User talk: Diannaa
Skip to the bottom ⇩ · It is 1:31 AM where this user lives in Alberta. ( )
Talk page archive |
---|
Holy God! Before taking such a drastic step, did you check talk? I had a copyright violation investigation for this article and it was determined the plot was copied to, not from, IMDb. Do you have evidence that refutes this conclusion? Ribbet32 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Ribbet32. I did not look at the talk page. I have undone the removal; sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bachwiz18 here, Ribbet32 is correct, I created the plot summary from memory myself after seeing the film in theaters. It appears the IMDb was updated used my Wikipedia summary. Sorry for any confusion.
I've undone this edit of yours and its accompanying rev-deletion. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at an article split by a new user, rather than a copyvio; the offending text has been moved from Honourable Artillery Company, and was in that article in 2011 so can't have been plagiarised from the claimed website which is dated 2012. ‑ Iridescent 08:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ok thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Oregon Bottle Bill
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Oregon_Bottle_Bill I am wondering what it is that was deleted. Was it something I put in? I'm always conscious so I'm curious what was going on there. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, you copied something and then removed it yourself with your very next edit. That's why you weren't notified by me - you caught the error yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- How do things that was quickly caught and removed end up flagged anyhow? Mike 171 contains several sentences of word for word from https://www.sjk171.net/about and SJK 171 contained several sentences in the same manner (which I've removed) but I don't see the original copyright infringement contents struck out. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay you've got 4 questions here. (1) Your edit was noticed by a bot, and a report was filed by that bot at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. (2) Content on Mike 171 has been here since 2008, and the bot was not created until 2016. It's extremely difficult to prove copyvio on content that's been here for eleven years. (3) Can you please specify which edit of yours at SJK 171 removed copyvio ? I'm not seeing that in any of your edit summaries. (4) Infringing content can be struck out by an administrator once it is reported - an admin will do revision deletion to strike it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh gotcha. The bot explanation answers what I was wondering. I started changing things around on SJK 171 not because of copyright, but promotional peacock. I didn't bother visiting the author's website until way later and realized there's much verbatim copy/paste going on. Here's the version before I worked on the article. Here's the source of rather significant word-for-word copying: https://www.sjk171.net/about . When I do see things like this, what's the proper tag or summary to use to get it patrolled? Generally, I've just been editing it out without any additional process. Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Again, that content has been here since 2008, so it's pretty impossible to prove a copyright violation at this point, so I won't be doing revision deletion on that. If you want to request revision deletion, you can use the template
{{Copyvio-revdel}}
. There's a script available to automate and speed up that task: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Again, that content has been here since 2008, so it's pretty impossible to prove a copyright violation at this point, so I won't be doing revision deletion on that. If you want to request revision deletion, you can use the template
- Oh gotcha. The bot explanation answers what I was wondering. I started changing things around on SJK 171 not because of copyright, but promotional peacock. I didn't bother visiting the author's website until way later and realized there's much verbatim copy/paste going on. Here's the version before I worked on the article. Here's the source of rather significant word-for-word copying: https://www.sjk171.net/about . When I do see things like this, what's the proper tag or summary to use to get it patrolled? Generally, I've just been editing it out without any additional process. Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay you've got 4 questions here. (1) Your edit was noticed by a bot, and a report was filed by that bot at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. (2) Content on Mike 171 has been here since 2008, and the bot was not created until 2016. It's extremely difficult to prove copyvio on content that's been here for eleven years. (3) Can you please specify which edit of yours at SJK 171 removed copyvio ? I'm not seeing that in any of your edit summaries. (4) Infringing content can be struck out by an administrator once it is reported - an admin will do revision deletion to strike it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- How do things that was quickly caught and removed end up flagged anyhow? Mike 171 contains several sentences of word for word from https://www.sjk171.net/about and SJK 171 contained several sentences in the same manner (which I've removed) but I don't see the original copyright infringement contents struck out. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Usage of CC 4.0 text
Hi Diannaa! I have tried to use verbatim some portion of an academic text published under CC 4.0 here [1]. The source is here, where the license is also described: [2]. Can you confirm that this is OK, and is there anything I should do differently? Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- You do want to provide attribution. There's a couple of ways to do it: Add a blurb as part of your citation, like I did here, or use a template from Template:CC-notice. I find the templates kinda awkward to use, hence the handmade attribution is my usual method. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Great! Thank you Diannaa!! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
IisabellaA
user:IisabellaA seems like a vandalism-only account. CLCStudent (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah maybe. There's been no further edits though, since your last warning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Advice
Hi Diannaa, could you take a look at the copyvio tag on Boeing X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing? I'm not sure of the best way to handle it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Earwig's tool found an even bigger overlap with this document which is dated November 2009. License is an Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC) license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you again. - BilCat (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
There are quotations (which are attributed and are fair use), but I think that I have edited out any copyright problem. Can't do anything about proper names. Please take a look. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Earwig for Richard Haine 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- All done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thank you for your intervention. Keep Calm and Carry On. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC) |
Copyright violations
Hi. I noticed you recently deleted a copyright violation from Bird Box (film) by 140.186.250.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The user appears to now be adding the same information under the username Movielover3. Below are the three copyright violations I found in their contributions.
- Bird Box: copyvio diff (taken from IMBD)
- Train to Busan: copyvio diff (taken from IMBD)
- Seven: copyvio diff (taken from IMBD)
- Creep: copyvio diff (taken from IMBD)
– Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I am working on it now. No need to add more - I can see all — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Activity has stopped, at least for now. I have to go do yard work for a while and will check back later. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Copyvio
Hi Diannaa, I've reworded some of the text in Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Auckland to make it pass any copyvio with Earwig. Was wondering if you wanted to strike out any previous revisions. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Citation needed Richard Haine
In 1965, he was a participant in the funeral for Winston Churchill.[citation needed] This was in the article before with a citation. Someone deleted it. And now because of the alleged copyright violation (corrected now), the prior iterations have been REVDELd, making it unrecoverable. I've tried finding this again, but it isn't coming up. Any help would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Done Fixed Thank you 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Dacryphilia
You completely deleted this page I created. It was for a class assignment, but thank you. Plewi003
- It was just a copy of Dacryphilia — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Copyright
Hi Diannaa--Thanks for flagging the copied sections in Biking in New York City, I appreciate your carefulness. I should have stated why I included the pasted sections. The catalogue copyright page states that "Curators of Why I Ride will retain the right to reprint the catalogue materials for publicity of catalogue and for future publication." I was a curator and give permission to reuse the content of this collaborative timeline, the purpose of which was to educate and advocate for bikes as is taking place here. If this makes it acceptable to Wikipedia the content may be restored. (I read the section about "donating" work, and it's okay to use the text and to change it.)
Separately, I appreciate the other edits and noticed a couple of errors in dates, including in the NYC timeline--the bike lanes were removed in 1981, not 1980--which I'll correct. Thanks again, MadeineMadeine (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- We can't host copyright content unless we have documentation in place that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures 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) 10:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Please explain why it is not possible to quote Zeynep Çelik according to you, "The remaking of Istambul. University of California Press. Berkely. Los Angeles. London. 1986"? This book is in open electronic access. Let me remind you that I did not write the whole book, but only quoted a small fragment in the theme of tanzimat. My opinion is that you are exceeding your authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.68.34 (talk • contribs)
- Copying material directly from your source is not okay when the material can easily re-worded. Besides, you've not indicated that the material is a quotation; there's no quotation marks, and nothing to indicate that the material is not your own words. That's not okay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Reference to the citation and the full name of the book with the author, year of publication and the number of the cited page were specified by me. I did not Express my opinion at all, it was only quoting. I dare say you were inattentive.
- Your source material should be used as a source of information, not a source of prose. Short quotations are allowed, but there's a couple things: (1) While you did include a citation, you didn't use quotation marks. That's a problem and a violation of our copyright policy, because the reader has no way of knowing that you've copied the material rather than written it yourself. (2) There's reason to use a quotation at all if the material can easily be re-written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The available text contains information in its most General form, but there is no essential indication of the reason why economic policy has been unsuccessful. Therefore, I quoted the Turkish historian with his clear indication of the reason.
Hello, this page is a direct lift from Winterman, M.A. (1988). Croydon's Parks: An illustrated history. London Borough of Croydon, Parks and Recreation Department. p. 11. ISBN 0951348108., and this page, as well as the Council website (in ext links: just fixed the deadlink). It is word for word a lift from the PDF and book with a few minor tweaks. Both the PDF and book are published by the council so they are in effect one entity. Am I missing something here though? Is there something about Local Govt. published items being 'public domain' or am I hallucinating again! Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Also similar problem at Ashburton Park (page nine in the book); haven't yet found the PDF but I will later, when I have time to do a proper search. Thanks; please shout if you need any further information. Eagleash (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)