewhere else prior to being added to Wikipedia, an OTRS ticket is required. This is to protect the rights of the copyright holder as well as Wikipedia. If the copyright holder wishes 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. Otherwise it should be removed or re-written.— Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean that Bluesnote is the copyright holder and can release the material to WP via OTRS ticket? Then the copyright notice on the page at waymarking can be ignored since the author (Bluesnote) licensed the material for their use by did not release the copyright. The ticket is still required even though Bluesnote released the material for WP use when they put it here in 2018? MB 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If they posted it at the other website four days before they posted it at Wikipedia, an OTRS ticket is required. This is to protect the rights of copyright holders, as we have no way otherwise to confirm that the two are the same person. — Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mirror

Can you double check this tag addition? Handwiki is a mirror of our content, and seems to acknowledge this on the bottom of their page. Kuru (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I already looked at that page yesterday, as it was at Copypatrol. Some of the content the user added does not appear to ever have been in our article, so it looks to me like the Handwiki version has been edited in the meantime to include content that we have never had. You can see at the bottom that the pages are editable, as there's a notice at the bottom "This page was last edited on 12 November 2021, at 22:37." Unfortunately they don't offer us the opportunity to look at the page history. So that's all I know for sure. Therefore I added a CC-by template to the article. Diff of Custodian bank. — Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that would be a pain. They seem to be using mediawiki, though, so you can just append "&action=history" to the article view URL to see the history (like so). It appears there was just one edit - the article's creation by "BotanyGa" on 11/12/21. The article on handwiki does appear to be an exact copy of our article as of 11/12/21 (actually 10/31); the only difference seems to be some dropped internal links where they don't appear to be hosting a copy of the target page. Apologies for being a pest; I know your work is detailed and gruesome and your capacity for sidebar puzzles is probably limited. Kuru (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok cool, thanks for the info, I will remove the template.— Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian Federation Security Guard Service Federal Academy

OK, let's find the original Russian-language source of the text. This text, which I have never seen, according to the information on this garbage site, was posted in 2021. I took information about the formation of the School of Military Engineering in Bagrationovsk (1 June 1966) on the myfreedom.ru website — this text in Russian has been online since at least 2016. This also applies to other parts of the text, which I confirm by the “myfreedom” note. Let's take a look at other links. Kremlin-9 Project (No. 69) article has been online since at least 22 June 2019. Article about the museum has been online since at least 29 May 2020. So, we conclude that someone somewhere on the Internet translated an article about this academy and posted it on a garbage site. Naturally, the different names of this academy, translated into English, completely coincided. Please note that in the comparison tool, most of the matches are just the names of the academy in different historical periods. And also in some places, we have some “stamp phrases” (e.g. “In accordance with the order of the”). It's rather embarrassing for me to be accused of “copyvio,” while I translated this text (and edited it a little to remove unnecessary details) from the Russian Wikipedia based on sources I found (by the way, if you look at the Russian version of the article, there are not many of these sources, but I found them specifically for an article in the English Wikipedia). — Soul Train (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• And, also, let's look at a comparison between the Russian Wikipedia version of the article and the article on this garbage site (which has been operating as a spam aggregator since 2021). The comparison tool shows 94.5 % of similarity. The problem is that, in general, an article in the Russian Wikipedia has existed in this form since at least 8 March 2019. Perhaps even longer. So, this site copies information from other sources, including Wikipedia, and then translates articles automatically (for example, using Google Translate). And of course, many parts of the article (stamp words and previous titles of the academy) are translated in the only possible way. — Soul Train (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Antithetical couplet for Nguyễn Trung Trực

I see you deleted 2 poems in Nguyễn Trung Trực article.

There is no problem with the so-called poem of King Tự Đức.

But the second poem is very famous, especially the 3rd and the 4th sentences, that integrated with Sir Nguyễn's fame - appears as an Antithetical couplet in most of his temples.

Is it reasonable to add the Antithetical couplet back ? Leemyongpak (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable. Make sure you include a source for the English translation (unless you've translated it yourself)— Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, which rule of wikipedia prohibits adding a few famous poems in an article? I see a lot of poems and pictures in these two articles Yue Fei, Li Bai - one poet and one general of China, are they Exceptions ? Wikipedia even has Template:Poem quote for quoting a poem into an article. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, I never said it was prohibited. I said the article was starting to look like a memorial page. With ten percent of the word count being devoted to poetic tributes, it seemed to me to be too much. An editorial decision, not a rule.— Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

OK. I will add parts of the poems back - just most important and famous sentences - to keep the article balance. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

/* Wikipedia and copyright */ Need more clarity regarding content added from each reference link

Shalom World

Hi Diannaa, You rejected the content added from the following reference because I didn't include the content in quotes since it was mentioned by a person in the article, correct? https://nce.catholic.org.au/the-bridge/the-bridge/catholic-streaming-alternatives#_edn1 Can you explain why the content added from the following reference article was rejected? https://rcdop.org.uk/events/wyd-2019-enjoy-with-shalom-world-tv Both were added in a single edit. Could that be why both edits were removed? If the content from the second reference link is valid, can you add it back? Angeljoe19 (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you copied three paragraphs of copyright text from two different sources. There's no indication that it was your intention that any of it should be quotations. That's a violation of our copyright policy. I can't add any of it back for that reason. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I see it now. I had copied the content that would be useful for the page from those references, but accidentally pasted the same content before modifying it for Wikipedia. I really didn't mean to put the content this way, will make sure this doesn't happen again. Angeljoe19 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Horror film

Hey Dianna, I responded on my talk page, but I did not copy (nor have I ever seen this essay). We both quote the same book, and otherwise, I have not added anything. I feel a direct quote is important here, but I would like to revert and clean it up. Is there some way to restore this on your end? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Cosmic Dust Analyzer copyvio

Hey, thanks for catching and removing that. I don't understand how I missed it when I was doing my AfC review, and I appreciate your cleaning up after my carelessness. Rusalkii (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Normandy landings / Film and television

Hello. You reverted my edit on the article with the comment "the film is not primarily about this topic" and yet the same list contains two other titles where the Normandy landings are similarly only one of several depicted events of WWII and not the primary focus, Band of Brothers and The Big Red One. If those projects deserve to be mentioned then so does My Way and if not then they should be removed as well.--Repli cant (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

My preference would be to not include any pop culture links at all, per WP:MILPOP, but people keep adding them back. — Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Barry Sanders

Hello there! I saw that you recently removed one of my edits on said article due to them being copyright violations. I was not aware of any violations from the source that I used. I will take your word for it though as I'm definetly not an expert on copyright. I'm wondering if there would be any way for me to know what content was in violation, so that I could find a different source thats doesn't have copyrighted content and use that to add information. There's no way for me to access my original edit as it was blanked, so I have no idea what was removed and what was kept. Thank you for your time!! NSNW (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to change which source you used; what you have to do is use your sources as a source of information, not of prose. Pretty much all content online and in books or magazines is copyright, so your idea of finding something you could copy-paste here is not a workable one regardless. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be in your own words please. I can send you the deleted content via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first.— Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I just activated my email for you. Please email me the deleted content. NSNW (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

ygm— Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Gigg Lane

Can you please explain your action in regard to copyright violations at this page. You have apparently deleted nine edits because of information taken from the Bury FC website. However, one of those edits was the addition of two books to the bibliography section. Another was the addition of information about the first two FA Cup ties played at the ground and that all came from my books, not from any website. Other edits were simple fixes of typos, etc. and, overall, I cannot see any difference between the article before your intervention and after. What is going on? No Great Shaker (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove any content - there was some content that matched that atthe website https://www.buryfc.co.uk/history2/gigg-lane. You had later removed the content so I assumed you had accidentally copied it. You can view the overlapping text by looking at this report and clicking on the iThenticate link.— Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. It looks as if I temporarily copied the bit about crowds so I could work it in. It must have been saved unintentionally although, as you say, it was all amended soon afterwards. No harm done but sorry for any inconvenience. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Restoring deleted redirects

Hello there! Would it be possible to restore breast aplasia and mammoplasia as redirects to the Micromastia article? I'm aware of the Neelix situation, but these terms still appear in the lead of that article (afaik this is long after the dust has settled on the issue), and from a quick look on Google Scholar these do appear to be terms used in scientific literature. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Mammoplasia is already an article; it's existed since before the Neelix affair, and appears to have a different meaning. Maybe you meant Hypomastia? I can do breast aplasia though.— Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies! Yes, I did mean hypomastia. Not sure how I got those mixed up, sorry. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay done. — Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The Sadies

Hi Diannaa. I am confused about why you removed the mention of cause of death. It came directly from an article in USA Today. Would this source be more acceptable https://www.yeproc.com/remembering-the-sadies-dallas-good/ and should I have put quotations around the mention. Many thanks in advance for your help.{{subst:unsigned}}

@FriskySoloV1: There's no problem with the source. The problem is that the text was identical to that in the source, and is thus a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I re-wrote it to make it copyright compliant and left the USA Today source in place. The cause of death now reads "The cause was a recently-detected heart condition.[8]" — Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)