User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Ajj Aakhaan Waris Shah Nu

I translated the lyrics myself, I’m not sure why you deleted them with an explanation about copyright? Could you please explain why they were deleted or restore them?

Thank you in advance HoneyBuns51 (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The exact same version was previously published online, at http://sikhsindia.blogspot.com/2012_12_01_archive.html, https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/i-ask-waris-shah-today, and elsewhere. So I have trouble believing that you translated the work yourself.— Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki-psyc | Gaslighting Article | Wholesale deletion

Dianna, I'm upset with what was done to my edits. I hope you will revert them immediately. If you take a deeper dive you will see that I have been fixing a deeply flawed article with context, rewriting plagiarism, and replacing junk sources. This is what I started with in July: link to article

I'm not a Wikipedia regular, I'm an expert that comes online at times to correct really problematic psychology articles.

I've made 80 edits, added 11,770 bytes, removed 31,144. I have run plagiarism checks on it and worked to clean up the plagiarism. I have gone through the citations and replaced weak RS with more reputable ones. I have stripped out the well intentioned psychobabble and reworded things to be understandable and accurate for professionals and casual readers.

Today, I spend 5 hours running a plagiarism checker on the first third of the articles and copy editing the existing text. I can't understand why you would just wipe it out these simple copy edits in the name of plagiarism?

I stay out of the wiki-drama, no matter how hard I'm baited, and I walk away when editors get into it. It's already to time intensive to edit here without the drama.

If this is about the photos: I assumed that photos on Wikimedia were fair game. If that's not that case, then please tell me what I need to look for to determine which photos can be used.

If this is about copying text from another article - if you look closer, I actually rewrote and found difference sources because of the errors. And I made note of the transfer as per the advice given to me by another admin.

With all that goes on here, its getting hard to justify investing time. If we can't get this resolved, this will be the last straw for me - not because of you - but the drama overall. There has to be a more constructive way to educate editors than blunt force - removing the work from sight so that everything has to be done over from scratch. Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I am a little baffled by your post, as I have never edited the Gaslighting article or performed any logged actions there. Perhaps you are referring to Narcissism, where I recently removed a short passage (66 words) copied from https://books.google.ca/books?id=mZ5eX44E9lYC&pg=PA340? If so, this is hardly wholesale deletion and does not wipe out your many hours of work. — Diannaa (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Twenty-two (22) edit entries over a 2 day period (see below) were deleted and blocked from view so that I can no longer see them - 5 hours of work on a project I have worked on for six months. Many of these edits are labeled "Copy editing - no content changes". I was clearly in the process of cleaning up grammar and rewording things that were showing up on plagiarism checker from other editors. Can you restore these edits? And can you be so very kind to give me a searchable snippet from the 66 words you removed so I can relocate the text and rework it - its not at the link you posted. I'd really like to finish this work before I sunset my membership. I'm not going to go back an redo the work from scratch - I'm just going to move on. This should be a more collegial environment.

14:38, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 40,381 bytes +32‎ Copy editing - no content changes

14:35, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 40,349 bytes −17‎ →‎Etymology: Copy editing - no content changes

14:29, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 40,366 bytes −132‎ Copy editing - no content changes

07:27, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 40,498 bytes −72‎ Removed source - not reputable.

07:16, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 40,570 bytes +91‎ →‎Normalization of narcissistic behaviors: rewrite photo caption

07:08, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 40,479 bytes +46‎ Added photo to "Normalization of narcissistic behaviors"

06:49, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 40,433 bytes +5‎ →‎Impact on evolution: Retitled → Narcissism and evolution

06:47, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ m 40,428 bytes −1,014‎ →‎The normalization of narcissistic behaviors in society

06:46, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 41,442 bytes +24‎ →‎Narcissistic trends in society: Retitled →The normalization of narcissistic behaviors in society

06:35, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 41,418 bytes −37‎ →‎Examples of narcissistic behaviors: Retitled to "Expressions of narcissism"

06:03, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 41,455 bytes 0‎ Added — Category:1889 introductions | Removed → Category:1914 introductions

05:58, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 41,455 bytes −24‎ Moved Category:Dark triad to Narcissistic Personality Disorder

05:54, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 41,479 bytes −4,135‎ Moved "In popular culture" to "Narcissist Personality Disorder" article as they are examples of Narcissist Personality Disorder, not narcissism per se. This article has a detailed section of "Examples"

00:58, 15 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,614 bytes +36‎ →‎Characteristics: add subtitle → Healthy levels of narcissism

21:50, 14 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,578 bytes −45‎ →‎In popular culture: Removed link to list

21:47, 14 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,623 bytes +363‎ Added Freud image

21:33, 14 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,260 bytes +92‎ Added File:Antonio Zanchi - Sisyphus - more consistent with Caravaggio image.

21:16, 14 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,168 bytes −42‎ Narcissism | state =expand correction

20:01, 14 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,210 bytes −1‎ Spelling and grammar edit

19:53, 14 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,211 bytes −624‎ →‎Etymology: clean up - removed duplicate copy

19:51, 14 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,835 bytes −49‎ →‎Etymology: grammar

19:50, 14 December 2021‎ Wiki-psyc ‎ 45,884 bytes +1,244‎ →‎Etymology: addition content

Wiki-psyc (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The edits were not deleted, they were hidden from view to remove the copyright content from the page history. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. You can see by viewing this Diff of Narcissism that the remainder of your edits were untouched. You can also see by viewing the edit history that I only removed 601 bytes of text. You can compare this with the material at the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. Some of the content not highlighted in the iThenticate link appears both in the book and in the content I removed. Your version was in a bulleted list, and the book has the same content in prose form.— Diannaa (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. No one is questioning the copyright issue. The way this was initially handled was not constructive nor did it assume good faith. Twenty edits were blocked from view and there was no reasonable alternative way to know what was the issue, nor was there a reasonable way to resolve it. Policy doesn't make it right. A lighter hand would benefit everyone. I appreciate your response, though, and your sorting this out. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Schindler's List

Hi, the Schindler's Ark article was changed to non-fiction novel on 27 November 2021 - previously it was listed for years as historical fiction. Denisarona (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think non-fiction novel is a better fit, because it uses actual people and actual events.— Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio with foreign language sources

Hi Diannaa, is there some Wikipedia guidance about not copying translations of foreign language sources into Wikipedia? I know it should be obvious, but copyright rules are rarely obvious. TSventon (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I would need to see an example to answer your question precisely. If a source is copyright, the translation is copyright too. If the source is PD, the translation might be copyright if it was done within the span of normal copyright protection, as it is a derivative work, ie. each translator would come up with a unique translation, containing enough creativity to enjoy copyright protection..— Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The context is that I saw the comment "no copyvio as sources are in German" as a comment on a Did You Know check. User:Paradise Chronicle explained that, but I wanted to find whether there was general guidance on including editors' own translations of copyright material in a foreign language in articles. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I found info at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works and Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Translating. The latter sums it up quite well:

If the source is in a language other than English, the contributor may be under the mistaken belief that the act of translation is a sufficient revision to eliminate concerns of plagiarism. On the contrary, regardless of whether the work is free, the obligation remains to give credit to authors of foreign language texts for their creative expression, information and ideas, and, if the work is unfree, direct translation is likely to be a copyright violation as well.

— Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, DiannaaParadise Chronicle (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, I was having problems finding the detail. TSventon (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Greetings and thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio after final warning

Hi Diannaa, I saw that you gave a final warning on December 4 to JonesJaguar here: User talk:JonesJaguar#December 2021. Unfortunately I have just removed more copyvio that they added today at American kestrel (CopyPatrol) and Proboscis bat. DanCherek (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek I've blocked and left an explanatory rationale. Moneytrees🎄^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both.— Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Potential copyvio

Hi Diannaa. This edit seems like it was copy-pasted from an outside source. Unfortunately I am not able to say from which source. Some of it may be from this press release. As you have dealt with this editor's copyvio previously, maybe you can take a look of it. Beagel (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Two short copyvios

Hi again, I have reverted two edits with information copied from a Guardian article and warned the editor.

• Exeter College, Oxford see Earwig report
• St Hilda's College, Oxford see Earwig report TSventon (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

These are done. Thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup.— Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Referencing quote

Hi Diannaa, I was wandering, how much of a copyright text can be directly copied with attribution please? None? Or just a sentence? Are direct quotes from newspapers etc permitted provided they are short and attributed? I’m worried about adding content in future like this because the very last thing I want is an official warning or block. So will be treading super carefully. Thank you. - Such-change47 (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

What we're supposed to do is use only short quotations, and only if there's no alternative. 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. For a book, it would be more appropriate to provide a few short excerpts (one or two sentences) from reviews rather than extensive quotations from the book itself or from an interview with the author. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea"; "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content, especially Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text, and the essay Wikipedia:Quotations for more details.— Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Such-change47 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: absolute final question I promise, I recall reading you a comment from you somewhere on the copyright of Australian court decisions? It appears that Federal court does not have any copyright. NSW Supreme Court is Creative commons, does that mean it's okay to use here? If you have a list for australian courts and copyright status, and also whether australian legislation is copyright, please could you share here so I have it for future reference, - cheers, and thank you so much for all the help you have given me - Such-change47 (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say that the Australian Federal Court documents don't have any copyright. In all countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention, 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 until proven otherwise. Many documents issued by Australian govt and courts are released under a compatible CC-by license, but many are not, so we should not generalize. Check each source document carefully for copyright/license information, and if you can't prove a document is compatibly licensed, you ahve to assume that it is not.— Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

WP Cyclones CCI

Hi, Diannaa; thanks for the excellent help with Such-change47’s work at FAR. I am once again reminded of my own inexperience.

I am aware that Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones is an enormous undertaking for the few editors who work at CCI, and am attempting to help by at least reviewing the FAs as they come up at FAC, FAR and WP:URFA/2020. Because of all the copying within and public domain sources, and the high number of hurricane FAs, the work is quite time consuming. I have also encountered instances in the past where Earwig fails to detect copyvio towards the end of a FAC because of extensive interim copyediting that occurs during a GA or FAC review, so there is a need to check older versions. I am still trying to develop a methodology and format (hoping others in the FA review processes will follow suit).

I now have questions about my work spread all over creation, and don’t feel confident to move forward on others at URFA without more feedback. Would it be OK with you (that is, do you have the time) if we kept a thread open here where I could post my Dummies 101 questions? Work at FAR is at a deliberately slow pace, so there is no urgency, but I have several reviews stalled now, awaiting checks on my methodology. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to work for me, Sandy, because it would likely reduce the number of people that help and place all the burden on me. If you could post questions at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems instead, that might help spread the work around. I have it on my watch-list and will help for sure, but I don't want to have to do it all.— Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa … that was as I feared, as you are all stretched so thin. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'm a student, so I may not be the fastest to reply, but I have a fairly consistent editing schedules and I don't mind helping. If you want to, I don't mind if you post on my talk page in a thread. I'm more than willing to help people through the bramble's nest of cleanup. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Sennecaster; I will use your talk page then as I proceed through the hurricanes. I have started work all over creation, but am not yet confident in my methodology for continuing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 D. MarnetteD|Talk 02:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As ever thanks for your help in teaching me about copyvio issues in 2021. MarnetteD|Talk 02:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Seasons greetings, hope all is well with you— Diannaa (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Will Todd

Hi There - thanks for your message regarding content at Will Todd. We are the publishers of his music and his agent so were just trying to correct quite a few odd elements on the current page. There are so many troublesome elements eg: the list of works is quite random and confusing. But your comments are noted. Many thanks Tyalgum Press and Will Todd Music (We also own and curate www.willtodd.co.uk) 2A00:23C7:6700:2101:C138:E04A:4CF6:F07F (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2021 (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. Please read and act on the information already in place at User talk:TyalgumPresd. (Sorry that account will have to be blocked, as the username violates our username policy)— Diannaa (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Garland

In response to the speedy deletion of my article about Donald Kreider, I have created a draft of a considerably expanded and revised article, which avoids direct copying, in so far as possible, of material in obituaries for Donald Kreider. I am in the process of obtaining copyright permission for the photograph of Kreider from his partner Bill White, who took the photo and supplied it to Dartmouth for use in the obituary.

I would like to include a link to an oral history in the Rauner Special Collection at Dartmouth. My preferred link

• https://www.dartmouth.edu/library/rauner/archives/oral_history/oh_interviews_pdf/Kreider_Donald.pdf

to an on-line copy of the history was rejected because the site at Google is blacklisted. I can supply a link to the catalog entry for the history in the Rauner Collection, but it is not possible to read the oral history by following that link. How can I make the history readable on-line? 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)SJGarland — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJGarland (talk • contribs)

I don't really understand your question but I have converted the above link into a functional link. Your new draft looks okay from a copyright point of view.— Diannaa (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on Drafting

Hello Diannaa - thank you for your attention to Draft:Paul Klimos. As we are new to Wikipedia editing, we would appreciate your guidance on how to rephrase the content of your latest deletions without causing potential copyright violations. Following the initial comments and deletions we got from you, we worked to revise/rephrase the text to avoid any ad literam transposition (even though everything was duly referenced via links). The goal is to list and reference the titles/position held by the individual subject matter of this Wikipedia article, with links to the sources/official websites that list him as such for each position (in addition to various third party news sources about such appointments and positions). Again, thank you very much for your time and patience! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contentforleb (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are you saying "we"? Does more than one person have access to your account? — Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

No, confirming I'm the only person with authorized access to this account. I got into the habit of using "we" in life whenever I can avoid using the "I" =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contentforleb (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

How to write for Wikipedia: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Is there a way for me to redo and share with you a new draft of the sections you deleted before publication, such as I ensure it's done correctly once and for all and avoid additional copyright issues? Again, big thanks for your time and patience! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contentforleb (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have the time to mentor you. Just write the content in your own words and you should do okay.— Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - done =) Merry Christmas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contentforleb (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks and Merry Christmas.— Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

credit to photo portrait of Emmanuel Levinas by Bracha L. Ettinger

Dear Diannaa can you please help my friend Bracha L. Ettinger concerning her portrait of Emmanuel Levinas, done by her as a part of her artistic portraits project in 1991. Many people use this portrait used from the philosopher Wikipedia page without mentioning her name as its author-photographer. Today, Le Figaro printed this photo without giving her due credit. How can this be mended? Best wishes, Dora Doraannao (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have to take this up with Le Figaro. I can't help.— Diannaa (talk)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Diannaa! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 22:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and best wishes!!!!

Copy vio Draft:Davide Abbatescianni

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your welcome message. I've tried to rephrase the source with my own words,but I think it's important to mention the main papers he works for. Would that work? Thank you for your time, Luisveraluz (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The new version is better. Thanks— Diannaa (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible copyvio in Villa article

I removed text [[1]] from the Villa article which I thought be a likely word for word copyvio from near the top of web page [[2]]. At the bottom of the web page it states 'All Rights Reserved Copyright © 2020'. User:Amit005thmar has recently replaced it with the edit summary minor. Please can you help?SovalValtos (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 13:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I don't think I have time to get involved in that issue.— Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Schock 23

You made a null edit to this article to add an edit summary WP:RIA. Attribution: text appears to have been copied from Seaward 25 on December 23, 2021. Please see the history of that page for full attribution. I am not sure why you would think that, as exactly no text was copied from Seaward 25. The two boats were designed by different naval architects and made by different builders, there is little in common between them other than they are both sailboats. All these sailboat class articles are written in a common encyclopedic style and use common sets of references, but there is no copying from existing posted articles involved. If in the future you think that text was copied from one article to another can you first bring it up on the article talk page to avoid these mistakes in future? - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The article was listed at CopyPatrol. Here is a link. If you click on the iThenticate link, you will see the matrching text that the bot found that is a match for prose in the Seaward 25. Hence my edit. Sorry to have bothered you.— Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but in comparing the edit that tool flagged I can only conclude that the copypatrol tool is broken. My edit was to add some new refs to Schock 23 and corresponding text and quotes from one of the refs. None of the refs I added is even used in Seaward 25. You can note I am the original editor who started both those sailboat class articles, and have written many hundreds of others, too. All of them follow a standard article layout and general arrangement, tone and style. As far as the iThenticate link links goes, it seems to have flagged a direct quote from the same source (Henkel's book) that I quoted (and footnoted). That website, lakeerieboatsafe.org, appears to have been taken down, but an archived copy can be found here where it is pretty obvious to me that that page was a copyright violation of Henkel's book (which I have here). Likewise it mentions www.boatbuilding.xyz/sailboats-reference/a-winged-keel-is-standard-on-this-one.html (note this is blacklisted website, so I can't fully link it) which is also a copyright violation of the same book. iThenticate flagged Schock 23 as having some words in common with Seaward 25, but these are standard wording descriptions of boat fixtures and interiors. I have no idea why it would flag that article, as hundreds, if not thousands of sailboat articles I have started all use standard descriptions or variations of them. Overall, in reviewing the two reports it seems these tools are very error-prone and should not be relied upon without careful human comparison. As I noted above, I would suggest in future it would be best to bring this up on the specific article talk page, as I watch all the articles I have started. I am here most days and you will normally get a prompt response. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The bot isn't broken; it just gives the occasional false positive. Given the high volume of reports to be checked each day (75 to 100 reports, representing up to ten hours of work per day) and the tiny number of editors (currently mainly only two people) currently working on this task, it's not realistic to expect talk page discussions to be opened on the off chance that attribution has been added where none is actually required. Careful human checking does indeed take place, but I will still make mistakes from time to time. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks for explaining. If sailboat articles get flagged in the future that will probably be me again, as no one else is writing new sailboat articles right now on en.wikipedia, so feel free to drop me a line if you have any doubts or questions about where text, etc, came from. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction.

Hi Diana, I recently edited an article which got reverted by you. Although I gave a lot of time while editing it, I later checked and realised that content I provided was correct but not related to the article I edited. Thanks for correction. Akshay1478963 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2021

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, — Diannaa (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I am the original contributor

Dear Diannaa: Nice to hear from you! I am the original contributor of AR Computer To Terminate Eyestrain And Myopia https://eyewiki.org/AR_Computer_To_Terminate_Eyestrain_And_Myopia All the contents on the website are written by myself. Could you please tell me what should I do if I want to make a same or similar article on Wikipedia?

Best regards and Happy Christmas

Crescentnz Crescentnz (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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. If the copyright holders wish 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. The particular article you copied has three authors; all three would have to release the article under a compatible license.— Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - Vitamin C

Thank you for policing the multiple edits to Vitamin C and explaining to the offending editor the error of their ways. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of article edits on "The Lord's Day".

After adding citations where requested, adding new, albeit contradictory information in the article, 2000 words were just summarily reverted back to the original article. I have no problem with removing inaccurate information,even if my own, or requests for clarifications, but this is beyond reasonable. You even deleted direct references and citations from respected authorities, and direct references to supporting statements by the Catholic Church!

I can see why many people are ignoring pleas for financial assistance. If facts are just wiped out, who cares about WikiPedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusestiudex (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't me. I removed some of the non-free content from the citations. Someone else removed the rest of the recent changes.— Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Glitch in Infobox

Hi, I noticed a glitch in infobox on the article Rohit Thakur (politician) . The infobox is showing him as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Himachal Pradesh When I tried to fix it, I could not find anything related to the error in the source code. I even tried visual editor but still no result.

I request you to please fix it if possible. I would be happy if you could tell me if it was a editing error or wrong source code for infobox. Thanks....👍👍👍👍 Soap Boy 1 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed. MB 22:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The field "state" in Template:Infobox officeholder is ONLY for US states. Removing this fixes the error. — Diannaa (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sewellia lineolata

Hi Diannaa, I just reviewed Sewellia lineolata, but removed a section and reworded another section for copyvio, could you please take a lokk and see if the old versions need to be struck out? Thanks. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. It would be helpful in the future when removing the content if you would provide in your edit summary the url where you found the matching prose. Thanks.— Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for you service to wikipedia.

Naarter (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Naarter!— Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Diannaa! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Henry Hugh Gordon Stoker

I did attempt to paraphrase the source material but if you think it still to closely followed the wording of the source that’s ok, your edit seems good to me. Thanks --Knightmare 3112 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It was enough alike to get flagged by our CopyPatrol bot. Thanks for having a look. — Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Marine sediment

Hi Diannaa. An editor is failing a GA review for this article on the grounds of plagiarism. Would you mind assessing whether there is plagiarism? — Epipelagic (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Working— Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I commented, but they've already quick-failed the GA bid. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Savage. I'm concerned about what it means for a CC 4.0 license if you modify the text. At present, following an earlier suggestion of yours, I add Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License to a citation when I have copied the text. In practice, the text often needs editing. Will it satisfy the requirements of the license if I change this to read (in the specific case of text) something like: Modified text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Regards. — Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

As an additional issue, the reviewing editor has tagged the article in this manner. Is this a correct use of that tag? — Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Re:the license. It does specify that if the text has been modified, we need to say so. So that's a good amendment. I am not sure I agree with tagging for over-quotation, as it's not in quotation marks. Which makes the tag kinda meaningless.— Diannaa (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: The fact that it was a quote rather than original text is the issue here. Regardless of whether or not there are actually quotation marks present, they are still quotes of text from those sources. The MOS frowns upon articles consisting of large portions of non-original text. It recommends that editors write their articles with their own, original words. I realize these are tertiary sources so this practice isn't explicitly forbidden as it is for primary sources, but I would advise trimming down the usage of non-original text. We are allowed to incorporate pieces of free work into our articles, but it needs to be a reasonable amount rather than entire sections. The article would be in much better shape if it were to be written in mostly original text and have multiple citations in the large number of areas that are currently sourced with just a single source. Noah^Talk 03:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: As I pointed out to you elsewhere, MOS is concerned with text that is under a copyright which does not permit copying. Where does MOS say you may not copy text verbatim when it has been released under a license that specifically allows the text to be copied verbatim? How come you are so hasty with your judgments and so sure MOS is all about how you think? There has been a sea change in academic scientific publications over the last few years, and far far more of them are being published under CC licences. That includes a lot of review articles. It would be crazy for Wikipedia not to leverage that situation. It means if editors work this area skillfully they should be able to at least double their output. I resent being treated in this arrogant, high-handed manner by you, Hurricane Noah. Diannaa, should this issue be opened to wider community discussion? — Epipelagic (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Just renominate the article and get a different reviewer if you disagree. Noah^Talk 04:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Television Characters

Hi Diannaa, Is it ok to use "https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/tv-characters.html" as a reference and input the shows into the list with my own "notes" in the notes section? I can make sure I don't use any wording from the reference site. I wanted to confirm. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary1227 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Who is David Wyatt and what makes his website a reliable source?— Diannaa (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thankyou for your feedback!

Ldq131121 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)