User talk:Diannaa/Archive 92
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Diannaa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
CopyPatrol is down
I have filed a Phab ticket — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
requests unblocking at UTRS appeal #82193. OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, not okay to unblock. The user was only unblocked for 13 days before copyright violations resumed. Then they apparently started socking to add more copyvio. They appear to now be subject to a checkuser block by Yanla and a 3X ban. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dawood.XV/Archive — Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for feedback.
Thanks for you feedback on my talk page. I'll admit Copyright isn't something I've dealt with much before. I'm treating it is a learning experience!
Ref the removed material, the domain from which I obtained the document has the following copyright statement: "With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence." (https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c) Th document from which I quoted is freely available on the site (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/practice5/Copy_of_1stpractice#prelim) (although the reference I used actually refers to a consolidated version of the document available on another site) and the website owner is the original copyright owner.
Would that mean that the quote it is ok to use, from the perspective of copyright? (I'll admit the quote isn't brilliant from other perspectives - but for the purposes of legal requirements?). Erskine8 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Erskine8. That's a good question. Actually, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence is not a compatible license, because it doesn't allow derivative works or commerical use, and our license allows both those things. It was not a quotation, because the passage did not have quotation marks. — Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Kindly explain this
Can you explain what you did here and also explain what you meant by canvassing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jonharojjashi. As far as I know I didn't leave any messages to other's talk page nor did I remember notifying any user for any "vote" or "discussion" regarding my Draft:Sassanian–Gupta conflicts Jonharojjashi (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I incorrectly used the wrong template when leaving you as semi-automated message. The content was removed because it was a match for copyright material found in this book. I have now added the correct message to your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you removed my draft article for reason G6? Can you explain why? I'm surprised to know that it was previously deleted, but can you explain where in my article I violated any wikipedia guidelines? I appreciate it. Upd: why u deleted draft...I spent a hours writing infobox wikicode...Please dont be so strict - I renewed draft article - take a look please. Andy Salvatore (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The draft had considerable overlap with the deleted article Spacebit. You can see the amount of the overlap by looking at the CopyPatrol report and clicking on the iThenicate link. It's required under the terms of our license that the edit history needs to remain attached to the content, so that the people who wrote the page get credit for their work.The article was created by a sockpuppet of another user and was deleted for that reason. We are therefore unable to restore the history and attach it to your draft to comply with our licensing terms. If you are interested in creating a draft on this topic you will have to start fresh with all-new prose that does not overlap with the previous article. The article was deleted in August 2021. Where did you copy this material from? Are you related to these previous editiors: Serghiy Hrabarook or Bodiadub (who is banned by the Wikipmedia Foundation) or any of the blocked accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub/Archive/1? — Diannaa (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing this information to me. As I specified on my Talk Page I has a COI cause I am an empoloyee at Spacebit. I am sorry, but on my opinion even if part of content was similar I not responsible for former editor 3 years ago. Even if this was deleted before it means we are not allowed to make draft in 3 years? Pls take a look on my article without biases, I added 2021-2023 company history too. I read guidelines and run within AfC even I hope to get the article live until 8 Jan where we as a co-operator of lunar mission launch our lunar rover to the Mooin. Learn more about Spacebit here: List of lunar missions at Robotic paragrraph Andy Salvatore (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely okay to start a new draft. But you can't use any wording from the deleted article. Start over, and write new prose in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done, can you take a look? Andy Salvatore (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I had to remove most of the History section as it was still the same as before. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- A suggestion: go back to the sources from which the prose was written and write new content. Don't use any of the old text. It has to be completely re-written. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done, can you take a look? Andy Salvatore (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely okay to start a new draft. But you can't use any wording from the deleted article. Start over, and write new prose in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing this information to me. As I specified on my Talk Page I has a COI cause I am an empoloyee at Spacebit. I am sorry, but on my opinion even if part of content was similar I not responsible for former editor 3 years ago. Even if this was deleted before it means we are not allowed to make draft in 3 years? Pls take a look on my article without biases, I added 2021-2023 company history too. I read guidelines and run within AfC even I hope to get the article live until 8 Jan where we as a co-operator of lunar mission launch our lunar rover to the Mooin. Learn more about Spacebit here: List of lunar missions at Robotic paragrraph Andy Salvatore (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I wish you would've made separate edits for "remove copyright" and "minor tidy". Also, from what I can tell, either what you call "minor tidy" was not minor, or you forcibly removed far too many revisions. (Everything from 11:16, 10 January 2024 up to and including 02:44, 11 January 2024, which includes edits from all kinds of editors...) --95.99.94.82 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The minor tidy consisted of correcting the name of a cited article from "BNamericas - High-ranking officials held in Ecuador drug ... " to "High-ranking officials held in Ecuador drug trafficking, corruption raids" and changing
{{Reflist|30em}}to{{Reflist}}(we don't have to specify a column width any more, as the software does it automatically now). I typically don't perform a separate edit for alterations such as those, which are truly minor.Other than the copyvio, none of the content in the intervening diffs was removed. But in order to completely remove the copyright material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of the insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden (but the edits therein were not altered). — Diannaa (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Neuroenhancement edit
Hello Diannaa - there was a copyvio edit here plagiarizing this source. Thanks for your review. Zefr (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Revision deletion completed. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleting my edits on a specific article
Hi. Is such request acceptable? For example, asking for deleting my last 100 edits on article X. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, not unless it's covered by the revision deletion policy. — Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You have removed my edit citing analyst Laurence Broers. I understand that if the views are attributed to the person who expressed them, it is not a copyright violation, per WP:QUOTE. But I would appreciate an advice on how to improve the attribution, if I did not do it well. I have probably made a mistake by not indicating direct quotes with quotation marks. If I use the quotation marks, will it be Ok to cite Broers directly, or it would be better to paraphrase? The same with CoE. The part that you removed was a direct quote from the report by the CoE commissioner, attributed to that person. Was that a copyright violation? Thanks. Grandmaster 07:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
If I rephrase the quote from the CoE commissioner as follows, will be ok for inclusion?
Mijatović welcomed the steps taken by the Azerbaijani government to facilitate the return of internally displaced persons to the Karabakh region, and expressed the hope that "all internally displaced persons who so wish will be able to return as soon as possible in safety and dignity".
Grandmaster 07:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- None of the material I removed was in quotation marks. It was copied from two sources: this one and this one.If you look carefully at the Council of Europe article, you will see that Dunja Mijatović did not actually say "all internally displaced persons who so wish will be able to return as soon as possible in safety and dignity". That content was actually a paraphrase of her remarks by the author of the CoE article. So no, don't put it in our article as though you are quoting what she said. The material from Broers was attributed to him, but there were no quotation marks. It's a bit long for a quotation. It would be better to figure out what his main points are and write it in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. The full report could be found here: [1] The summary text on CoE page is a shortened version of her report. The clause 45 has the following text:
- She welcomes the steps taken by the Azerbaijani government to facilitate the return of internally displaced persons. As she was informed that the region is still heavily contaminated with mines and explosive remnants of war (see also section IV on the need for protection from mines and explosive remnants of war) and that much of infrastructure still needs to be put in place, the Commissioner hopes that all internally displaced persons who so wish will be able to return as soon as possible in safety and dignity to their homes or places of habitual residence.
- So it looks like a it was not a paraphrase, but rather a short summary of the longer text. It seems to me that stating that she expressed the hope that "all internally displaced persons who so wish will be able to return as soon as possible in safety and dignity" would be a fair representation of her statement. Am I wrong here?
- But I actually want now to leave this part out and quote a different part of her report (clause 46) that applies to both sides of the conflict, which reads as follows:
- More generally, as the sides are discussing the path to peace and reconciliation, the Commissioner wishes to reiterate that all persons displaced by the long-lasting conflict have the right to return to their homes or places of habitual residence, regardless of whether they have been displaced internally or across borders. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have the obligation to ensure that any return is voluntary and that they are carried out under conditions of safety and dignity.
- Would it be alright if I shortened it a bit, and put the main points in quotation marks? I mean quotation marks for the text that starts from ...all persons displaced by the long-lasting conflict... And I will paraphrase the Broers article, as you advise. Do you mind if I share my summary with you before posting, to avoid any copyright issues? It was never my intention to make a copyvio, but I might have been a bit sloppy with formatting, as I did my edits in a hurry, while I was busy with something else. My apologies for that. Grandmaster 19:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's okay to use short quotations when there's no alternative. In this instance, there's no reason why quotes would be required. You can write your own content. Also, overuse of quotations does not make for good article writing. It's better if you write your own content for that reason as well. — Diannaa (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. I summarized the paragraph that I mentioned above, I hope it is fine this time. Thanks again. Grandmaster 06:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's okay to use short quotations when there's no alternative. In this instance, there's no reason why quotes would be required. You can write your own content. Also, overuse of quotations does not make for good article writing. It's better if you write your own content for that reason as well. — Diannaa (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be alright if I shortened it a bit, and put the main points in quotation marks? I mean quotation marks for the text that starts from ...all persons displaced by the long-lasting conflict... And I will paraphrase the Broers article, as you advise. Do you mind if I share my summary with you before posting, to avoid any copyright issues? It was never my intention to make a copyvio, but I might have been a bit sloppy with formatting, as I did my edits in a hurry, while I was busy with something else. My apologies for that. Grandmaster 19:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted content is also in a sandbox
FYI, the copyrighted content you recently deleted from Diversity, equity, and inclusion is also at User:SquirrelHill1971/sandbox. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Rewritten section
Regarding Ethiopian Manifesto, which you (I think) flagged for a copyright violation, I have rewritten more than half the article. Note you only see my new text in edit mode. Please let me know if this takes care of the problem. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have cleared out the remaining overlapping content. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
please clarify your removal of cited quotations
Dianna, It is not clear why you would remove cited quotations which verify significance. This does not seem logical or in adherence to wikipedia standards, as does deleting most of the article which is in alignment with articles of similar subject, and to which I have been using as a guide. The article has been reduced to a stub. Please explain this minimalist approach to article development and point to where it is justified within wikipedia. Thank you. Surefirebrand (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I presume you are referring to my edit on Caitlin Fisher? Sorry but I did not remove any quotations. What I did was remove some copyright content copied from this website. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- As a new editor I had accepted the Caitlin Fisher, although only one generically written paragraph was not cited. This could have been corrected with education to myself, and by paraphrasing or bulleting. With that article you completed deleted everything and then republished it under your name with the only change being a paraphrase of the bio paragraph in question.
- Here I am referring to the electronic work Storyland of which you have removed most of the documentation--description and reception--without consideration of relevance and significance.
- Such actions implemented in a slash and burn style do not encourage new wikipedia editors nor do they educate them. Rather they discourage participation and the development and sharing of knowledge, which I believe is the antithesis of the wikipedia mission. In the wiki documentation it specifically states that gradual editing is preferred.
- As an educator I would think that someone of your stated experience would be wanting to encourage and educate and thus gain respect for your work, rather than go about it in the manner that you apparantly are currently pursuing. Surefirebrand (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The article (Storyland (a work of electronic literature)) contained 1192 words of quotations and 135 words of user-generated prose. In other words, the article was 90% quotations. That's not how Wikipedia works. Short quotations are allowed, but extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text — Diannaa (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- So you removed everything mindlessly without human consideration. Are you an AI bot? Surefirebrand (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your disrespectful attitude is unwarranted. Copyright violations are, for legal reasons, utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia. Diannaa handles dozens of copyright problems daily and does not have time to write a new article whenever she encounters one that consists almost entirely of content copied and pasted from elsewhere. It is your job, as the person writing an article, to actually write something—in your own words, quoting only when a paraphrase or summary is inviable for conveying the information to the reader.
- If you want advice on what to do instead, here are my thoughts. You should be able to write an original description of the work that summarizes, rather than quotes, your sources' descriptions of it. You have more leeway to quote in the reception section, but not entire paragraphs: a few words is fine, maybe an entire sentence if it's particularly insightful and well-written, and summarize the rest. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- So you removed everything mindlessly without human consideration. Are you an AI bot? Surefirebrand (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The article (Storyland (a work of electronic literature)) contained 1192 words of quotations and 135 words of user-generated prose. In other words, the article was 90% quotations. That's not how Wikipedia works. Short quotations are allowed, but extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text — Diannaa (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio on American School of Kuwait
Please could you look at the American School of Kuwait article. I think there has been possible WP:COPYVIO from [2] which I removed. Otherwise promo. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi snd thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. I agree it's a copyvio and have done some revision deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio?
I'm not entirely sure how to react to this edit. The guy lifted three sentences from the abstract, replaced every word he could with a thesaurus synonym, and then spat it into the article. This is... still a copyright problem? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact it's enough that it got picked up by CopyPatrol. Cleaned — Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. You've done rev/delete here before. Another COI has been adding copied promotional content from the hospital's website. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Revision deletion done/ Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
question
I was reviewing Aurora X-65 CRANE and it gave me https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft%3AAurora+X-65+CRANE&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 .... however I saw this after reviewing the article https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en?filter=all&filterPage=Aurora%20X-65%20CRANE&drafts=0&revision=1170963118, ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- The edit took place at 06:56. The revision deletion was completed at 07:23 and the Community Tech Bot marked the CopyPatrol report as needing no further action at 07:24. — Diannaa (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- ok, sorry didn't look at Community Tech Bot, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Marc Ravalomanana
Marc Ravalomanana has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Question about copypaste vandalism
Take an edit like this, where someone has copied and pasted the contents of one Wikipedia article into another. Does this require any kind of clean-up or is it fine to leave as-is? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Compassionate727, that's a good question. This type of vandalism is fairly common, I typically don't retroactively add the attribution for the copying within Wikipedia. Revision deletion is not required either. — Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
PayrollOrg Page Rejection
Hello,
Upon receiving the feedback regarding sources for the PayrollOrg page, additional sources were added and it was resubmitted. It was then rejected a second time. Could you provide some additional feedback so the page will be approved for publishing. CMG95 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't typicaslly review drafts. Perhaps you could ask the person who declined it. — Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the source that was removed due to copyvio concerns, I would like to summarize it as follows:
In the opinion of Laurence Broers, Research Associate at the SOAS Centre of Contemporary Central Asia and the Caucasus, after the Second Karabakh War in 2020 the NKR became in effect a Russian protectorate surviving only due to Russian military presence in the territory. He considers that a Russian approach of freezing the conflict and postponing the decision on status to a distant future offered prospects for the NKR, in contrast to Euro-Atlantic approach of seeking a negotiated re-incorporation into the Azerbaijan with guarantees for the rights and security of the Armenian population. The NKR leadership demonstrated its loyalty by welcoming Russia's recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and sending aid to the Donbas. According to Broers, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the course of the war in that country sealed the fate of the NKR, as it led to a re-evaluation of the Kremlin's relationships and interests in the region in favor of Azerbaijan. [3]
If it is alright with you, I will include it in the article. Thanks for help. Grandmaster 06:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not ok. That still has quite a bit of overlap with the cited source, according to Earwig's tool. — Diannaa (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- How about this:
- In the opinion of Laurence Broers, Research Associate at the SOAS Centre of Contemporary Central Asia and the Caucasus, after the Second Karabakh War in 2020 the NKR became in effect a Russian protectorate surviving only due to Russian military deployment in the territory. A Russian approach of keeping the status-quo and leaving the decision on status to a distant future offered prospects for the NKR, in contrast to Euro-Atlantic approach of seeking a negotiated re-reintegration into the Azerbaijani state with protection of the Armenian population rights. The NKR leadership demonstrated its loyalty by welcoming recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics by Russia and sending aid to the Donbas. According to Broers, Russia's invasion of Ukraine sealed the fate of the NKR, as it led to a shift of the Kremlin's interests in the region in favor of Azerbaijan.
- The names such as "Second Karabakh War" and "Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics" cannot be paraphrased. Grandmaster 07:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- What you're doing is substituting various words without making substantial changes. You're presenting the same content in the same order as the source, using only slightly different wording. That's called close paraphrasing, which is not allowed. At the risk of being too patronizing (since you've been here since 2006), here are some tips as to how to write content for Wikipedia:Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). 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, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from. 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) 13:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for help. Grandmaster 05:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- What you're doing is substituting various words without making substantial changes. You're presenting the same content in the same order as the source, using only slightly different wording. That's called close paraphrasing, which is not allowed. At the risk of being too patronizing (since you've been here since 2006), here are some tips as to how to write content for Wikipedia:Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). 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, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from. 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) 13:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The names such as "Second Karabakh War" and "Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics" cannot be paraphrased. Grandmaster 07:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You wrote : "Comment: This was copied/translated from fr:Les Rois thaumaturges. — Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)" at the top of the page - which is exactly what I wrote when I created the page. Is this a problem ? Thank you for your answer. 2A01:E0A:AAA:29B0:995:6CCB:6318:7001 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see you said "Source : Les Rois thaumaturges (W in French)" which is a little cryptic and I did not understand it to mean that you had copied from the French Wikipedia. The comment should not be there since the page is not a draft. Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, I should have translated my lingo ;) 2A01:E0A:AAA:29B0:995:6CCB:6318:7001 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Eugene Shvidler
Hi Diana, thank you for all your amazing Wikipedia work! I think that your removal of my edits from the Eugene Shvidler page was a bit harsh. I was careful not to add copyrighted material directly, and rewrite. Also some of the material you removed doesn't connect to the Guardian in any way, and is the High Court judgment on him - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Shvidler-v-Foreign-Secretary.pdf
I love your work generally on Wikipedia, but think you've been a bit hard on me here, Anna..... Luganchanka (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I will keep editing, carefully, Diana, waiting for your feedback also Luganchanka (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) In the edit on 08:06, 28 January 2024 you added 206 words that were one to one copied from the Guardian article and while around half of that was a quote (with a missing quotation mark i think), the rest wasn't and had to be removed/rewritten and revdeld. No comment on the other parts, but the section in the Guardian article starting with "Describing the impact " you copied was a clear violation. Nobody (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I note that, but I also made 7 edits subsequently, removing copyrighted material, and editing. So what is being discussed here isn't my copyright violation on a live Wikipedia edit, but on text I'd put in with the purpose of editing it to remove copyright material, which I then did. I simply did not know that this could constitute a copyright violation, and if that's the case, I will note that and duly change my editing practices, Anna Luganchanka (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I had assumed that with:
I was careful not to add copyrighted material
you meant that you didn't add copyrighted text. But the thing is, that if you add copyrighted text in one edit and the rewrite it in the following edits, until everything is rewritten, even those edits will be redacted as some copyrighted text would still be visible in the revision. So I'm assuming that Diannaa redacted all revisions until all copyrighted text was either removed or rewritten. (I can't confirm this tho as only admins can see redacted edits.) Nobody (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I had assumed that with:
- Ok then, well that being the case, let me make some changes to the way I edit! Thank you for your feedback, that's very helpful for me! ))) Luganchanka (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I note that, but I also made 7 edits subsequently, removing copyrighted material, and editing. So what is being discussed here isn't my copyright violation on a live Wikipedia edit, but on text I'd put in with the purpose of editing it to remove copyright material, which I then did. I simply did not know that this could constitute a copyright violation, and if that's the case, I will note that and duly change my editing practices, Anna Luganchanka (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) In the edit on 08:06, 28 January 2024 you added 206 words that were one to one copied from the Guardian article and while around half of that was a quote (with a missing quotation mark i think), the rest wasn't and had to be removed/rewritten and revdeld. No comment on the other parts, but the section in the Guardian article starting with "Describing the impact " you copied was a clear violation. Nobody (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I will keep editing, carefully, Diana, waiting for your feedback also Luganchanka (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
_by_Ron.jpg)
Hey there, I absolutely love your work; it's incredible! -
Sighsharehere (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
CopyPatrol is down
Ticket created — Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Running again. — Diannaa (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Changes in the Exxon article
Thank you so much for your help. I have an additional question. Some of the information I contributed was removed due to copyright violations and I completely agree with that. But do I now need to discuss or otherwise agree if I want to get back some of the deleted information: just list the company's projects without mentioning their content, which, as far as I understand, was a copyright violation? Buuzbashi (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I already listed the projects.
"Projects include: algae biofuels, biodiesel from agricultural waste, molten carbonate fuel cells, and new ways to manufacture plastic that produce less carbon dioxide."
, I said — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)- Sorry, I got nervous and didn't realize it. Thank you very much! Buuzbashi (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my mistake.I missed the "Official United States Air Force Website" at the bottom of the website. Nobody (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. You can watch for the .mil suffix in the url to identify these webpages. — Diannaa (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- BTW Since you're here. After how many copyright violations/warnings do you normally consider blocking someone? Cause Emma Oruk is on 4 now. Nobody (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Four is my limit. — Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Spot checks are revealing nothing further, so I will add to their page that this is their final warning. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is there someplace to report editors in situations like these or just go to a administrator directly? Nobody (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- You can post here on my talk page, or if I don't seem to be around and the matter seems urgent you can post at WP:ANI. — Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is there someplace to report editors in situations like these or just go to a administrator directly? Nobody (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- BTW Since you're here. After how many copyright violations/warnings do you normally consider blocking someone? Cause Emma Oruk is on 4 now. Nobody (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa, if you have time can you check if I handled this report correctly? I'm not sure due to the .gov adress. Nobody (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think because it is a National Register of Historic Places document, it's property of the US Govt and therefore in the public domain. That's the way I've been treating such cases. — Diannaa (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm getting confused by https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/ having "Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved " Nobody (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- But the document itself is not theirs. It's a United States Department of the Interior National Park Service document that they are hosting on their website. That doesn't change to copyright status of the original document in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- After checking the National Park Service website and it's copyright documents there I agree with you. While i was editing the draft to add the pd notice it got deleted by Jimfbleak. I restored it with a ping to him. Thanks for the help. Nobody (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- But the document itself is not theirs. It's a United States Department of the Interior National Park Service document that they are hosting on their website. That doesn't change to copyright status of the original document in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm getting confused by https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/ having "Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved " Nobody (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think because it is a National Register of Historic Places document, it's property of the US Govt and therefore in the public domain. That's the way I've been treating such cases. — Diannaa (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Tia Canita
She's copied other summaries as well. Her English language skills are frankly not up to writing articles and I don't think she reads her talk page. Since the competence area has been shut down, we might need to start an ANI discussion. Afheather (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- After reviewing the rest of the articles for season 11 of The Walking Dead that she's created recently, I took her to ANI. Afheather (talk) Afheather (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Draft regarding the Boeing 747-500
I have recently made some updates to alter it from the page of the Boeing 747. 14.200.225.254 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award
|
The Working Woman's Barnstar |
| This award is given in recognition to Diannaa for collecting at least 10 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
- Thanks! — Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa.
I see that u added a lot of data here. Please enter the article talk page for a small review on the Medication chapter. It is way to detailed and acts as a self-medication recipe. Just imagine some pregnant woman trying to get off weed (as expected) and starts to take the "High Alert Medication" Oxytocin (in this case, the study clearly shows this med is useless). And then a miscarriage happens.
Most of the data is from single study and that study concludes with the following:
Finally, it appears that treating withdrawal is not sufficient as a monotherapy to reduce use and initiate abstinence, at least in severe cannabis users. Future work should make use of medications with different proposed mechanisms........ While some studies have begun to explore medication combinations, more work is needed in this area.
Also, the study clearly states the data is preliminary and more research is needed. Also "no.2" the study clearly states medication should be combined with different actions that are recommended by some physician.
I am sure this chapter should be way more short and concise like that: There is some pharmaceutical approach but the research is still ongoing
LE: I think my observation fits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Writing_for_the_wrong_audience
Thanks
Rarespa (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello there. I havew not actually ever added any data to the article you mention. My sole visit to the page was to remove some copyright content in July 2023. So sorry, I will not be helping with your proposed amendments to the page. — Diannaa (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- ok. thanks for the reply.
- I will talk with others on that page to get things a little bit more safe for readers.
- Cheers. Rarespa (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted work on Ukrainian grammar
After days of hard work, you deleted everything (I'm talking about the article "Ukrainian grammar"). I consider this very irreverent because when someone works about 8 hours on an article and it just gets deleted, it's obvious that Wikipedia doesn't have a future. So I think a better control of the recent edits is needed, and yes, there was some copyright content, but most of the content was actually my own work, if we are talking about the grammatical cases, the different levels of adjectives (comparative and superlative) and participles. Only one website (https://slovnyk.ua/index.php) was used to check if there are no mistakes in the grammar. Additionally I added some more information about the prefixes. So the only thing that was copied content was the task about the prepositions (copied from https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/prepositions-cases). So the task about prepositions was deleted fairly, but the rest definetely not. It would be very nice if you could just delete this one task ("Prepositions"), the rest was my own hard work. :) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D2:5703:B2D6:12:6058:86DA:E45E (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I actually found copied content beyond that one section so I reverted to an earlier version to remove all the copyright material. — Diannaa (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are talking about the grammatical cases, I think that was also copyright content, I didn't mention it. But the rest was definetely my own work, I edited it yesterday and I still remember it. It's my native language so it's not a big problem.
- Can you please revert to the recent edit (21:35, 12 February 2024) and delete these two tasks: "Grammatical cases", there I used some information (the examples were definetely copied) and "Prepositions" (there I copied the examples from https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/prepositions-cases and added some other/better examples). The rest was my own work. At the moment I do not have access to my recent edits, but if you could give me access again I would delete these tasks myself and then you can take a look again. But the rest was definetely my own work. 2003:D2:5703:B2D6:12:6058:86DA:E45E (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have to go to work in ten minutes, so I will have a look at this later and decide what to do. — Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you. It is just very frustrating because these two tasks were copied, I agree, but I was working hard on the rest. :/ 2003:D2:5703:B2D6:12:6058:86DA:E45E (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed both sections "Grammatical cases" and "Prepositions" and restored the remainder — Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Great, thank you. :) 2003:D2:5703:B2D6:18E0:3C5F:D926:E6FC (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed both sections "Grammatical cases" and "Prepositions" and restored the remainder — Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you. It is just very frustrating because these two tasks were copied, I agree, but I was working hard on the rest. :/ 2003:D2:5703:B2D6:12:6058:86DA:E45E (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have to go to work in ten minutes, so I will have a look at this later and decide what to do. — Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, a SPA keeps adding copyvio to this article, which needs revdel. Being involved, I don't want to use the tools myself. As our resident copyvio specialist, I'd appreciate if you could have a look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Randykitty, if you know where the copyright material was copied from and which diffs need to be revision deleted that would be helpful. I see the award description for the Quant of the Year award is a match for https://mathinvestor.org/2019/01/ but that's all I've found so far. Thanks — Diannaa (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- This was also copied, although in the latest version this has been edited. Versions that contain this copyvio are [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13], [14]. Hope I didn't forget any... I'm a bit at a loss how to handle this thing. The SPA keeps removing edits I make (like adding indexing info or a cover image). Anyway, thanks for your assistance. --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Copyright revision redaction templates
Hello,
Did you review Aritzia for copyvios before removing the RD1 template? If so could you please note it in an edit summary next time? 
Thank you very much! Geardona (talk to me?) 01:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see you did, thanks! Geardona (talk to me?) 01:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- It was not in the edit summary; I guess I forgot. Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Tasman Bridge deletions
Hi Diannaa, I've noticed that some lines in the Tasman Bridge's section regarding the Wreck of SS Lake Illawarra have been removed. I have revised this section accordingly. The information was sourced and referenced from the CSIRO, an Australian Government agency, and was closely copied in the hydro-international.com article. I initially believed that it was acceptable to reference government press materials closely, but I understand now that this is not the case. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. CineBrick315 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of Govt of Autstralia webpages are released under a compatible license, but this one is not. Copyright notice — Diannaa (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey!
Hello, I wrote Article about Commercial Bank of Qatar, based on information of their site and fiscal year review. On what right you can delete contribution of other people? Danchik62725 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but we are not allowed to include material copied from other websites. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Article "Business process modeling" - deletion of ISO 9001/14001/27001 cites.
Hello Diannaa,
I definitely think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to protect itself against possible copyright claims by taking special care when quoting copyrighted works. I am from Germany (continental Europe) and naturally had continental European law in mind when I wrote the text passage. However, I subsequently read the Wiki articles "Citation" and "Fair use" and found no infringements in the text passages I wrote. Can you please give me a few clues as to why you deleted the text passages so ruthlessly? Thank you! 1) In particular, I don't understand why you justified the deletions with URLs that I did not specify as citation sources (I personally have access to the original ISO standard texts and the citations come from the standard texts while "https://vdocument.in/as9100-rev-d.html?page=1" is irrelevant to me and "http://docplayer.net/43325989-Comparison-matrix-iso-14001-2015-vs-iso-14001-2004.html" is not a citable at all - it is derivative work). 2) Which legal opinion is the leading legal opinion in the English-speaking wiki (English is spoken in many countries around the world and English is also the official language in some small countries in continental Europe and the UK).
Thank you very much, PZ0151 PZ0151 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's not unusual for content to be present at multiple places online. Some are accessible to our automated tools and some are not. So the url I listed in my edit summaries is not necessarily always a match for the citation that you used.It looks like you've misunderstood how fair use applies to Wikipedia. We do allow short quotations, but that's not what I found here, because there were no quotations, just straight-up copying without any indication that you did not write the prose yourself. That's not allowed; to do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can confirm, that the original text of the ISO standards is't available online (except some short excerpts) - but "[18]", "[19]" and "[20]" together with "18. ISO 9001:2015: Quality management systems - Requirements, Fifth edition 2015-09, ISO, the International Organization for Standardization 2015", "19. ISO 14001:2015: Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use, Third edition 2015-09, ISO, the International Organization for Standardization 2015" and "20. ISO 27001:2022: Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection Information security management systems - Requirements, Third edition 2022-10, ISO, the International Organization for Standardization 2022" should not open any room for misinterpretation.
- Nevertheless -thank you and: OK - next time I'll pay more attention to the exact use of quotation marks.
- Regards, Steffen PZ0151 (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio on Cecilia Gentili
Hello - would you mind revdeleting this massive copyvio? (Another editor has already reverted it, and the editor has been warned.) Thanks - Funcrunch (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've revdeled @Funcrunch. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Funcrunch (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Potential copyvio goldmine, looks like. Nirva20 (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Earwig's tool finds nothing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wow. I am shocked. 😲 Thanks, anyway. Nirva20 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio Case-hardening
Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the Case-hardening article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Woodlot That looks like a mirror to me. If a website looks cheap, isn’t cited, and the content has been in the article for years, then chances are it’s a mirror. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Copyright issues and COI
Hi Diannaa. Would you be kind enough to take a look at this article? There was a properly sourced section which addressed allegations of human rights abuses by this organization. Now it has been replaced by a contributor – who has made only 3 edits – with material copy pasted from the organization's website. Not only is this a copyright violation, but is also in breach of WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY in my opinion. I'd be glad if you could restore the previous version and delete the ones that contain copyrighted content. Regards. Keivan.fTalk 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done. — Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
List of avatar claimants page
Hi @Diannaa. I saw you had removed some copyright content on this page. I too had noticed that these 2 IPs doing POV edits on couple of other pages and seems possibly same person (105.163.2.244 and 197.248.138.202). I was wondering if it can be looked.
Also, it seems this "List of avatar claimants" is similar to "List of people who have been considered deities". Do you think "List of avatar claimants" page be considered for deletion? Asteramellus (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- yes thanks! Asteramellus (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Asteramellus. Those two IPs both geolocate to Kenya so they could be the same person. Perhaps they edit from multiple locations such as from work and from home, or from home and from the library. It's okay for people to edit from multiple IPs or multiple locations as long as they are not douing so with intent to deceive.I don't think avatars and deities are the same thing, so I don't think deletion is appropriate here. — Diannaa (talk)
Hongqilim was blocked for copyvio's. Does this excessively long request come close enough to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Their definition of copyright is copied directly from our article Copyright which does not give us an indication that they actually understand that they should not be copying other people's work and passing it off as their own. Also Appeal number #84741 which was dated February 10 does not inspire trust either. So no. — Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey Diannaa, I am a new editor and made a article in December 2023. Toddy1 pointed out the copyright violations , now I have fixed the violations so can you RevDel all the old versions (15:20, 17 December 2023 to 16:21, 25 February 2024) because they contain copyright violations.
Harvici (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Harvici. I have cleaned the article some more and done the revision deletion. I had two edit conflicts while doing so. Sorry about that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. 😊 Harvici (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Jeffrey Sachs article update reverted due to copyright concerns
Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your welcome message and for letting me know that it is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration. I didn't realize the items I copied from Sachs' PNAS letter were that extensive when I added the content that Hipal reverted and Hipal's edit summary didn't make it clear that copyright was the issue.
If I reworded the content to avoid using any material copied directly from the PNAS letter that Sachs wrote in response to Garry's letter, would it be OK to resubmit that change to the Jeffrey Sachs article?
I think that including Sachs' side of the argument to Garry would make the article a bit more fair and objective, especially since the article is about Sachs (and not about Garry, per se). Nick Nitpicker (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Nick Nitpicker. The content was removed by another user for reasons other than copyright, with an edit summary that mentions WP:SOAP. So you better suggest a proposed edit on the article's talk page before proceeding. — Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- So why did you say in your welcome message to me, "Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Jeffrey Sachs, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license."? Nick Nitpicker (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Your edit was listed at CopyPatrol; here is a link to the report, which I assessed. Your edit contained content copied from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9659384/, which is not compatibly licensed. (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 is not a compatible license.) When I arrived at the article, the content had already been removed by another user for reasons other than copyright, so I performed revision deletion to remove the copyright material from the page history and placed a template Welcome-copyright on your talk page to welcome you to Wikipedia and to advise you about our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining what happened. It looks like Wikipedia's CopyPatrol bot that uses the Turnitin plagiarism detection service for flagging potential copyright violations actually works pretty well. I didn't realize that I'd used so many (118!) words in common with Sach's letter to PNAS.
- It would be very cool if the CopyPatrol bot could automatically alert Wikipedia editors about possible copyright violations in our content before we submit our article updates (i.e. before a copyright violation actually occurs). However, after reading about CopyPatrol, I realize the Turnitin service is still undergoing evaluation by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team so it's understandable that they would not have included that capability yet. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Your edit was listed at CopyPatrol; here is a link to the report, which I assessed. Your edit contained content copied from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9659384/, which is not compatibly licensed. (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 is not a compatible license.) When I arrived at the article, the content had already been removed by another user for reasons other than copyright, so I performed revision deletion to remove the copyright material from the page history and placed a template Welcome-copyright on your talk page to welcome you to Wikipedia and to advise you about our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- So why did you say in your welcome message to me, "Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Jeffrey Sachs, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license."? Nick Nitpicker (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Welcome message content
Was there an issue with my contributions, or was this just a notice? TheAnonymousPhotographer (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- On Hood–Anderson Farm, you copied from a public domain source without including the required attribution. In the future, simply add the template
{{source-attribution}}after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)- Sorry about that! I'm new here, and as I live near the plantation and have completed a visual analysis of it. Thanks for letting me know! TheAnonymousPhotographer (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)