Talk page archive |
---|
Delete
I allows you to delete the file a view of Encounter Marine Park— Preceding unsigned comment added by VNHRISHIKESH (talk • contribs)
- The image will be deleted in a few days by an administrator on the Commons.— Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at this paid editing?
@Diannaa, Hi, not sure if it's something that you work on, can you take a look at this? Thanks. Tame (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- What is it I am supposed to be looking for? I have no experience assessing drafts, if that's what you need. — Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Henfenfeld Castle Attribution
As you saw in Pfinzing Castle I copied from German Wikipedia and forgot to add attribution. I did the same thing with Henfenfeld Castle too. How can I add attribution to it? SiliconProphet (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Step 1: Make a small edit to the article, using an edit summary similar to this. Step 2 (optional): Add a template like this to the article talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Talk Page Oddity
Hey Dianna, I got a post on my talk page about the Princeton, Texas page. Apparently I edited the page, which I had to check the history....it was in 2013. Anyway, the user who contacted me (User:Pinecar) is asking me (and many others) to get involved in a slow-speed revert-war. I'm not sure why they care about this lawsuit and I feel there might be some personal involvement there, because why would they be so keen on getting something from 2011 deleted if they weren't?
Regardless of that, the revert-war is concerning. Even more concerning is the user getting other users involved in it. I think this requires an admin's input, so I am bringing it to you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Neutralhomer. Sorry but I don't have the skill set to help deal with this matter.— Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Roger Wilco. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Revdel?
Hiya! I just warned a good-faith user who has copied material directly from a British Museum large-print teaching PDF https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/Large%20print%20guide_Troy.pdf to the Heinrich Schliemann article. Sorry, forgot the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Schliemann&diff=prev&oldid=1036742203 All the best, Haploidavey (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have done the required revision deletion. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Al-Tabligh Verse
hello Diannaa ,Thanks for your tips and tricks,I'm a novice and try to do my edit better,I hope you help me in this
thank you kindly.
Greetings!
Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria
Greetings, Diannaa! Is there a way by which you can disclose the text of this revision to me? It will be very helpful as it would allow me to find free-sources for the removed material, and after copy-editing, I can add that to the article. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 09:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changing what you use as a source does not make any difference from a copyright point of view. The prose has to be re-written in your own words. I can send you the deleted text via email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first.— Diannaa (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I've activated my email. Please send the text with the inline citations, or you can opt for sending the source of that complete revision. Thanks once again! Peter Ormond 💬 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Repeated close paraphrasing
Hi, I've been noticing this user has been doing lots of close paraphrasing in multiple articles. Almost every one of their edits involves close paraphrasing. In addition, they were warned about it over a year ago here. The main pages I’m seeing this on are on 2019–2021 Sudanese protests, 2019–2021 Lebanese protests, 2019–2021 Iraqi protests, Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2020), and Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2021). Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you could please provide me with some specific diffs where you believe close paraphrasing is an issue, I would be happy to examine them. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright in Superman enemies list
Hello Diannaa, I had no idea that the text came from that site, the information I got from the character came from Wikipedia itself. My edits were in good faith, I got the character information in her own article. This means that someone, before me, must have taken the text from that site and put it in her article. If I had noticed it before, I wouldn't even have put that text on the list. But overall, thanks, I'll pay more attention from now on. HealthKnight1993 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- HealthKnight1993, I have checked, and it looks like we had it first, and the other website copied from Wikipedia. Sorry for the mistake. You can help prevent this kind of mistake on my part by stating in your edit summary where you got the content when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another. In fact it's required by the terms of our license. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic.— Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Yanceyville and Caswell County edits
Hi Diannaa, thank you so much for your input. I am heeding your advice. If there is any further issue just let me know. I will promptly correct it. Take care :) Peabodyb (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Saint John's Point, County Down
Hi Dianaa, I made a few alterations to Saint John's Point, County Down to stop the copyvio bells ringing but the user has since made new edits. Could you please check for me that it is OK now and strike out some of the edit history? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Better sourcing on section on Basal-cell carcinoma
Hi Diannaa, You requested better sourcing regarding the statement of BEC as natural treatment for BCCs. I would like to send you as well the approval of the European Health Authority for BEC / CuradermBCC as safe treatment for basal cell carcinoma on humans. And I have 9 more scientific papers (PDF), but they are not in internet. How can I send them to you?
I hereby attach some scientific studies and clinical trials that are in internet. https://www.curadermbcc.eu/single-blind-controled-clinical-trial-ak/ https://www.curadermbcc.eu/study-solasodine-glycoalkaloids/ https://www.curadermbcc.eu/study-nicotinamide-skin-cancer-prevention/
Looking forward to your response, kind regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernandez1978 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) states that we are not to cite medical information using primary sources (individual studies, clinical trials, and the like). We are to use secondary sources that summarize the current state of knowledge. These might include review articles in reputable journals or medical textbooks. Two sources you provided with your edit (here, here) are not any of these, so the proposal that BEC kills Basal-cell carcinoma cells has to stay out of the article unless such sourcing exists. The fact that all the sources you have provided so far are published by Curaderm BCC makes me wonder, do you work for them? If you do, you need to say so, as you have a conflict of interest. — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
ClemRutter
I see you blocked ClemRutter. Disappointing, but I guess you didn't have a choice. I offered him advice on how to avoid close paraphrasing. Feel free to correct me if you do not agree with it. This is how I personally write articles. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Scorpions13256. That's a good idea. I have added some more advice to make sure we have covered everything. Hopefully he will be recovered enough to post an unblock request soon.— Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick reply. Honestly, your advice sounds a lot like another one of my approaches. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- One more thing. On his CCI, you appear to collapse sections that are not fully completed. Why? We normally don't do that unless they are all done. Is there something I am missing? Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's a wee shortcut. All collapsed sections are completely finished. In the sections at the bottom of the page, where typically nothing is found, I only mark where I found something and make a notation in the collapse-bar such as "Clear except as noted". The tracking bot User:Amalthea/CCI/Overview knows that collapsed sections are finished, and it looks like Firefly's stats do so as well.— Diannaa (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
CreatorVRXAZ query
hey um can i talk to you
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CreatorVRXAZ (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Photo of object
Dear Diannaa. Sorry to bother you. I would quite like to replace this photo with something better, but I seem to recall being told that photos of objects are not necessarily OK because the design of the object might be copyright. This was years and years ago, and apropos of the chewing gum art designs of Ben Wilson. I apologize for troubling you with this but my wibbly and confused attempts to find where it says it have not yet borne fruit and it is sometimes nicer* to ask someone who knows. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- And yes, I know it's *nicer for me but not necessarily the recipient. Sorry. DBaK (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I use that philosophy myself for things like home repairs and car repairs - I don't have to know how to do it, I just have to know a person who knows how .The information on photographing artwork and other copyrightable objects such as toys is found at commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. Making a long story short, it depends on the country of origin. For the UK, commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama says that the 3D object needs to be permanently on display in a public place. So my opinion is no, it's not okay. Since the company is now out of business, you might make a good case for a fair use image.— Diannaa (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for that – interesting and very very useful to know. I'm not sure if I will have a look at fair use – the course of human history will not be too badly affected if I leave the current photo there ... and I would say please consult me any time about car and home repairs but it wouldn't really be a nice outcome for either of us. Nerdy corners of trumpet playing, perhaps, yes. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I use that philosophy myself for things like home repairs and car repairs - I don't have to know how to do it, I just have to know a person who knows how .The information on photographing artwork and other copyrightable objects such as toys is found at commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. Making a long story short, it depends on the country of origin. For the UK, commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama says that the 3D object needs to be permanently on display in a public place. So my opinion is no, it's not okay. Since the company is now out of business, you might make a good case for a fair use image.— Diannaa (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation?
Hey, sorry to bother you, but I'm very confused as to why a sentence I written for The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady was removed and redacted on the grounds of copyright infringement when it was a sentence that I written on my own accord. The sentence I recall having made was:
″The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady is widely considered to be one of the greatest jazz records of all time and is often listed as one of the most important compositions of the 20th century."
Which I did not copy from anywhere- nor could I find said sentence on the site mentioned in the reversion- I had no knowledge of this site even existing until now. Hope this issue can be resolved. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I double checked and it appears to be a false positive. Sorry for the mistake. I am not going to re-add the content though, as no citation was provided for these claims.— Diannaa (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Rationale use for nfcc logo
Hi, I'm bothering you because I need some assistance to start a discussion for this logo, which has a free rationale use in 5 different articles, which seems to be excessive IMO, considering that most of copyrighted football badges are not allowed in more than one article. Would you mind giving me instructions to start a discussion for this logo? Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- The place to go is Wikipedia:Files for discussion. I notice that while there's 5 articles listed on the file, the image is only in use on 3 articles.— Diannaa (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Do something about this.
Dear Dianna, I see you had edited my contribution on article Penicillium maximae only to remove that nonsense 3 hour work I had written right? I credited that work to the respective authors of the journal where they had published it. Despite of that you only removed my "gibberish" because it was violating copyright issues even if you didn't remove my citations neither you removed the taxon keys on the template box provided in the page. Pleae reconsider the matter to withdraw the exclusion of my content in that page. I maybe not a big administrator like you but I have the same right as you to investigate into any article that might be a subject for copyright dispute. Sagardd234 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not okay to copy copyright material from journal articles to Wikipedia, even if you credit the author. It looks like your additions to the infobox are still there; not sure what it is you think is missing?— Diannaa (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Better Sourcing Basal-cell carcinoma (2)
Dear Diana.
I understand what you've explained so in order to clarify the issue, please find links that hopefully solve the matter.
Could add I this neutral reference to my contribution, instead of the two curaderm previous links ? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1913614/
By the way, I am connected to Curaderm being the distributor in Europe of the product. Looking forward to your response. Kind regards
PD (Sorry for open new section, but I didn't know how to answer the previous message)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernandez1978 (talk • contribs)
Colin Deacon Wikipedia Page
Hello Diannaa, you had removed some content that was added to Colin Deacon's Wikipedia page because of copyright reasons. However, since those sources (https://sencanada.ca/en/about/, https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/deacon-colin/); (https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/people/meet-canadas-newest-senators-2018/), and (https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2018/06/15/prime-minister-announces-appointment-senator) are some of the only reputable sources for the Senator's biography can you suggest what to do differently to ensure that the content doesn't fail copyright standards? Thanks in advance! Dicta89 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Not normally one for Barnstars (and even less ones without very specific reasons), but I think you know the context of this one. Thank you for your tireless work and pay no attention to your detractors! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 01:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC) |
Thank you for the positive feedback! — Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your dedication of clearing out copyvios at Copypatrol and clearing out sections at CCI. Your work at removing copyvios is greatly appreciated! Keep up the tremendous great work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC) |
Thank you! Appreciated.— Diannaa (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
David Meece
Hiya I note that you have claimed I have violated copyright with my changes to this page. I am curious what you are specifically referring to? The bulk of the text was already present and I simply rearranged. I searched for sources for the history and discography as most of the citations are secondary sources. Any additions, I believed were in my own words. Would love clarification. I note my failure to properly sign off. Thanks for picking that up. I wish Wikipeda did that automatically. Thank you Emjaikey (talk)Emjaikey
- There was some content copied from his website: "as a concert pianist at the age of ten", "Meece won a nationwide talent show at the age of fifteen in 1967", stuff like that. I paraphrased some and removed some.— Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Law of Canada
Sorry - editing on my phone and thought I was responding to a different edit. Will re-do manually. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
AlRawabi School for Girls: Revision history
Hi Dianna, I didn't place the copyright violations on the page- AlRawabi School for Girls. Indeed, I didn't notice that there were copyright vios until you did the removal. However, you blocked all of my legitimate edits. I believe they were made by the IP prior to my edits. Can you please unblock my legitimate edits? Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your additions were not removed, but were hidden from view because of the revision deletion of the previous edit. In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Dianna - Ah, I see, it is a technical issue-ok, I understand. Even as a 15 year editor, this is something new for me, and I was really confused as I am a careful editor. I'm wondering if there is a template admins can come up with to explain to the editors whose harmless edits were hidden, what happened (a few others were hidden as well) - perhaps in the history page when you make the edit (as it may be too much to add to all of our talk pages)? Best -Classicfilms (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright issue re. Type I and type II errors#Etymology
Hi Dianna, You removed my contribution to Type I and type II errors#Etymology citing copyright issues. Please note that my original entry was paraphrased from the original sources and had cited those sources, with quotes in quotation marks. However, in case you felt that the paraphrasing was too close to the original text, I have now rewritten my contribution. I hope it meets with your satisfaction.
Rubinpsyc (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have again removed your addition, because it's still almost identical to the source paper.— Diannaa (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that that my entry is "almost identical" to the source paper. It is a paraphrased version of some ideas. Again, sources are cited and there is no breach of copyright here. To demonstrate the substantial differences, please see the following image, which indicates the differences between the text that I wrote and the key text from the published article. thumb I'd be grateful if you could reconsider your decision please or explain which parts of this text are problematic. Rubinpsyc (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Your addition (the second version; the first version had more overlap):
Notably, as Rubin (2021) pointed out,[1] Fisher was against the concept of a Type I error "rate," as proposed by Neyman and Pearson, because it makes the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population" (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020).[2][3] Nonetheless, Fisher (1937) advised researchers to use a significance threshold as a "convenient convention" for making provisional decisions about rejecting null hypotheses.
Source:
Fisher was against the Neyman-Pearson concept of a long run Type I error rate because it relies on the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population" (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020). Fisher was in favour of researchers considering the probability that they had made an error in provisionally rejecting their null hypothesis.
Overlapping text is highlighted with Bold. The first sentence is quite clearly copied, and the second is not adequately paraphrased, because it presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, using very similar wording. You can review by viewing the iThenticate link here.— Diannaa (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning to me.
You directed me to an iThenticate review which apparently shows a 77% text match. However, I cannot see the report because: “The revision ID couldn't be found: 1038691245.”
I’m also concerned about the validity of the process that was used to show a 77% text match. The “source” material that you used doesn’t seem to match the text in the published article. As you indicated above, you have used the following text as the source to compare with my paraphrased version:
“Fisher was against the Neyman-Pearson concept of a long run Type I error rate because it relies on the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population" (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020). Fisher was in favour of researchers considering the probability that they had made an error in provisionally rejecting their null hypothesis.”
However, neither of the sentences in this “source” text are direct quotes from the published article. In particular, the first sentence omits the word “firmly;” the citations to Fisher; the page number to Fisher (1955); and the discussion of the reference class problem. It also includes a reference to “Rubin, 2020” which was not in the original source. The second sentence excludes the opening clause “Despite his strong opposition…” and the citations at the end of the sentence, and it includes the word “their” instead of “a” when referring to “their null hypothesis.” These changes to the source text may have inflated the matching text percentage.
To obtain a more accurate appraisal of the text match, we should compare my paraphrased text with the text that is used in the published article. I have done this myself by entering my paraphrased text into Turnitin, which is a plagiarism detection software. The results can be seen in the following images.
Contrary to the iThenticate result of a 77% text match, the Turnitin appraisal only shows a 29% text match. Please note that this text match does not include the six quoted words “repeated sampling from the same population,” because this quote represents a small and appropriately cited quotation, and its use is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines under “fair use,” as indicated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use
Also note that Turnitin’s estimate of a 29% text match is an overestimate because it identifies paraphrased text as “matching.” In particular, the matching text in the first sentence “Fisher was against the concept of a Type I error” is paraphrased from the text “Fisher was firmly against the Neyman–Pearson concept of a long run Type I error rate,” and I’ve highlighted the omitted words here. Similarly, the matching text in the last sentence: “sample-specific decision about the null hypothesis” is paraphrased from the article text “sample-specific decision about rejecting the same substantive null hypothesis.”
In summary, I disagree with your assessment of my paraphrased text that “the first sentence is quite clearly copied, and the second is not adequately paraphrased, because it presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, using very similar wording.” The first sentence is not copied; it is paraphrased, with only around a 30% match to the original sentence. In addition, in my view, the second sentence is adequately paraphrased.
Please note that the Wikipedia policy on copyright states that: “it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely.” I think that the phrase “too closely” here refers to substantial similarity infringement, which is a grey area, full of subjective human judgement. Hence, I can totally understand if you continue to feel that my 29% text matches are problematic, and I would like to work with you to try to reach a satisfactory outcome here. Consequently, I have now revised my text for a third time to reduce any text matching even further. Please find the revised text below. I’d be grateful if you could let me know whether this is acceptable to you. If you are happy with this revised version, then I will add it to the relevant Wikipedia page.
Notably, as Rubin (2021) pointed out,[1] Fisher disapproved of Neyman-Pearon’s concept of a Type I error "rate," because it makes the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population," which he felt to be inappropriate in scientific contests (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020).[2][3] Nonetheless, Fisher (1937) advised researchers to use a significance threshold as a "convenient convention" for making provisional decisions about rejecting null hypotheses.[4] Hence, from this perspective, researchers may also make a provisional Type I error based on a one-off test of their null hypothesis (Rubin, 2021).
Rubinpsyc (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you could write a brief summary of the above post I will reply promptly. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes of course…
SUMMARY
1. I added text to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Etymology
2. You deleted it claiming copyright infringement.
3. I changed the text to reduce the text matching and added it to the wiki page.
4. You deleted the text again, claiming “it’s still almost identical.”
5. I disagreed and provided evidence that the text matches were minimal.
6. You provided iThenticate evidence that the text matches were 77%.
7. I pointed out that the “source” text you used in your iThenticate analysis was not from the published article, and I provided a new analysis showing that the text match is actually < 29%. However, I agree that decisions on "substantial similarity" are rather subjective, and so I appreciate you may still have concerns.
8. So, I have now provided another revised draft of my text that reduces the text overlap even further.
9. I have asked if this revised text is acceptable to you. Here it is again:
Notably, as Rubin (2021) pointed out,[1] Fisher disapproved of Neyman-Pearson’s concept of a Type I error "rate," because it makes the assumption of "repeated sampling from the same population," which he felt to be inappropriate in scientific contexts (e.g., Fisher, 1955; Rubin, 2020).[2][3] Nonetheless, Fisher (1937) advised researchers to use a significance threshold as a "convenient convention" for making provisional decisions about rejecting null hypotheses.[4] Hence, from this perspective, researchers may also make a provisional Type I error based on a one-off test of their null hypothesis (Rubin, 2021).
Rubinpsyc (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are still presenting the same ideas in the same order as in the article cited in the iThentcate report. The sentence structure is the same, and a lot of the words are the same. By the way, I think you mean "scientific contexts" not "scientific contests"— Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up on the typo. I’ve corrected that now.
You said that I am “still presenting the same ideas in the same order as in the article cited in the iThentcate report. The sentence structure is the same, and a lot of the words are the same.”
1. Can you please show me a copy of the iThenticate report that indicates the problems? I was unable to access it previously.
2. With regards to “presenting the same ideas,” the Wikipedia policy on copyright states that: “it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely.” So, I don’t think that “presenting the same ideas” is a problem here.
3. Re. “presenting the same ideas in the same order as in the article,” I only present two ideas here: (1) that Fisher disapproved of Neyman-Pearson’s concept of a Type I error rate, and (2) a Fisherian Type I error probablity is permissible. Logically, there are only two orders in which these two ideas can be presented. You are correct that I present these two ideas in the same order as in the article (i.e., 1 then 2, rather than 2 then 1). However, I don’t think that this represents an infringement of copyright.
4. With regards to “the sentence structure is the same, and a lot of the words are the same,” please see the Turnitin report for this revised text. It demonstrates that text match is now at 8%. So, I disagree with this point.
Again, I think that judgments on these matters are often quite subjective. Consequently, given our disagreement here, it might be helpful if we could ask for the opinion of another person. Is there someone else who think might be able to offer an expert view?
Rubinpsyc (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can view the iThenticate report You can review by viewing the iThenticate link here. Click on the box that says "iThenticate report" to load the report. To get a second opinion, consider asking someone on this list.— Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - I managed to access the IThenticate report. Couple of points:
(1) It refers to Version 1 of my text, not Version 3. As shown above, Version 3 has been revised to address your concerns about text matching.
(2) It counts “repeated sampling from the same population” as a text match, but this phrase is enclosed in quotation marks in my text, and so it should not be counted as problematic (see my previous point about Wikipedia’s copyright rules).
Thanks for the direction to the list of other people. I will see if someone is able to assist us. Rubinpsyc (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Jennifer Elisseeff entry
Diannaa -- Well, unfortunately I cannot seem to view my edits as they appeared to you (why is it that I cannot view my edits in the History despite your removal of them?). In any case, the majority of my edits appear to be intact. References made in your comments about copying copyrighted material from https://www.x-mol.com/university/faculty/72391 or https://esb2021.org/confirmed-keynote-speakers/, or http://www.jhu-bmb-phd.org/faculty/jennifer-elisseeff are inaccurate. This information was summarized by me based on a biographical profile given to me by Dr. Elisseeff herself. She may well have provided similar information to various publications and faculty, but I'm using first-hand information. If you'd like to school me on how to incorporate that to your satisfaction, please do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahs boy (talk • contribs)
- Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post text to Wikipedia that has been previously published elsewhere, even if you are the copyright holder or are acting on their instructions, 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, someone you know, or a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio Venturing
Hi Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the Venturing article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Revdel
Hi Diannaa, could you please have a look at this edit which I have reverted, and see if it should be RevDeleted? Thanks Melcous (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have rev-deleted the edit and contacted the oversight team as well. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright Issue - Corneal cross-linking Page
Hi Diannaa,
Reaching out in regards to our edits to the Cross-linking page, as you recently reverted all of our changes. Was curious if you would be able to share specifically why these changes were overturned? A few months ago our changes were also reverted because the information was taken from livingwithkeratoconus.com. Is this the same reason for your changes?
If so, we wanted to clarify that this is in fact our website and don't believe that there would be any copyright issues. The Living with KC website is created by Glaukos, which is the company with the only FDA-approved cross-linking procedure. As the company with the only FDA-approved cross-linking procedure, we believe this page is inaccurate and changes need to be made. If you can inform us how to move forward so we don't run into any future issues that would be great. If there is a better way for us to connect, please let me know. Thank you.
LivingWithKC (talk) 18:41, 16 August 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. But there's another problem: Our medical articles have special sourcing requirements; see WP:MEDRS. So regardless of the copyright issue, this content is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.Another 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. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page.The wording of your comments indicate that this might be a shared account. Does more than one person have access to your Wikipedia account? That's not allowed.— Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-33
19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright issue when I hold the copyright
Hi Diana, You have removed my statistical analysis of the 2015 census in Transnistria and I do not understand why. I study the region and have deep knowledge about it. I have also written a couple of academic articles. Also, I hold the copyright for the article I mention and I have inserted a reference to it. Why was it removed? I saw that the Wikipedia user Robert Jensen suggested that it should be left there, but you went on and removed again. Why was my addition removed? This seems beyond my understanding. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdime (talk • contribs)
- 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. — Diannaa (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Empire of the Moghul
Hi, You have reverted edits about summary of books in the article Empire of the Moghul by stating the content is copyrighted from some website. But it is actually summary from the back cover of the book. I added the content back and please revert it back if you think it is inappropriate. ChikaToFlika (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- They are actually present on several different websites. Plot summaries from the back of a book are copyright too. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Forgot to say, it was user:Inna Mina Dika who re-added the plot summaries. Is that you?— Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
COI with editor
Hi Diannaa, I don't know where this should be reported. This editor, Macklevine, created an article about himself with this edit over three years ago, and since has created several more that indicate a COI problem. Carlstak (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- There's a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard you could try.— Diannaa (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the surgical corrections
Hi,
Thanks for the elaborate, surgical corrections here . If I understand well, that contribution in the talk had been there since 2007: I thought it was an original contribution of whoever had added it, and it was relevant for the article.
Some of the information that you have removed is important and can be easily reworded/rephrased. I hope it is OK if I proceed accordingly?
Ignisāra (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The truth is that the Wayback Machine shows that the content existed elsewhere on the Internet as early as 2006. So I had to remove it. Please feel free to re-write the content in your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
use non-free content with minimal extent of use & minimal number of items
Do you allow me to use the excessive non-free content removed by you with minimal extent of use & minimal number of items?WPooya (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)