User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 10:02 AM where this user lives in Alberta. ⁽⁾

Thomas d'Aquino

Dear Diannaa, for a considerable number of years, the Wikipedia page referring to me was a full and accurate representation of my career spanning early years to the present. The entries that I observed were carefully referenced leaving no doubt as to their accuracy. Recently, and suddenly, most of the Wikipedia narrative was erased. I am asking that Wikipedia explain this action, especially given that the information that was erased had stood the test of time over an extended period. I strongly support the Wikipedia concept and have always believed that it stood by a respectful treatment of those who are listed by it. Sincerely, Thomas d'Aquino, CM, LLD (Tdaquino (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC))

(talk page watcher) Tdaquino, that material was removed because it had been copied from this external source, thus constituting what we consider to be a copyright violation, which isn't permitted here. I took a quick glance at the article history, and unfortunately it seems that problems of this kind go right back to the very first version of the page, which was copy-pasted from this page dated 3 March 2005 or some similar source; there was large-scale copying from the same source later, too. Diannaa, I'm happy to blank and list this – unless you prefer to deal with it yourself? (just asking!). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, please go ahead and list it for cleanup. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

{{reply to |@Justlettersandnumbers|@Diannaa] Hello, you said the material in question was removed from "this external source" thus constituting what we consider to be a copyright violation. Since the material in question, ie. THOMAS D'AQUINO, B.A. J.D., LL.M., LL.D. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES HISTORICAL BACKGROUND is owned by me and meticulously referenced, and in part was sourced from original Wikipedia postings, what is the issue? Tdaquino (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems. 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 yourself or someone you are related to is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. It could also constitute original research, which is not permitted either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(remove copyright content copied from http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.com/1993/03/case-of-woody-allen.html) and (paraphrase and remove copyright content copied from https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-shocking-custody-case-court-documents-that-shed-light-on-the-dylan-farrow-woody-allen-saga)

Hello Diannaa

I have not copied a single line from either of the two sources. Tell me what you want me to do to prove it.It is impossible for me to have written copyrighted material from either of the two sites.--Tais de Atenas (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

One of your edits 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 overlap. Checking further, I found and removed other copyright material. Some content, including the material I found at the Daily Beast, is present at multiple places online. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I see now the bot report, but as far as I know court judgments/judicial decisions are not protected by copyright and are entirely public domain. Of course, as public domain content that is, it can be freely reproduced in countless sites. I understand that I have used in excess the literal quotation and that even if I quoting the source is not the correct way to write collaborating with wikipedia, but I have not copied anything from anywhere with copyrigth and I request that it be taken into account in subsequent editions that the decisions judicial are public domain. Thank you very much for your time and work. --Tais de Atenas (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

None of the content I removed is in the public domain. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(remove some more non-free content and some unsourced content) in Woody Allen sexual assault allegation:

Sorry for the work that I have caused you. My intention was to clearly justify the facts and be faithful to the sources, I understand that doing it as I have done is not the correct way to collaborate in wikipedia and I will try to adapt my interventions to the guidelines that you tell me and that --Tais de Atenas (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)I can deduce from your intervention.

Revdel request

This content is copied from here – copyvio report. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. NitinMlk (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hofele-Design

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at this article when you have some time? It sort of has a WP:C-P feel to it, and may also involve undisclosed paind contributions as well. I did a bit of clean up because the previous version had more of a product catalog than Wikipedia article feel to it. I ask about the possible COI, but was wondering if you could check to see if there's any copyvios either from external websites or possible de:Hofele-Design. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly. I checked and the article looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Last Vegas

Some of the same material you just scrubbed as a copyvio at Jon Turteltaub I just deleted from Last Vegas, but I don't have time at the moment to set up the entire marking for copyright violation (I do it rarely, so it always takes time recalling how it was done.) If you could tackle that, I'd appreciate it! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It's okay to post here as well, happy to help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Question for both of you.... The book, Below the Line, is about Last Vegas. It's narrative nonfiction about the making of the movie, Last Vegas, which was directed by Jon Turteltaub. It isn't advertising by the studio, or Turteltaub, or Citation Press. Anyone who is interested in either of those subjects would be interested in the book, and it's the only reference material about it. Condensed, detailed information about both of those subjects by a journalistic source. (A paragraph listing Jon Turteltaub's movies doesn't include Last Vegas. It's the second to last movie he made, so it seems as relevant as the ones me made 30 years ago. (It is in the chart at the bottom.) If I am understanding the issue is copyright? I know I don't see a page about the book itself on Wikipedia. Maybe that has to be there? I'm new here but eager to make a contribution, specifically adding sources. Thank you. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubermoviefan (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Ubermoviefan (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)(----) Ubermoviefan (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2019 (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 that you appear to have a 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) 19:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it's not advertising by the studio... the matter you inserted in the Turteltaub and Douglas pages (and a different user account - also you? - inserted at the Last Vegas page) - is advertising for the book, copied directly from the promotion website for the book. That is both a violation of the copyright of whoever made that website and it's inappropriate material for an encyclopedia, as the goal of an encyclopedia and a hype page are quite different. But even once we get past that, we don't have reliable third-party sources covering the book in such a way that show us it's significant in talking about these topics. In fact, it looks like we can't even use it as a reference for factual claims about Turteltaub or Douglas, as it appears to be a self-published book, and our guidelines say that we cannot use self-published works as a reference for biographies of living people, except for works by the subject themself. So basically, copyright is the reason that past revisions that include the material had to be hidden from view, but it's not the only reason the material was deleted, and would likely be deleted again even if it appeared in non-copyright-violating form. (And I think that it's unlikely that this book would, at this point, pass our guidelines on what books can be subjects of articles.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that explains it better -- thank you for taking the time to explain. I don't think it's a self published book, since it has a publisher. (Not sure.) But it is good to know that independent journalism, if it is in the form of a self published book, is not allowed. Again, thank you for your time. Ubermoviefan (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Both Amazon and Google books describe the book as "independently published". Citation Press is/was a printing house, not a book publisher per se. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. This was the review. https://www.artsatl.org/below-the-line-offers-a-behind-the-scenes-look-at-movie-making-in-atlanta/?fbclid=IwAR2TaV4kIVWuSeZr7lgX7cdY6CJAZoYdSNHb5nsldEZQWh4eThsN0sOkUxo Ubermoviefan (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry first time user

Hi Diannaa,

Thanks for helping me out. I am sorry for the mistakes and welcome the changes. It was my first time and I need to learn a bit how to add quotations and the such. I am happy of the guidelines you kindly shared and will follow them going forward.

Thanks again Ald81 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ald81 is editing Logical Investigations (Husserl) while logged out to continue an edit war. User has been informed of Wikipedia's rules on this here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

First Article

Hello Diannaa, Thank you for your help with this article "Nin Brudermann". Could you look at my latest edit and let me know if it is cited better? Also, what is the next step if it is ready? Do you think it is ready to be published? Emily Glascott (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. To get in the queue to get your draft assessed, please click on the blue box in the draft that says "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

D.F.A.

Sorry for the improper post on this page. I thought I was doing it right but I guess it was more involved than I thought. I guess some things are best left to the professionals. Krvest (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Attribution to "iron" in "allotropes of iron"

Hi! Sorry for not putting the proper attribution in that edit to allotropes of iron. I usually do that (check the recent history of ferrocene for example), but missed on that one. Thanks for adding that note to the history. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

copyvio issues at Husayn ibn Ali

Hi! Would you please look into copyvio issues at Husayn ibn Ali? Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 02:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Medication labels

From what I understand these are not written by the US government, but written by others and simple approved by the US gov.

Thus from what I understand they are not PD.[1]

Your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You are correct I think. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC). 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.

BilCat (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied. - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Task complete. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm going back to sleep. I hate colds. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with page protection and revision deletion?

Hi! I'm reaching out to you for help with unproven allegations lodged in a student newspaper that are being continuously added back to a former professor's Wikipedia article. The material (which violates WP:BLP and has been added by single-purpose accounts and IP addresses) is also present in the edit summaries. I'm wondering the revisions with the allegations can be deleted (or at least the edit summaries blanked) and if the page can be semi-protected so that only logged in users can edit it. Can I email you the name to keep the Streisand Effect from happening, or get it to you another way? Wilipino (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The content as added appears to be true, so I am not sure revision deletion is appropriate. Please feel free to get another opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPF states Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources....Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. WP:SUSPECT states Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. and that's for people accused of a crime, which is much more serious. I am disappointed that you read an article in a student newspaper that interviewed two college students and published defamatory articles, and take it as "probably true" even though there was no completed investigation and no finding of wrongdoing by the university.

The allegations are supported by one source (a university student newspaper) that has published five articles. The first article's source is "according to three sources close to the student" alleged to have been in a relationship with him. That student never confirmed the allegations. The second article's source is a former student that alleges he had a relationship with her. That article cites the previous article and the link anchor text is "engaged in a sexual relationship" even though sexual activity is never alleged in that article. The third article is editorial and not reportage. The fourth said he'd been removed from teaching an honors course while the university investigated, which is standard for any investigation and not a finding of wrongdoing. The last one rehashes the previous ones and states that he resigned. He's not a public figure and these allegations violate WP:BLP which is why I removed them from his article. The only established facts are that he was removed from teaching duties pending an investigation that was dropped when he resigned, and such facts do not belong in the biography of a private citizen. Nor do they belong in his edit history. I'm asking you to uphold Wikipedia's commitment to responsibly presented information, regardless of your views on the subject. Wilipino (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan

How do you do! Sorry for bothering but I'd like to thank you for advices, I appreciate it. Also, I'd like to ask you to allow me to paraphrase the article called "Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan". --Acdc88 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

IKt's okay for you to edit that article but everything you add needs to be written in your own words, not copied from elsewhere online. 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 Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

removal of changes on Root microbiome

Dear Diannaa, I suspect that my changes on Root microbiome article were removed because of similarities of text that was detected automatically. If you would compare the text to its source, you would see it was rephrased where possible. I assure you, that I comply to the rules of citing and not copy-pasting. I think the problem arises due to several sentences where there is a listing of bacterial species, which is unavoidable and gives stretches of identical text. I hold a PhD in Science, and Microbiology is my subject; In fact, I edit Wikipedia as a volunteer for FEMS, who are holders of license of article I was citing (to know about project see here: https://fems-microbiology.org/network/types-of-involvement/volunteering/). FEMS grants me the access to their journals, which is one of my major citing sources. For the future, I need to know what to do in such cases - of course I can try to be more stringent and reshuffle the text even more, can I then put it back? Although in my opinion this is just taking time and not giving more value. Anyway, let me know how to proceed for this article. Regards, Dukas.ju (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Dukas.ju

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 overlap. Google searching shows that there's even more overlap than was revealed by the iThenticate tool, far more than is acceptable on Wikipedia, and that's why I had to remove it. Having access to an article is not the same thing as having the right to copy it here unaltered. Shuffling things around is not adequate; you need to re-write the content in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So Percussion

Hi, Diannaa. I got your note that said I couldn't use the exact words from So Percussion's own site. Thanks, I wasn't trying to plagiarize. I just figured it was such a minimal fact, that the name suggestion came from a member's sister, that it didn't matter much to rephrase it. But I will rephrase in the future. Just out of curiosity, are you the one who changed it? I'm surprised you didn't keep the fact that she lived in Japan at least 20 years and worked as a translator? --Greg Dahlen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Dahlen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed it because the wording was identical to the source. That's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge cleanup

Thanks for your help with the copyvios. I think I would have gotten to it eventually, but either way, better it's gone as soon as possible. You know... the stuff added by that account was so full of weird misinformation (even if well-intentioned) and red flags, my instinct was just to mass-revert all of it rather than take the time to pick through it all. Next time I'll trust my instincts. Thanks again. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft in Catherinelegge's Sandbox

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your monitoring of copyright violations. The work that was present in Catherinelegge's Sandbox was part of a project for the International Politics undergraduate class as Memorial University of Newfoundland. Three students were working on that draft, and they would like to rectify their errors. However, their draft was blocked and deleted, and they do not have an alternate copy of their work, as they were drafting in that sandbox. Would it be possible for you to reverse the block and deletion of their draft in Catherinelegge's Sandbox so that these three students can revise their work to be in compliance with Wikipedia's copyright policy? Thank you! Griffyn1987 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts, so I can't restore it. If any of the students has activated their Wikipedia email, I could email a copy. But the work would have to continue offline, as we can't host it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, for your speedy reply. At least one member of the group, Jjpandy, has an active Wiki email at which they could receive a copy of their draft, which they will revise offline. They were a little surprised that their work had been lost, but they've certainly learned a lesson on the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's copyright policy. Thanks again! :) Griffyn1987 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Email sent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC). 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.

BilCat (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about revdeleting copyvios

When a copyvio is found and removed, How do you A) tag the diff for removal, and B) determine weather or not it's worthy being removed? (For example, would this or this be removed?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Marking of material that needs to be revision deleted is done with the Template:Copyvio-revdel. It calls for the person adding the template to add the revision number of the diff where the content was added as well as the diff where it was removed, and the source url. All violations of the copyright policy should be removed, and they should all be revision deleted, but different admins will have differences as to how far they are willing to go with this. All the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests are experienced at doing revision deletion and will make similar but not necessarily identical decisions as to what to do. If in doubt, remove the violation and tag for revision deletion, and the patrolling admin will decide what to do. If you are not comfortable using the template or find it awkward or tricky to use, please feel free to report here with the details and I will look at it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Remember the Ultraman pages you have protected?

Back then you have protected the pages The Return of Ultraman, Ultraman Ace, Ultraman Taro and etc because of an anon, but this anon returns in an account and he has re-doing what you reverted. That user's name is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oon835. Zero stylinx (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to look after the Ultraman pages any more. Please post at WP:RFPP if you want protection. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don't want protection, because doing that means I can't edit the page too. All I want to point out is that your previous action is a waste, unless this user is given a suitable action.Zero stylinx (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't follow that I must continue to police this suite of articles. I am prepared to live with the fact that my previous efforts were in vain. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation by MrKiD2.0

You have warned this editor about copyright violations before in their talk page, it seems like they doing again in Man on the Moon: The End of Day [2]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Which part of the edit is copyvio? from which source? I have a feeling you are counting the two quotations as being a violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The two quotations are taken from this source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Are quotations a violation of the copyright policy? Asking for a friend ;) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The quotations are okay, right? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Short quotations are okay to use — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible COPYVIO Brandon, Mississippi

Hello Diannaa, According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, there is a high probability of copyright content added on March 3, 2019 to the History section of the Brandon, Mississippi article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

2405:204:A0AA:82FD:9DDF:22F4:C609:CBBB

I am having difficulty trying to tell is user:2405:204:A0AA:82FD:9DDF:22F4:C609:CBBB is a vandal because they keep making these subtle changes to peoples heights. Could you please give me your opinion on them. CLCStudent (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this belongs at WP:AIV — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, the only reason I did not report them there is because it was hard for me to tell if they are a vandal. CLCStudent (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say yes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cordeaux

Hi Diannaa,

concerning your removal of text I added to John Cordeaux (ornithologist). Sorry, if I crossed the border of copying "nearly verbatim" (as you mention it) and summarizing in my own words. Of course that was never my intention. I cannot really check what I have done wrong, because you removed the text. Could you please copy it to my sandbox, so that I can further work on it and ask your help, if I don't manage to handle this?

I had the intention to "combine" this text with other (scarce) biographical notes on Cordeaux I found. I was still working on this. But it is something that I do beside other things, so it can take some time. Apart from that, English is not my native language, and I do not always find the right words. Sorry for that, again. But I'm happy to continue working on it in my sandbox first, before putting it in the main namespace. Many thanks in advance for your help, --Dick Bos (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't host copyright content on this wiki, not even in sandboxes or drafts. Instead, I have sent you a copy of the removed material via email. The email address you have listed for nl.wiki since you don't have email access via en.wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Cyamites2

Hello. You changed a portion of my edit on the Cyamites page, and while I now understand not to state ancient opinions as fact in Wikipedia's voice, and can reword those things, I want to make sure we agree before I make any further edits.

• Firstly, Theoi's Copyright ended in 2017, as stated at the bottom of their website, and at the beginning of 2018, Aaron J. Atsma of [Theoi.com] was quoted by an interviewer at [3] in saying "The aim of the project is to provide a comprehensive, free reference guide to the gods (theoi), spirits (daimones), fabulous creatures (theres) and heroes of ancient Greek mythology and religion". It now allows users to copy text from their website which was previously not an option, and other sites cite Theoi such as [4] as an example of a proper citation.

• Secondly, I had deleted the third note, listing Pausanias Description of Greece 1.37.4 because it did not fit with its original statement being in regards to the stand near his temple, as this cite is in regards to him having a temple on the Sacred Way where only those who had been initiated at Eleusinian or had read the Orphica would understand. I admit the citation needed fixing, but I'm not sure if you deleted it for the same reason as the first. Can I add these again if I say they are quotes from such-n-such?

• Thirdly, is in regards to the difference in names, and that of ancient opinions versus the historical record. The Eleusinian Mysteries are discussed throughout the Socratic dialogue#Platonic_dialogues, and Plato's Cratylus which discusses "whether names are "conventional" or "natural", that is, whether language is a system of arbitrary signs or whether words have an intrinsic relation to the things they signify". A considerable amount of time is spent discussing the origin of Hadês' name whose earliest attested form is missing the proposed Digamma in the third line of Homer's Iliad, where dropping it destroyed the rhythmic structure and left the meter defective according to [5], but that is argued in its comments.

• To further support this, I'm working on the following, but I do not know how to include an image of it in case you cannot see it due to not having Archaic Greek fonts installed on your system.

In Ionic Greek, Digamma, waw, or wau (uppercase: Ϝ, lowercase: ϝ, numeral: ϛ) is an archaic letter of the Greek alphabet that originally stood for the sound /w/, but had disappeared before Homer's epics were written during the 7th century BCE, yet its former presence can be detected in many cases because its omission left the meter defective. The word Anax ἄναξ "(tribal) king, lord, (military) leader". would have originally been (Greek: ἄναξ; from earlier ϝάναξ, wánax) and is attested in this form in Mycenaean Greek. Further evidence coupled with cognate-analysis shows οἶνος from earlier ϝοῖνος also used /wóînos/ (cf. Cretan Doric ibêna, cf. Latin vīnum and English "wine") when the meter was defective.

Because of the above, and that Cyamites is said to be an epithet of Hadês, I think both versions can be asserted with the proper citation and wordage.

Thanks for your help, Davidlwinkler (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There's two reasons I removed the content. First, the page is marked at the bottom as "© Copyright 2000 - 2017 Aaron J. Atsma, Netherlands & New Zealand". "Free to use" is not the same thing as being in the public domain. Second, you added " I cannot state for certain whether he was the first to sow beans..." without stating who said this. The way you added it, it looks like Wikipedia is saying it. It's okay to use quotations as long as they are properly attributed and you put quotation marks. For example, it's okay to write "Pausanius said in his Description of Greece: 'I cannot state for certain whether he was the first to sow beans,' Hope this makes it clearer why I removed it and what you should do next. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

remove copyright content copied from https://www.thehindu.com/2004/04/29/stories/2004042905070400.htm, https://eci.nic.in/eci_main/Exhibition_Panels/Panel5.pdf

Hello Diannaa, Please understand that the information put up by me from the source is in Public domain. Info. about new design & technology added as per new manual uploaded by the Election Commission. Only a part of the manual was used in the wiki page. Further, there is an ongoing elections in India and the information will be helpful in understanding about the design of the EVM used in the country. Please republish the material I've posted on the wiki page. This will also help eliminate the fake news circulation about the voting in India through EVM. Keeping the old info. on the page is a regressive action. Please let me know about your view on the page. Thanks in advance.