User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11796 articles, as of 00:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

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)

  I have checked both of these using this copy of the source and found you have added the same content in the same order using very similar wording. That's a violation of our copyright policy. So I have removed both additions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  No i just summarized it and write it with my own words and logic, i'm a MD so explain to me ? Lanm-more (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  and sure i'll summarize in the same order and when i edited again after you checked i changed all the sentences spotted by the bot to respect the copyright, there is a difference between summarizing and stealing the data, if you checked them by any plagiarism detector it will be unique 100% Lanm-more (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just reword phrases and substitute different nouns; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. Technical material is difficult to summarize. Closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression. If you can't figure out a way to re-write the material, you can't add it to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 17 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)

Thank you. I do seem to have access. — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 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

I checked the article and edited it again with improvements that respect copyright with my own words so if you don't mind to check it again and discuss me without blocking me (because i'm practicing not violate the copyrights intentionally), Thanks for help Lanm-more (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you are doing it intentionally or not. If you can't write your own prose, you can't edit here. — Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Massive copyvio at Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)

Hi Dianna, hope you're doing well. I want to alert you that an IP editor, apparently a sock of a user banned from editing the article itself, has added a massive wall of text (57,577 bytes worth) to the Talk:New chronology (Fomenko) page with text copied-and-pasted from here and here and probably other places as well. This editor has a long history of trying to add fringe conspiracy theory material to the article, adding ridiculously long walls of text to the talk page, and attacking other editors there. Carlstak (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Carlstak. I've done the revision deletion. Thanks for the report. If you have more IPs, I can see if a rangeblock is possible. — Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. I'll let you know if I find anything. Carlstak (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio?

Hi Diannaa, I was a bit worried about this recent copy of an entire paragraph from The Economist. Following your copyvio block of its editor, perhaps you could deal with this too please. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding quotations to citations is not a copyright violation, but when done to excess it's a violation of our non-free content guideline. There's no set limit on the size or number of quotations. That said, Wikipedia articles should for the most part be written in our own words, and quotations used only when absolutely necessary. I often remove quotations from citations, especially if the quotes are from readily available sources or the content is not controversial or the material is not likely to be challenged. The quotes are still available in the page history, and by viewing the cited source document. I have removed six quotations from the article Greased piglet, including the long quote from The Economist. — Diannaa (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and thanks for your actions. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Hi there, Diannaa. I've seen you frequently address copyright violations so I think you might be the right editor to ask: Did I get this and this right? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robby.is.on. Thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. You are correct, that's a violation of our copyright policy. The template you placed on the user's talk page is a good one to use under the circumstances, as they have no previous copyright warnings and very little interaction with other users in spite of their length of service. I will do some revision deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Non-arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy

Hi Diannaa, i finished my first article, I've checked via Earwig's Copyvio Detector to detect any copyright violation to see my progress in writing and summarizing, i hope to check it and review it and let me know if you see any necessary edits to be done. Thanks Lanm-more (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The draft has been deleted due to checkuser results and block. — Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Nova Scotia

I am getting many copyright violations at Talk:Nova Scotia am I missing somthing here? Moxy- 12:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of quotation of passages from the article itself that have been pasted to the talk page. Also in the collapsed section labelled "notes &refs" there are quotations from various sources/potential sources. — Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Kunsthall Trondheim - copyvio, and yet...

Please would you take a look at this. The prose is as near a complete copyvio as can be, but there is a great swathe of stuff that is not. Your expertise would be valuable here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the amount I am going to have to remove is quite large. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

ME123 CCI

I started looking at some others on the same page as autism, and copyvio is everywhere I look. How can I avoid pinging you every time I find one that needs to be addressed? Here's one, for example: [1]. I've found quite a few, so have started only marking those that are clear, passing by those that have copyvio and need attn. For example, starting at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 02#Pages 1001 to 1020, Jeremy Bamber is more than I can address, and at St Pierre, Monmouthshire is CC by 2 (https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/300002043-church-of-st-peter-mathern) acceptable? Is it OK to just add a note on those that need CCI admin attention so I don't have to ping you every time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. If you find a violation, please remove it. If you think revision deletion is a good option, please mark it with the template {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Removing the violation yourself and using the template (which places the articles into a category as needing admin attention) rather than asking me to do it will help spread the workload around among the several people who patrol that category, and will free me up to do more assessments of trickier cases, which is something I am good at. There's a script you can install to make adding the template easier to do. The script is located at User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.

Please have a look at the guide that Moneytrees created - it's at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide. Quite comprehensive. I have to go to bed now so if you have any more questions tonight hopefully you will find the answers there. If you're not sure how to handle any of the cases, it's best to leave them for someone else to tackle. — Diannaa (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest revision deletion of more than 50 diffs unless the additional diffs are all (or nearly all) by the same editor. I typically don't do revision deletion on an article that is about a current controversial event or on articles that are currently being heavily edited. — Diannaa (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks, this helps ... I have been marking "need attn" on those that have copyvio, so I can revisit them now with this info. But will do that tomorrow; I have COVID, so this kind of mechanical work is good for my bored but befuddled brain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got it now ... will skip over any I don't feel sure on. Messed up the enterprisey script at Jeremy Bamber, so will probably add the template manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, it's not only copyvio I'm finding, but just a lot of really poor editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the edits I checked would require way more than 50 diffs to be revdel's, so I could only request revdel on a few. I'm a bit shocked at how bad this is, and that it went on so long. It's complicated in some cases by WP:CWW of the original copyvio, or CWW of other copyvios. Sheesh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Did I get this one right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry for the delay in replying. Where did you see that license? — Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hang on, will backtrack and check ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

At the bottom of the About page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I also did one of those at Cwm, Llanrothal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

These are both fine. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Regulation and Development of the Financial Market

Hi Diannaa, you deleted the publication on the grounds that I violated copyright, although I prepared an article about a state organization and all materials and texts were obtained from official sources (decrees and laws) of a legislative, administrative nature, which according to the Law of Kazakhstan № 6-I "On Copyright" are not objects of copyright rights. You have provided a link to the site twice adilet.zan.kz which is only a collection of legal acts and laws from the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan. Can you explain in more detail the reason for the removal of the material? Ajgerim.batyrova (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The place where I found the matching content was https://2021.cyberpolygon.com/participants-and-partners/ (not a government webpage, marked as © BiZone LLC, 2022), and https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/Z030000474_ (not a government webpage, marked as "© 2012. «Institute of legislation and legal information of the Republic of Kazakhstan» of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan".) The original law in the original language appears to not be copyright (as well as official translations) but this page is marked as being an unofficial translation and therefore is eligible for copyright protection. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Addressing copyright violation

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your effort in checking my contributions. I would appreciate it if you can further explain what was copied when I merely referenced the information from the Xavier University website. I would appreciate a clear explanation, so I can re-edit it with all respect to the copyright but also provide the most accurate information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor1175 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Xavier University School of Medicine. You added a paragraph that matches text that was previously published here, in the section labelled "What will I learn in medical school?". While this website was not what you listed as being one of your sources, the prose you added was a match for their content. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hanan Issa

I'm concerned that the article Hanan Issa copies some whole sentences pretty much verbatim from the sources which it quotes. Furthermore, the article creator (and its sole contributing editor so far) already has a note on their talk page from you regarding copyright issues. You might like to take a look, and if necessary, clean up the article and/or discuss this further with the editor. Thanks. Dani di Neudo (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. I am cleaning it now. Sorry for the delay. — Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Addressing copyright violation: 1939 German ultimatum to Poland

Hii Diannaa, you deleted a part of an article I published and left a comment on my user page.

On your edit to this article you described how the part I copied was a translation (of a historical document) likely protected by copyright, citing the bottom on the website I referenced. However the website themselves cited an already translated document (German Library of Information, Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War. Compiled and Published by the German Foreign Office, New York, 1940, pp. 485–488). Am I wrong in assuming this makes the situation different?

If so, could this be resolved by me simply citing the document directly as well? Can one never copy a translation of a historical document verbatim? Do I have to translate it myself? Thank you. Narvwa (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

1939 German ultimatum to Poland. Translating a document generates a new copyright, held by the translator. You need to know the copyright status of the translation, not of the original document. If the translation is copyright, we can't use it. Yes, you would have to provide your own translation, or perhaps as an alternative you could provide an external link to a website that is hosting a translation.

That said, I have found the book in question at the Internet Archive and looking at its front matter I find that it was published in 1939 without a copyright notice. Therefore according to the Hirtle Chart it is now in the public domain, so the translation is available for us to publish.

When copying from public domain sources, we have to provide attribution so that our readers will be aware that we copied the prose rather than wrote it ourselves, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. This can be done by including the template {{PD-notice}} after the citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future if you should happen to again copy something that is in the public domain. — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Pro-muslim bias examples from Criticism of the BBC

I am concerned about the rationale behind these deletions, particularly the Kriss Donald murder case. For Kriss Donald, Could you clarify what exactly was copied from the referenced article and why it required the deletion of the entire section? As for the Rotherham case, I could not find any articles from allowed publishers specifically naming the BBC but I could relating to other cases (the Telford Case being one example), I will write a more generic section relating to the Suppression of sexual assaults made by Pakistani Muslims. Chrisuk82 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Content was a match for prose found at this webpage. I removed the whole paragraph because everything was identical except for the first sentence. But now that I look again, I see the content you added is also a match for material in the Wikipedia article Murder of Kriss Donald. While it's okay to copy content from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is supplied by saying in your edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. Please have a look at this edit summary for an example of how it is done. Supplying such edit summaries as attribution is required by the terms of our license, and is an aid to patrollers as well. Sorry for the mistake. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Re:Copyright problem on Mitja Velikonja

Hello, I just saw your message. Can you please just let me know which information in particular was removed as I am unable to see the latest previous version in page history? The current version (recalling now only from my deceptive from memory) seems to be almost identical to the article as I created it (which is now not visible in history), but if some relevant info was removed due to too close paraphrasing I would like to reintroduce it in different words if that's possible. Also, some transparency will help anyone interested in evaluating the extent of the issue which was identified and addressed with this action. I understand that you can not reintroduce the exact removed version, I just wanted maybe number of words removed and what was information contained (not someone's style). Best regards and thank you for your kind feedback and offer to ask for further clarification. MirkoS18 (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about his research interests, as it was still the same as the source webpage, having only been rearranged a little bit. — Diannaa (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you maybe propose how this information can be inserted differently? It seemed to me like a simple/basic information (and my understanding is that there's no copyright on information itself really but only on style) but since I am not native English speaker I am maybe missing what would be alternative phrasing for the information in question.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)