User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 2:13 PM where this user lives in Alberta. ⁽⁾

Deleted text from McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology

Hi, I need a copy of the text that you deleted from McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology. I remember pretty crearly that the quote was specifically indicated with a <blockquote>, that it was followed by an inline citation, and it was very brief containing just a couple of phrases, therefore it was in full compliance of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. So the deletion is inappropriate and seems at least strange. In any case I need a copy of it (sent via private message or some other way) to rephrased it, since right now I have no idea of what was exactly deleted and otherwise the work I've done is going to waste. --OpenNotes1 (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Some of it was marked with quotation marks (not block quote mark-up) - the ending quotation mark was missing on one quotation - but a lot of it was not marked as quotation and thus was a violation of our copyright policy. It's okay to use properly marked quotations, but not to also copy the surrounding prose. Email sent.— Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I've got the text by email, thanks. Looking at it, and your clarification here, the decision to delete the whole three paragraphs seemed still draconian/strange. Yes, there was a missing closing quotation mark (for the sentence starting with "the students performed better.."), but there was anyway the inline citation, which showed that in fact the quote ended there (and after it there was also a new line marking the end of the parapgraph). All the rest of the text was mine, when not otherwise quoted under quotation marks (which in the guidelines are indicated as valid as the block quote).----OpenNotes1 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Here I have highlighted the overlapping content (excluding quotations) in bold. First the source paper:

Four randomized groups of university students were given the same information at the same time about the structure of preliterate languages. One group received it via radio, one from TV, one by lecture, and one read it. For all but the reader group, the information was passed along in straight verbal flow by the same speaker without discussion or questions or use of blackboard. Each group had half an hour of exposure to the material. Each was asked to fill in the same quiz afterward. It was quite a surprise to the experimenters when the students performed better with TV-channeled information and with radio than they did with lecture and print --and the TV group stood well above the radio group. Since nothing had been done to give special stress to any of these four media, the experiment was repeated with other randomized groups. This time each medium was allowed full opportunity to do its stuff. For radio and TV, the material was dramatized with many auditory and visual features. The lecturer took full advantage of the blackboard and class discussion. The printed form was embellished with an imaginative use of typography and page layout to stress each point in the lecture. All of these media had been "epped up to high intensity for this repeat of the original performance". Television and radio once again showed results high above lecture and print. Unexpectedly to the testers however, radio now stood significantly above television.

Your version (quotations are marked in green):

Between the 1950s and the early 1960s, the Center conducted and experiment that compared the effectiveness of TV, radio, lectures and print in learning. In the experiment, "four randomized groups of university students were given the same information at the same time about the structure of preliterate languages." One group received it via radio (audiotape), one from TV (videotape), one by lecture, and one read it from printed notes. Each group had half an hour of exposure to the material, and the student/subjects were then asked to fill in the same quiz afterward.

The outcome of the experiment was quite a surprise, since it was found out that "the students performed better with TV-channeled information and with radio than they did with lecture and print --and the TV group stood well above the radio group.

In the first attempt, all groups, except the reader group, the information was passed along in straight verbal flow by the same speaker, without taking advantage of discussions or questions or use of blackboard. Therefore the experiment was repeated (with other randomized groups), allowing each medium to "to its stuff" taking advantage of the specific enhancements that it offers: "For radio and TV, the material was dramatized with many auditory and visual features. The lecturer took full advantage of the blackboard and class discussion. The printed form was embellished with an imaginative use of typography and page layout to stress each point in the lecture. All of these media had been "epped up to high intensity." In the second run, TV and radio kept above print and lecture, but surprisingly radio now significantly outperformed television.

— Diannaa (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge School Srinivaspuri

Hi Dianna. Would you mind taking a look at this article? I came across it via WP:THQ#Unofficial wikipedia page. The content I removed was really promotional in tone and could possibly be re-written if properly sourced, but it also had copyvio feel to it. FWIW, I did an Earwig check which came out to be 15.3%; that doesn't really seem high enough to be a problem, but I'm not sure. i'm not very familiar with Earwig and its wording is a bit confusing at least to me: it states "Violation unlikely 15.3% confidence"; I'm not sure if that means "15.3% chance that a violation is unlikely", "15.3% chance that a violation is likely" or "84.7% confident that a violation is unlikely". I guess it's possible it came from another website, but don't know how to check that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any documentation on Earwig's tool. I've always taken it to mean that 15.3% of the listed potential source page has been copied. The more complete the overlap, the higher the percentage. I couldn't find matching prose on the school website but judging by the post at the Teahouse and the wording, the material has been written by a public relations person at the school. — Diannaa (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on Earwig and thanks for taking a look at the content in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Same content seems to have been re-added by the same editor; it still seems quite promotional, still is unsourced and still likely falls under WP:UPE. I did leave a explanatory template on the user's talk page after seeing their Teahouse quetion, but they might not have noticed it or understood it. The Teahose thread has been archived so also they might not have seen the responses their question got. Do you think you could try and explain things to them? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

OpenNebula

Hi Dianna, You removed some content from this page back in December, but footer at the source says content is under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Could you please double-check that? Thank. Maralpa (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. — Diannaa (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks for the clarification! Maralpa (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The material was copied from another website

LibrePcb gives me right to copy LibrePcb website on Wikipedia (see https://github.com/LibrePCB/LibrePCB/issues/628). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom* (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Doom*, Sorry, but that statement is not adequate for our purposes, because it only allows the material to be copied to Wikipedia. Our license allows the material to be re-copied and reused by anyone for any purpose. So what we need is for the material to be released under a compatible license. There's more information on how to do it at WP:Donating copyrighted materials and there's a sample permission email at WP:consent.— Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material

Hi there, I was wondering what was copyrighted on my Draft:Coast Guard Exchange article so that I know what to change and see where it was copied from? Thank you! Friersch29 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Friersch29

Hi Friersch29 , I had to remove the Hsitory section, because the material was mostly copied from https://shopcgx.com/footer-history.html.— Diannaa (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, whew...I thought the whole thing was going to be deleted. Thanks for the clarification. Friersch29 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Friersch29

Up (film series)

Hi, Diannaa. How are you doing? The article Up (film series) has a huge copyvio red tag on it, but apparently nobody reported it. The Earwig's Copyvio Detector is measuring 85,3 of possible copyvio. Can you give it a look? Thanks.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles with that template don't actually get "reported" anywhere; they get placed into a maintenance category, which doesn't attract much attention. For this particular article, we've had that content since at least 2008, so copyvio is impossible to prove at this point, since the purported source webpage was never archived. I have removed the tag.— Diannaa (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I undertand. Thank you again for giving it a look.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Text

Hello, Diannaa.

How are you? I hope your doing great. I saw that you deleted a "Copyrighted Text", but i have permission to use that text. So there is no problem using it. :-) Can you fix it please? Best regards,

MisterGamerNL (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

MisterGamerNL, Content was copied from two webpages: https://medium.com/@LAAgency/the-talented-dj-edy-marron-9bf158621749 and https://beatsradio.ca/artists/1680/. What you have to do if you have permission from the copyright holders of these two websites is to ask them to release their material under a compatible license. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for the reply. But thoose 2 websites have taken the text from the artists bio himself, so they do NOT have a license of the text. I asked permission direct from the artist, and its 100% okay. What can i do? Change the whole text to a different story? MisterGamerNL (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't take your word for it that Wikipedia has been given permission by the copyright holder to host this material. See my advice above as to what to do next.— Diannaa (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

/* Copyright Text */

Ok, Thanks for the reply. But thoose 2 websites have taken the text from the artists bio himself, so they do NOT have a license of the text. I asked permission direct from the artist, and its 100% okay. What can i do? Change the whole text to a different story? MisterGamerNL (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User

Hi I wanted to report two violations of the user in question:

- the first is that she completely ignored the prescriptions that she had assigned her (too long talk page)

-the second is the behavior not pertaining to the rules of wikipedia with regard to referring to other users.

You can find everything on his discussion page. I apologize if my English isn't perfect but I'm Italian. Please correct me in case. Regards

• User JN95 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have too much time to help you with this problem. When you have a content dispute, your first step should be to discuss the problem with the other user on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, please consider using one of the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I will give them a notice about how and why to archive their talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Quigley's Village

199.192.246.122 returned anew on this; are the same copyvio concerns present here, requiring a revdel? They're also going hog-wild in several other articles, so some mass-reversion may be needed. Nate • (chatter) 21:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's what they did on Quigley's Village; The Huggabug Club; more of the same in their other edits. So no, there's no issue of any kind— Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear, just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio in Killerman

Hi, Diannaa. Sorry to bother you again. The plot section in Killerman seems to contain copyvio. Can you give a look, please? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It matches IMDb. Thanks for reporting. Cleaned— Diannaa (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Operation Safed Sagar

Hullo Diana, You have deleted certain additions to Op Safedsagar by me. I will be inserting reconstructed sentences again based on the contents of Air Marshal R Nambiar and Air Vice Marshal D Patnaik's detailed interviews and articles on the subject in the media and otherwise. There will be no violation of copyright. Thanks.
Moitraanak ^(talk) 12:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC).

History removed

I'm the tech support for VLN and I copied the history of VLN from a VLN publication.

It was removed due to copyright infringement. All the content belongs to VLN. Who do I talk to about using our company content on our page. Who do I need to get permission from? Harshone (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2020 (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 review the conflict of interest information already present on your user talk page for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio question

Hello, I just saw your work on Clermont Huger Lee. I did about a half dozen gnomish edits today on that article and never suspected a problem. I usually recognize blatant examples that sound overly-promotional, or are walls of text without wikilinks, or just don't sound like they are written within WP using our conventions. Just wondering what brought you here? An automated copyvio detector? MB 02:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The page was listed at CopyPatrol; here is a link to the bot report, which only shows some of the overlap (click on the iThenticate link). The same user added a bit of content from the same source to Mills Lane (banker). — Diannaa (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting; I hadn't heard of that one before. Thanks. MB 19:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

ZICTA page

Diannaa, I appeal to you to discuss my reinstatement of the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority page on its talk page. Let's discuss it and come to a resolution instead of doing what you did last time. Thanks. --Craig (t|c) 07:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Snow Squall Warning

Hi:

I hope you will not reverse my edition this time. I reworded to avoid copyvio.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Y Pierre cb (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

re: Copyright problem on Harris Museum

Hello Diannaa,

While I did use the information from the museum's website, I tried NOT directly copy and paste nor use all the information they provided, and put quite a lot of effort into rewording it and thought would be sufficient to avoid any copyright issues. Where I did leave it "as is" was for quoted, highlighted through the use of quotation marks which I thought was permissible. I will reword this again and republish the sections, and would appreciate it you let me know if you feel further changes are necessary before you edit any changes I make.

Happy to discuss further... Blammy1 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There were indeed a couple of short quotations, but the problem was pretty extensive so I removed your addition. Please go ahead and re-write and I will let you know if there's any further issues. — Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So-called 'copyright' on Protea repens

Hi Diannaa,

I dispute that I copied from the website http://plantworld2.blogspot.com/2016/09/protea-cynaroides.html?m=0 - in fact, they were the ones who copied word for word my own words, which I wrote on the Protea cynaroides wiki article in 2011. Please see here for proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protea_cynaroides&diff=next&oldid=445030088 Drakenwolf (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the content. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your sterling work! Drakenwolf (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Macrotyloma uniflorum

I am puzzled by the article Macrotyloma uniflorum. It seems to have some major copyvios, but I am unsure who has been copying whom. The section "Climate Requirements" is referenced to and identical to this source and was added to the article on 26 October 2017‎. It gives the date of the source as 3 April 2017, but right clicking on the pdf and clicking "view page info" it gives the referring url as "https://en.wikipedia.org/" and a modification date of 15 March 2018.

More clear perhaps are other sections of the article which seem to be lifted from this site by the same editor also in October 2017. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Funny, I am unable to access that info by right clicking on the pdf. I wonder if it's because I'm using a chromebook. But the Wayback Machine has an archive version of the PDF dated the day before the content was added to Wikipedia. I've been able to match the other content he added with copyright papers available online, so this one is done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, there's a ref named "nut-remed-hg" that's been orphaned in the resulting article; is this one that you can recover, or should the citation be removed? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for noticing that. Fixed.— Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Grumble

Hi, your edit to Icon left the first para with a nonsense sentence, and removed edits of mine to bits unaffected by the copyvio. Can you check I've now re-instated everything? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Johnbod, I did not notice the garbled addition while I was removing the copyvio. Everything looks okay, as that addition was not part of the copyright problem. Thanks for cleaning it up. — Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

DRAFT

... is the keyword here. You removed content from Draft:Eric Johanson (musician) before I have even had a chance to get into the meat of it and do my editing. Why are you removing content from DRAFTS?? I completely understand if I had actually tried to publish this, but I'm just gathering info from where Eric himself has led me and getting it here so I can work with all of it. You can OBVIOUSLY see that this is merely a very rough draft and not meant as a published article. Please give editors a chance to work with content before you come in and delete. Debraannclark (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but we're not allowed to host copyright content, not even in sandboxes or drafts. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations and Copyright

Hi, Can you help me with how to use citations while adding some source to the content but one of my content has been removed and marked as copyright content. so, could you please help me with citations on how and when to use?

Thanks.

Mercy k (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy k (talk • contribs)