User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15999 articles, as of 22:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

GEM

Thank you for re-editing my contribution to the page. I understand that I might have used too much copyright content and honestly appreciated your inputs. That said, I do not fully capture why you restored the maintenance tags as I felt that my edits had taken care of those issues. More specifically:
1) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject: perhaps the original author did back in 2017, but I surely don't and apparently neither do you nor the other editors who contributed since that time.
2) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral: the website of the consortium was removed and references listed included universities and a very top academic journal like 'Small Business Economics'. I am sure there the web has countless websites listing the use of GEM data, but it becomes a matter of using the references appropriately. Do you think there should be a section listing academic studies using GEM data?
3) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations: I think the numbers clearly show the ongoing relevance of this project on a global scale (25 years of history, 115 countries participating, use of data by the UN, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the OECD)
Again, thank you Mobinow (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Please post on the article talk page to discuss your proposed removal of the maintenance tags. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, done! Mobinow (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Iona College

Hi Diannaa-Thank you for flagging issues with the edits I made on the Iona College page. I am an employee of the College and have been asked to update the Wikipedia page. Can you let me know if the image was the only issue or if there were other issues with my updates? Thanks! Marcomgael (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Some help

Hi, I'm new to Wiki so I was wondering if you could help me. I saw you reverted my edit on the England national page. I must agree, that I do feel my edit went over the top in the history sections. I was wondering, though, on how do you go around attribution? How do I copy content from other Wiki pages with attribution? If I go over the edits I made, such as trimming down my edit on the history section, and learning how to fully attribution, would you allow my edit to go through? Appreciate it.

Woozworlduser (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't favor adding all that content, as the main article England is supposed to be an overview of the topic. Details on different aspects belong in the sub-articles. That's why sub-articles were invented: to prevent the main article from becoming too large to read or edit comfortably. We start creating sub-articles when a page reaches about 10,000 words. England is currently 17301 words, even without your additions. You can see at the bottom of the article there's a set of templates that offer our readers links to our articles on various topics that they might like to read about further.

Regarding attribution: While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. — Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem on WIPO Lex

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/info/faq.html, which is not released under a compatible license. That's because their terms of use states "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO." Our license allows derivative works with no such restriction. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. This is odd because all content produced by WIPO since 2017 is published under a CC BY 4.0 licence, as stated in the terms of use of their website [1]. I have discussed that with WIPO several times, and except for situations where a report include elements copyrighted by other parties, all their websites and all their content are CC BY. I have tried to find what piece of text was an issue and I have tried to find where you found that section in the FAQ. And could not find any of those.

Can you please tell me in which section you found "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO. » And please tell me as well as which part of the text was problematic and removed from my edits please ? I’ll revert back to WIPO Lex team to find out if that piece of legal text you mention might be a leftover from before 2017 ? And if a sentence is a copy of something you believe to be copyrighted, then I’ll get them to send a permission. Please revert to me. Thanks in advance. Anthere (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I am acting WIR at WIPO. Anthere (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The page you link to says "This is in line with the Creative Commons – Attribution (BY) 4.0 – license" which is not the same thing as saying that the content is released under that license, because they very intentionally go on to make a restriction that's not part of the license: "The user must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other action in relation to the content published on the WIPO website and online services that would be prejudicial to the reputation of WIPO." The terms of the cc-by-4.0 license states that "no additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." So this is not actually released under license, because they've added extra conditions, which is not allowed under cc-by-4.0. — Diannaa (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

They also state that "From November 15, 2016, new WIPO publications as well as other selected content are available for use under Creative Commons licenses and clearly marked as such." The particular page that was copied has no such marks or notice. So, that particular page does not appear to be released under license. For comparison, here is an example of the way they mark the specific pages/reports that are released under license. — Diannaa (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, it makes sense. I’ll revert to them to ask them what they suggest. I suppose I can rephrase the sentences removed. Thanks. Anthere (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, we rephrased. Felt like the easiest option. But I now keep in mind that the website itself is restricted. Anthere (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

German auxiliary cruiser Pinguin

Could you have a look at the above article. It appears to be a near complete copyvio (96.8%) of https://web.archive.org/web/20090205181433/http://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/pinguin.html from 2010. Looks like it was picked up once but readded by the now banned editor Lyndaship (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the violation by restoring an old revision. I won't be doing revision deletion though, because to do so would hide 12 yrs worth of edits. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hello, guru of all things copyright. Here are 2 links to the same article:[2][3]. The first is to the paywalled paper itself, the second I got via the WP-library>Proquest. Unlike say JSTOR, that link doesn't seem to expire/demand login later. To your knowledge, is it problematic to add the proquest link to a cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot view the ProQuest version in full, because I am not logged in. I don't know if ProQuest has the right to re-publish content from The Telegraph. Why not just link to the original article? Fun fact: Earwig's tool can view the whole article, even through the Telegraph's paywall. — Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason to add the ProQuest would have been because it would have been more helpful to the general reader, but if its not, that's moot (that is a fun fact). And now I see that ProQuest has kept me logged in, probably a cookie-thing, but if I log out I can't read it in full either. So not wrong in cite but also on the whole pointless. Oh well, thanks for talking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Just confirmed your Earwig claim. That's hilarious. Have to test that on more paywalls. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Try it on the Washington Post, lol — Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Miles Quaritch

Yeah I used as the basis for the biograpghy, same was done for Jake Sully's article Advofspec (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for both articles. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have started using more attribution, thanks! Advofspec (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Longmont Museum & Cultural Center

Hi Diannaa - I work for the City of Longmont and the Longmont Museum & Cultural Center. The content currently on the Longmont Museum & Cultural Center wikipedia page is very out of date. I updated it last week to bring it up to date, but it appears all my edits were rejected. We have complete permission to use the content I posted because we wrote it about ourselves (i.e. the history of the Museum) and would like to share this information with the wiki community. Joanharrold (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

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

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio at Marie Claire

Hi Diannaa, looks like a revdel is needed at Marie Claire; the content was added with this edit with text copied from marieclaireinternational.com. Carlstak (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. Carlstak (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

About the copyright advice

Thank you for the message on my talk page. I took the advice and I'm going through the copyright and policy guidelines. Skhofeni (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me improve my Wikipedia editing! Advofspec (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with broken references

Hi Diannaa, you recently removed some copyright violating content from the article German State Theatre Timișoara. Unfortunately this left a broken reference in the article, which I can't fix because I can't see the deleted revisions. Would you be able to repair the reference please? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Found it. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio, but I need help

I need this page deleted. I created the redirect, but misspelled Repository and have no clue how to make it go away. I made one with the correct spelling, which is fine. I am sure there is a technical way I can request this with some template or something, but I have no clue how to do that. Thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. The way to request is via tagging {{Db-g7}} . — Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your "always willing to help" attitude. SusunW (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright help

Hi Diannaa, hope you're doing well! I am having some issues with an editor at Endogenous retrovirus, where they copied text from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11423012 (CopyPatrol link) and have repeatedly reinstated the text after removal. At User talk:DanCherek#Copyright violation, I am concerned by their statements and misunderstanding of copyright policy. Could you assess the recent edits and perform any removals / revision deletions as necessary? Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay, I was away from computer for a while. — Diannaa (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. DanCherek (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

At least I have Internet! Rogers network has been down all day, Canada-wide. I am on Telus. — Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, just saw it in the news! I had Rogers when I used to live in Ottawa (my hometown!), but that was a long time ago. Glad you're still online :) DanCherek (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Turnitin down for scheduled maintenance

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T309816

There have been no new CopyPatrol reports since 22:19 UTC, as the service is undergoing scheduled maintenance. https://twitter.com/turnitinstatus. I don't know if the error message we are receiving when trying to view an iThenticate ticket is related or not. See ticket T309816 for my comments on that. It might be a separate issue, I don't know. — Diannaa (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Etruscan

Hi Diannaa. First, thanks for all the work you do here. Second, you noted that you took down some of the content on Etruscan and that I needed to pay more attention to copyright and plagiarism issues. I have tried to be fairly careful on the plagiarism front, but it would be great if you see somewhere when I fall down on that and let me know specifically, so I can learn. The issue of wikipedia and copyright is what I need to (and have started to) learn more about. It seems rather restrictive. I'll try to see if I can determine whether something is copyrighted or not in the future. Any hints on how to do that (besides the points made on the copyright page that you linked and that I have read now) would be helpful. In general, it would be great if you could indicate exactly what was wrong with particular deletions, again, so I can learn better, though I know this puts a burden on your already busy schedule. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! Johundhar (talk) 14:37, 9 July 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 the overlapping content. It should be pretty clear why I determined that there's too much overlap with the source, and had to remove it. If you are unable to rewrite this material in your own words, you will have to leave it out.

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. That being said, the vast majority of print material and stuff you find online has its copyright status clearly indicated. The particular work that the content was copied from is https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118354933.ch14. The webpage is marked as "Copyright © 1999-2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved". When I click in the link to have a look at a pdf copy of the chapter, it offers to sell it to me, which is a clear indication that it's not available under license. The content is a book chapter from the book A Companion to the Etruscans which is marked as © 2016 John Wiley & Sons in its front matter. — Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hawala and crime

Hi Diannaa, I came across this while doing page review. I ran earwig and its report 92.5% from Hawala. Is that stringfixer public domain? That whole block from Post-9/11 money laundering crackdowns section is the same as that site. Any help is appreciated. scope_creep^Talk 20:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a copy of our article Hawala, — Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

So it will be an attribution notice, if its not already present. scope_creep^Talk 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I did that on June 9. Diff of Hawala and crime — Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I will check to see what it looks like. scope_creep^Talk 21:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sauk Siege

I ran the Earwig on this, came up with Earwig at 93.4%. I'm a on a fairly steep learning curve here. Firstly, I see a you've left a notice on the editors page, so now they are no longer using that url. It does seem from the Earwig, that the three urls the editor is using, constitute about 90%+ of the article. It looks as though the contents been copied across. That is one of the problems, its not referenced either. I would say it is close to "All of article violates copyright" from WP:COPYVIO. That would be assuming they are not public domain sources. How would you tell? scope_creep^Talk 21:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a block out. It looked like copyvio, left a warning and moved the article to draft. scope_creep^Talk 22:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, I see that I had indicated in February that the content was moved to the new article from Al-Ma'unah back in February. Looking at the November version of that article compared to the new article accounts for all the overlap. So once again the purported source web page is a Wikipedia mirror. Please have a look at Earwig's report comparing the revision of the draft before you removed the content with revision 1054885865 of Al-Ma'unah and go back and reverse your actions please. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I will do. Geez, how did I get it so wrong. Its difficult work. Talk about fumbling about. I'll issue an apology. scope_creep^Talk 08:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Here's an important clue. All the citations have old dates. It's the first clue that the material was copied/moved from elsewhere on Wikipedia as that's a lot of stuff to fake. Also, I don't think you had a careful enourgh look at the edit history. — Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say so. I never thought to check that. Is it often copied content from a WP source, for example a mirror? I was planning to go through the NPP list with the filter set to copyvio, try and do as many as I could, so as to take the load of the other reviewers, but its definently difficult work. I'm now planning to do another one, and maybe report to yourself what I think is needing down, then you tell me if i'm going in the right direction, before I do it. scope_creep^Talk 13:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to say, there's usually at least 5 or 10 a day like that at CopyPatrol, where they copied from another article or moved content from another article. Looking at the page history sometimes helps, or if they've moved content, looking at the user's contribs will tell you where they got it, as you will see a diff of the removal. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I never thought to look at that either. I'll watch out for it. scope_creep^Talk 14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Groosham Grange

Diannaa, I have this one, first one on the NPP list: [earwig]. It has block Groosham Grange reported by earwig to be copyvio. Examing the report it states, this as the url with the supposed copyvio text: https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4603253/normal_600257d391bdd.pdf When you look for normal_600257d391bdd.pdf it comes up with "Groosham Grange - Two Books in One!", an edition of the book. So I suspect that block has been copied from the book. scope_creep^Talk 14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

But look at the bottom of page 5 and you will see the message "This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. December Learn how and when to remove this template message. AnthonyHorowitz- Return to Groosham Grange." So it looks like the portion picked up by Earwig was copied from Wikipedia. There's an article called Return to Groosham Grange so I am checking old revisions there to try to locate the content.

It may not be obvious to you as you are not an admin, but the article Groosham Grange was deleted back in 2013. More to follow — Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at the dates on the citations, some of them are really old. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: And here it is: Previous revision of Return to Groosham Grange. So our attribution needs to be as follows: "Attribution: text was copied from an old revision of Return to Groosham Grange on June 7, 2021. Please see the history of that page for full attribution. (See WP:RIA for more information.)" I will do that right now, and let the editor know as well. — Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa. I did notice one of the citations dates were old. So that is obviously an indication that content is itself old/older, indicating its been copied from another article. I was wide of the mark again. I don't know if you have the patience, but I'd like to do another couple more, see how they pan out, maybe in a week or so. Its details work. I'll take a look at the attribution notice. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to work through a few more that would be great. Happy to help. — Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Bmurphy380

I just left a third copyvio warning on the talk page for this user for misattribution of uploaded images. I don't normally do a lot with copyvios but since you left the first warning for this user and it doesn't appear to have sunk in, I'll call your attention to it in case additional steps are needed. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction: one of the images was uploaded right before your initial warning, but the other was uploaded yesterday. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The images were uploaded to the Commons. I can't block on this wiki for activities on a different wiki. Please contact the Commons admin team. I think the correct place to do so is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. — Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Images posted by the NTSB fall under public domain, and therefore are acceptable in the commons. There is no copyright infringement with using publicly shared photos from a government agency. Bmurphy380 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did you label the images "own work" if they're from a government agency? What was the source of this image ? — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The image from the NTSB should not have been labeled as "own work". If such was labeled, that may have been a mistake on my end. The source of the image is NTSB Report# AAR89-02S Doc PB89-910405. Bmurphy380 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

DylanKB

Hello Diannaa. Thank you for the corrections and recommendations. I'll be sure to refine my editing appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanKB (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Diannaa - hope you are well. Thank you for dealing with the copyvios from Cornmazes' contributions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts! Hope you are well. Thanks for your interest as well. — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Neurofibroma and Schwannoma

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your effort i really appreciate that, but can i ask you to show me how i largely copied from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-012-0954-z i tried to see what you reverted but i couldn't so i hope to show me or explain to make it to me clear so i can re-edit it with all respect to the copyright for both articles if you don't mind, Thanks and hope you are well. Lanm-more (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

so if you can show me the content you deleted / hide to review it because when i reviewed the article i didn't see that i violated the copyright, i'm glad to get your help in that Lanm-more (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your additions were flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and were assessed by myself.

• Here is a link to the bot report for Neurofibroma. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.
• Here is a link to the bot report for Schwannoma. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. — Diannaa (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  i added the differential diagnosis section again in Neurofibroma if you want to check it again and cellular Schwannoma section, i tried to fix it Lanm-more (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright WalkingRadiance

I want to add some material to the page for Vehicle Routing but I'm not sure if I am following copyright.

I created a draft based on the 2nd reference in Arc Routing and Bodin and Goldin (1981) at User:WalkingRadiance/draft changes.

I will not add this if is a copyright violation. WalkingRadiance (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The second reference is .

Omer, Masoud (2007). "Efficient routing of snow removal vehicles".

.

WalkingRadiance (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot check the draft against https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/net.3230110204 because it is behind a paywall. I have removed content copied from https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5362&context=etd from your draft. There's also a copyright problem with your addition at Gliosarcoma; I will clean that in a minute. — Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) WalkingRadiance, I've removed some content from your page as you seem to have taken it more or less directly from the Bodin source. Hi, Diannaa! I don't know if you have Wikipedia Library access (I imagine you do), but you may not have seen that Wiley has been added to the resources there. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Schindler's List edit

I am a little concerned about the edit you made here. It wasn't merely a refernce that was needed, but rahter context. What struck me about the writing was that it seemed as if the contributor to the article was making the claim as opposed to the source. With regards to the Rosner source, I've copyedited the statement to reflect that it is Rosner's opinion, not ours. Unfortunately, the Ligocka source is more problematic. Nowhere in the book that you added as a source specifically/explicitly mentions that the girl in the red coat featured in the film is Ligocka. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You can view the Rosner article online, and it specifies that it is Genia-Gittel Hail's relatives (not Rosner) who believe the girl was their relative. I don't have access to the other source (Ligocka) and I am not the person who added that content. The content was already there when I made my first edit to the article in 2010. The content appears to have originated based on this 2004 article which states that Logocka is the girl in the red coat. This blurb shows that Ligocka might believe that she is the girl. What we have to realize is that there may have been several Jewish girls in Krakow who owned red coats. I am going to amend the text to reflect this. In the future, please note that this type of discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. I am not the only person maintaining this article - there's several knowledgeable contributors who do so. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of the regular practice of bringing discussions about content up in the article discussion space, but topics such as what I brought up are pretty emptionally charged, and it seemed prudent to make sure that no increased offense was taken at the edit; for example, someone freaked out over the removal of the carnage images in the Rape of Nanjing article a few years ago, or the emotional, nationalistic flame wars that erupted after the 300 was released. That sort of emotional investment is non-conducive to collaborative editing. That said, I am glad that we had a civil discussion about this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Gliosarcoma

you said that i copied the content from this link (https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5362&context=etd) but this link talked about (Efficient routing of snow r outing of snow removal vehicles) not Gliosarcoma and i read and try using my words so i checked the bot but i didn't copy the whole my edit maybe i missed some phrases but not the whole edit and consider that i can't change the references name, Thanks in advance and i appreciate your effort Lanm-more (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)