User talk: Diannaa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

LennonWallImagine.jpg

Barnstar[edit]

CopyClean Barnstar Hires.png The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Well, obviously, and with gratitude. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Dorset Police[edit]

There's still a huge amount of copyvio in the IPC section. For example the sentence "The book provides an insight into 'the methodical and transparent way in which the police investigate complicated crimes from riots to the almost perfect murders" is lifted directly from the Amazon review of the book. Many of the book, and programme summaries are copy/paste. Given that a lot of the entries are fairly trivial my suggestion would be to delete the whole section. --10mmsocket (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

...then if the original author thinks it's worthy of re-addition he can do so without the blatant copyvios. --10mmsocket (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't remove it because the sentence is a for the most part a quotation, with the only part being copied the phrase "The book provides an insight into".— Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Spot checks of the IPC section reveal nothing.— Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

new user on campaign: User:Primus Sanctus Don Bosco[edit]

Hello Dianaa- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for two days, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings. A few of us have tried to get the editor's attention, but so far to no avail. The editor's contributions, and talkpage. Thanks in advance for any tips. Eric talk 13:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help with this. Users of the mobile apps are extremely difficult to communicate with because they apparently are not properly receiving notifications. Unfortunately this editor does not have their email activated either. These users often don't even know someone is trying to reach them and newcomers may not even know they have a user talk page. The link to their user talk page is apparently also difficult to find, and they're unlikely to notice it unless specifically looking for it. See phab:T263943 re Android app and phab:T275117 for iOS app. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach). Coders on the WMF team are aware of the issue. Hopefully some coders will get on this soon as it's a really big flaw of the mobile apps.— Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info. That had not occurred to me. How unfortunate about the app notification issue. That must be causing no end of headaches now that so many people have been successfully programmed to live their lives through phone apps. Puzzling that so many apps have notification issues. It regularly occurs to me that my 2002 Sony Ericsson bar phone was better at such basic functions than the "smarter" devices I've had since. Eric talk 14:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to say, mobile IP editors, even those not using one of the apps, also receive no notifications and will be completely unaware of any talk page messages unless they think to hunt for them. The ticket for this issue is phab:T240889. The ticket bafflingly enough has been open for over a year.— Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Help?[edit]

I am working on a project...In that regard, after drafting historical data regarding women's nationality here, I want to move all the sections on individual countries (when they are completed) to Fooian nationality law in a history section. I know that there is a template to use when translating one Wiki article to another to credit the original history, but in this case, I am not translating. I am also unsure, as the draft is not in mainspace, if I need to refer to it as the source, and if I do need to do that, how to note it. Can you help? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi SusunW! Hope you are well. What you are planning to do is to copy/move material from one Wikipedia article to another. When you do so, attribution is required. This is required regardless of the source article exists in draftspace, sandbox, or mainspace. This is done by saying in your initial edit summary (but later is okay if you forget) where you got the content from. Sample edit summary: Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution. It's also a good idea if you remove the material from the source article to say why in your edit summary. If you copy/move large amounts of text it's a good idea to place a {{copied}} template on the talk pages of both articles. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for the full details.— Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I knew you would be able to help me. Appreciate your expertise! SusunW (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I have done one. Did I do it correctly? SusunW (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is correct. But if the content in the sandbox was originally copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia, you need to say that too.— Diannaa (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Nope, it wasn't. And when I deleted it from the draft, I marked in the reverse that it moved to ... Again, I truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


WP:COPYWITHIN warning[edit]

I noticed you've warned a user in regard to WP:COPYWITHIN. It may be worth drawing your attention to your first warning to them in 2017, a related one in the following December then more recent warnings from me here then the following section, which also includes a warning from you. They don't seem to be taking heed. I'm not sure whether further action is appropriate or not but thought it best to flag their history. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the header to indicate that it's the fourth request. This is not something I would block for. Usually I give a few warnings and if that doesn't work I do the attribution myself, or remove the copied material with an edit summary "remove unattributed copying"— Diannaa (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Pilsbury (family) article[edit]

Hello. I have amended my article and I hope hopefully amended the issues that you raised. I would be grateful if you revisited the article and shared your judgement. Many thanks. Historicalwriter1910 (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The new version looks okay from a copyright point of view— Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you be able to advise me on the next steps that need to be taken before the article is accepted and is ‘live’ on Wikipedia? Historicalwriter1910 (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Historicalwriter1910, there are currently 4,679 drafts in the queue awaiting assessment. Someone will hopefully get to it soon.— Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Marci Liroff[edit]

Hi there - you just deleted an entire description of my new job as Intimacy Coordinator and I'm confused as to why. Your note said there was copyright information which I violated. I'm not aware of any copyright info which describes my job. Can you please inform me? Marci Liroff Selsid (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC) OMG, now I see you have deleted the entire portion about my work as a casting director. WHY??? I don't have a copy of that info and now it's all gone? Can you please explain what is the issue and how I can correct it? I've been a casting director for over 43 years. How did I violate copyright by listing my bio and resume? I sure hope there's a way to restore this. Thanks Susan. (I don't know how to speak to you or where to put these notes, sorry if they're in the wrong place. Marci Liroff Selsid (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about yourself or your own organisation is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thx for your notes, but I'm really not understanding why you've deleted so much of my page. It's been up since 2009 (I believe) with no issues. Now that I added info about a new position on film and TV sets, most of everything has been taken down. What is the copyright issue? The description of the job was taken from my website which I created. I'm not violating anyone else's words. I wrote them.

I've been a casting director for about 43 years, have cast some amazing films, and worked with some of the pioneer directors. Are you saying that I'm promoting myself by listing these projects and my collaborations with these directors? Are this is a conflict of interest? It's actual fact that I've worked on these movies. Just very confused. Are you saying that I can't create a page about myself? Someone else has to do it? Who, in particular, has to do that? Thanks for your patience. Selsid (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Marci Liroff

Yes I am indeed saying that people should not create or edit their own Wikipedia articles. If people are notable, someone will likely create an article about them eventually. If you have things you wish us to add, you need to make suggestions on the talk page, not edit the article directly. We have a rule about unsourced content which applies especially to our biographies of living people - everything in them should be sourced to independent reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, or reliable websites. Your own website is not a good source for an encyclopedia article, because you can put whatever you want there, without any sourcing to back it up. Regardless, we can't take your word for it that you are the copyright holder of that website; we need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. 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.
It doesn't matter how long the article has been in existence - Wikipedia articles can be amended, improved, edited at any time. Unlike websites such as LinkedIn or Facebook, the article is not yours to control. It's an encyclopedia article, not a social media post or a place to advertise. I think this covers all your questions? Let me know if I missed something.— Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Article creation.[edit]

How do I create a history article on the same page? Habonuwa (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Habonuwa, I don't understand the question.— Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Content on Copyright[edit]

Hello Madam, you recently did an edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1008539054 whereby you removed all statutory provisions stating "remove quotations from the Act; legislation in India is copyright for 60 years from publication. Some of this is form the new Act"

I believe that you are mistaken, Indian law gives copyright protection for a period till 60yrs from the date of death of the author. This does not extend to statutes of Parliament or other legislative bodies. We are free to reproduce judgments. All these are not subject to copyright. Actually Indian Government promotes publishing of laws and Judgments so that everyone is acquainted of the Law. So i kindly request you to revert back the revision. You may reply for any further inquiry. I am a practicing lawyer in India. Rajesh vakkil (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I checked in https://copyright.gov.in/documents/copyrightrules1957.pdf and it says it's copyright. If I am understanding it correctly, it says copies can be produced for the exclusive use of the legislature but that's all.— Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Madam i believe you are referring to works of Legislative Secretariat, it has no relation with statute enacted by Legislature. They are like an executive body aiding Parliament in it's function and produces educational and news articles. Their content is subject to copyright. But here it is Act of Parliament, which is excluded in the PDF that you send.

You may refer s.52 which excludes copyright for Act of Parliament.

"(q) the reproduction or publication of— (i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;" Rajesh vakkil (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It also says in the paragraph above, "the provisions of this clause shall apply only if such reproduction is made at a time more than sixty years from the date of the death of the author or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, from the death of the author whose identity is known or, if the identity of more authors than one is known from the death of such of those authors who dies last;" so no.— Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting your help[edit]

I am requesting you for your help on the total box office collection of the film Spirited Away on the talk page of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train which has let to edit warring between me and a random IP user. Please help me in this regard as soon as possible. Details are mentioned on the talk page itself. Ichika Kasuga (talk) 2:55 Wednesday, 24 February 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time to look at this.— Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Its okay. Thank you🥰🥰 [[User:Ichika Kasuga|Ichika Kasuga]] (talk) (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Ichika Kasuga 15:31 Wednesday, 24 February 2021

One on One Football[edit]

Can you add One on One Football to Street Football (American) E Gardner16 (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

PD-notice[edit]

Thanks for your note and fix to the 88th Illinois Infantry Regiment article. When I intend to upgrade to a B class article, I first copy the Frederick Dyer material, then I make a series of edits until the article is entirely written in my own words. When I'm done, Dyer is cited normally. This time, I forgot to add the PD-notice or CWR tag after I did the copy. Djmaschek (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries - sorry for the template; I am trying to reduce the time I spend online— Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

ValerySablin[edit]

I noticed you warned this person about copyvios. I warned him on the 23rd about blanking cited text from articles. He seems to have simply removed the notices from his talk page, which I guess is allowed, but I'm thinking he warrants watching at a minimum. ♟♙ (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

My opinion about the copyright concerns in the Press Freedom Index data[edit]

The creativity of the index rankings does not relate to copyright, because they used scores to rank the countries. RSF's copyright policy claims to copyright the Press Freedom Index data as seen in their GCU, but they will promote users to help share the data online and in print form (including Wikipedia). Because of that, I would like the ranking table to be restored because their policy on the Index's data seems very misleading. Bsslover371 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If "RSF's copyright policy claims to copyright the Press Freedom Index data as seen in their GCU", then we can't copy it to Wikipedia, because it's copyright. Regardless of their intent for sharing, it's not possible for us to add the tables. Sorry but I am not going to restore it. If I believed it was okay to include the content in Wikipedia I would not have listed the article at WP:CP. Please don't make your case here on my talk page. Please post at WP:CP if you have any further evidence or remarks you wish to share. Other copyright specialists will assess the case and make the decision or give their input as to whether or not my assessment is correct. — Diannaa (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Voytek (producer)[edit]

Good morning Diannaa. I recognise your authority within Wikipedia, and see - with shock - that you have not only removed most of my expansions to this article, but also made my own revisions inaccessible to me for further work. You have also (hastily I think) edited and cut my additions, in a way which has introduced errors, omissions and mistakes. I am grateful for your concern; and I should tell you, that I am a full-time writer whose work for OUP includes many articles of this nature, and management of special projects on the theatre panel of our British national DNB. I do understand about fair usage (by OUP rules), and do my best to abide by those constraints, for every professional reason.

I came across the Voytek stub in the course of my researches for OUP, and seeing the startling notice to the effect that "this individual may not be of sufficient importance to merit a Wikipedia entry" decided, pro bono publico, to improve the article. Would it not have been more courteous to draw attention to particular instances here, where you felt I had been slack in paraphrasing the source obituary for my revisions? I would of course have been grateful to know of them. As it is, I am very disappointed to find that you did not extend me such courtesy. I will correct your more obvious errors and omissions, but am bemused to find my work treated in this cavalier way. Zarzuelauk (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I will make the necessary revisions later, when I have met some tight deadlines for paid work! Meanwhile, I have moved the page to more sensibly reflect the subject's main profession. Zarzuelauk (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The reason the material was removed was because it was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, with some of the content you added being identical to the source web page https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/aug/15/voytek-obituary. Copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical, and for clear-cut violations it is not necessary. For the same reason, I normally do the revision deletion immediately, so that each case is completely finished when I leave the page. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. I can send you the deleted text via email if you like, or you can go back to the Guardian obit and work from that.
Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase.— Diannaa (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Etruscan civilization copyvios[edit]

Hi Diannaa - hope you're well. A substantial amount of the "Genetic research" sub-section of the above seems to be a straight copy from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181945/. I've removed the copyvio and warned the IP who added it. Unfortunately the material above it (within the same section) seems to be a very close paraphrase from the same source, added who-knows-when, though heavily wikified since then and credited to the same source.

See diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etruscan_civilization&curid=37353&diff=1008837925&oldid=1008837190. That's as far as I got, so I've no idea how legal the rest of the section might be. For some reason, Earwig's detector didn't pick any of this up. As you're my "go to" for this kind of stuff... voila! Thanks a lot for your committment, and take care. Haploidavey (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Haploidavey. The paragraph directly above seems adequately paraphrased to me. When it was added (Diff of Etruscan civilization) it had a little more overlap than it does now. I am not going to do revision deletion on that part, but I did on the new edit. — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I trust your judgment in this (I tend to be overcautious these days). Haploidavey (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Café Voltaire and Place de l'Odeon[edit]

Hi again Diannaa. I'm expanding Café Voltaire and Place de l'Odeon. I followed template's advice to "provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation" - but thought I should let you know here in case they're flagged. Thank you. (Will also let User:Sphilbrick know.) -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks HistoricalAccountings. Thanks for the update. The edit summaries are perfect. I will look carefully at the edit summaries if I see your name pop up at Copypatrol in the future.— Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)