This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

3/4 appears to be a machine translation copyright violation from the following: http://www.info.bialystok.pl/symbole/geneza_herbu/obiekt.php You've previously warned this editor over copyright issues. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed a large chunk of material attributable to that site. Probably best to draftify the article following revdel of the copyright material. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing this editor's history, there seems to be long term problems of creating articles with unattributed material via machine translation. They have been around for more than 8 years. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The material actually came from the Polish Wikipedia. The oldest version archived by the Wayback Machine is dated Decembver 15, 2009, at which point it had already been present at the Polish Wikipedia for two years. Even the version dated February 8, 2007, has a 95.4% overlap with the website you cite as the purported source. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi - the Polish version of the page was created on 7 February 2007. With the version from 8 February 2007 a significant amount of unsourced text was added, with insubstantial differences between that version and the current Polish text 16 years later ( comparison). The Information Bilaystok website I referred to above references a 2004 State Archive of Białystok exhibition catalogue written by Marek Kietliński. I did not think this was a case of Wikipedia being copied as Kietliński himself is from the State Archive - of course anything is possible and necessary to be doubtful of everything. Nevertheless, sometime between 14 April and 5 June 2004, the State Archive uploaded the text mentioned on the Information Bilaystok website, available here (you will need to click "Wydawnictwa" and then at the top of the list you will see the 2004 publication, you then need to click "sekcji pobierania plików." and on the next page at the bottom of the left column you can click the PDF icon next to "Katalog Wystawy (pieczęci)"). The Polish Wikipedia article is verbatim lifted from this text. Google translate renders the Polish exactly the same as appears in the English version. CSD? Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for your research. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Diana, it seems your removal of the copyrighted stuff also deleted text I edited, mostly the translation of the city's Latin motto, and the CoA referencing the Polish white eagle.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 23:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There was an edit where you added a wikilink and an edit where you added the English translation of the motto. The translation was "City of Białystok". You could add that to the infobox. — Diannaa ( talk) 00:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello there! Before publishing the sketch with the face of Susanna Reid, I read the rules of English Wikipedia, concerning the images, but the explanation in them is purely obscure, incomplete and unintelligible, in my estimation, so publishing this work was quite chancy and risky. I'd say that I'm quite an experienced user of English Wikipedia, so your voluminous critique would have been very apposite, apropos and indispensible. If you're a public service careerist, a public servant of this wikiproject, I beg you to introduce yourself as fully as possible.

What's your personal viewpoint on my work? Do you think this work is a treason? The thing is that Susanna is quite a reactionary, bourgeois journalist, so it appears to be that I made a right wing opportunistic mistake. On the other hand, personally, I find her to have been quite attractive in youth, so, may be, this cause might have diminished the cruel punishment of proletarian intelligenzia and all the organised workers of the world.

On the other hand, I asked a couple of persons about this work. They told me that Susanna was drawn realistically and vividly, so I didn't committed an antiproletarian crime. My mother, the gentlest and saddest of womankind, noticed that there's a decadent tendency in this work, though.

P. S. if you describe and discuss your opinion on this serious matter in a very voluminous reply to me, I'll be very glad. The point is that I'm really afraid of the decay, decadance and really obscurantism shown in this work. P. P. S. Dr. Blofeld, a polite, affable user of this project, recommends me to ask your advice, your tip, so I decided to follow this user's advice because, according to his messages, edits, he's quite reasonable, intelligible, discerning, observant. By the way, I'm very sorry for my extremely verbose and stylistically incorrect English (it would appear that you noticed that there's a holy mess with grammar and stylistics in my present messages), so I've got to apologise. Роман Сергеевич Сидоров ( talk) 18:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Currently my main focus on Wikipedia is copyright. If you used a copyright photograph to prepare the image, the sketch is a derivative work, and thus we can't keep it. However, if you used a combination of several photographs there's likely no problem with the sketch from a copyright point of view. I am a Canadian, and don't know anything about the subject or her politics, so I have no opinion whatsoever about the political implications of your portrait. — Diannaa ( talk) 20:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message regarding the contribution to this section of that page. As I stated: I had links and references cited but was disrupted during my process. Full links and the articles have been completed to the standard that was intended before. As my work is within this industry so I am aware of issues, the disruption whilst writing this article was beyond my control. Mingebinge2 ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, i would like to thank you for editing article about composer Airat Ichmouratov. I see that you removed some content, saying that it was copied from http://www.airatichmouratov.com or https://examplum.com/translation/english-finnish/labadi. I just would like to mention that its mistake, i never copied anything from this websites. For example, the only reason the info about Ichmouratov's assistant post with Bernard Labadie on examplum.com, because it is probably google accumulated info, that was accumulated from actual wikipedia page, examplum.com just gives example of translation! i never took this phrase from examplum.com, its in reverse, i didnt even know about existence of this website, until you mentioned it. so its mistake, pls reverse it. Also , i noticed that you just removed information about Ichmouratov's Theatrical dynasty, which was properly cited from russian online website. You just removed this phrase, for the reason that it was copied from www.airatichmouratov.com , but it wasnt copied, because this info is not there, i never copied anything from composer's website, this info is simply not there, i found this info on russian website https://e-vid.ru/index-m-192-p-63-article-38824.htm and it was properly cited. Pls check, I am very careful with copyright material, and trying only put there materials that i can cite form online sources or books. I think you probably made a mistake, would you be so kind to reverse it. Thank you again for your help, its appreciated a lot. all the best Patrick0506 ( talk) 23:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There was definitely some content that matches the artist's website http://www.airatichmouratov.com but it was already there from the very beginning. You added it yourself when you created the page in 2015. You can view the overlap here. So I am not going to restore that. The Examplum webpage looks like a Wikipedia mirror so I have re-added that. I removed the part about a theatrical dynasty not for copyright reasons, but because I didn't think the citations you provided supported that. But the one source uses the word dynasty, so I have put it back. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa, you work is appreciated. all the best Patrick0506 ( talk) 15:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never been accused of copyright infringement in all my years on Wikipedia. That didn't come the source you quoted, which I've never seen before. I know you're just doing your admin job but ouch! Lozleader ( talk) 20:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not unusual for content to appear in more than one location online. The content I removed is a match for material on http://www.middlesex-heraldry.org.uk/publications/seaxe/Seaxe27-199904.pdf page 4. "The sun shedding its light from above..." 115 words. — Diannaa ( talk) 20:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. I see you deleted one of the revision pages for the DGSAT I article I'm working on. I want to apologize for that, I probably copy-pasted some material into the page so I could quickly check the info without having to hop tabs while I was writing. I just now realize even as a draft, an article still is in public access. I'll be more careful from now on.

Thank you for your hard work. DGSATI ( talk) 23:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa! I've paid attention to the edits you've made and content that was cut from Gonçalo M. Tavares's wiki page.

I work for this author and have been trying to update his wikipedia page to make it similar to his agency page (as he requested). From your last edit, I understand that I need written authorization from the agency so that we can use their text, and I will try to obtain that.

I have now added some self-written paragraphs on his career, and I would like to add again the list of prizes he has won. If I add this list of prizes, citing the page of his agency ( https://mertinwitt-litag.de/portfolio-items/goncalo-m-tavares/) which is where I will get that information, is that okay? I would restructure the way it is written so that it's not a violation, but the information overall would be the same and that would be the source.

Thank you very much! Mariana-alfabeto ( talk) 16:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ Mariana-alfabeto. Each award needs an independent source; citing the agency's website is not enough.

A second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide me with the results of the comparison tool of the edits that you deleted at Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (latest revision deleted)? I took the information from cited journal, but I didn not copy it. I took the idea only and the anatomical information but rewritten the section. It might have been a false positive in your copyright violation checking tool because some anatomical terms may consist of 3-4 words. I indeed used the information from the article I gave proper attribution to, but I didn't copy it as a whole. Therefore, results of comparison tool might have been useful for me to understand which treshold triggers your tool. The page is now deleted and I cannot see where exactly the violation were. Or send me the text you deleted by email. Thank you in advance! I would also be grateful if you won't template me in the future, but add a few words on substance. The template you used on me does not seem to explain the questions I raised, and majority of its lines are irrelevant. We are humans, not bots. Thank you very much in advance! Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I am obviously not clear on the issue of copyright in the context of the propofol deleted cits. I did review the deletes and could not see the concerns in all honesty.

Kindly advice and offer a WP guidance so I can educate myself - clearly these were good faith efforts to support often poor statement or statements that had no citations.

Your assistances would be greatly appreciated - as a retired MD and researcher - I am clearly aware of copyright matters in the publishing world - I did not see anything in the links I added - Propofol is a little unique as lot of data is often proprietary - but that might be very different from the claimed WP policy violations.

I am trying to make these medical articles better not violate WP policies that have been in place for decades.

I am asking for you assistance in a professional manner.

Respectfully - Dr. BeingObjective ( talk) 14:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) FRS.

I found the matching content in this article. Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. For this particular case, I was also able to check the edit using Earwig's tool. I see you have put up a retired notice; sorry to see that. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - tbh - I read the actual policy - and I comprehend the reasons for its existence. I looked at a number of the removed items - are we really sure they all actually violate this written policy? I do tend to lean on reputable learned societies and organizations for citations - as WP is truly an encyclopedia and not a 'go to' for deep research articles - using CC/Mayo/AHC - seems to make sense to me -- I chose some citations as I know a layperson is not likely to wade through a narrow and deep research article. I never plagiarize from any reference. I will evaluate the Propofol articles - though the citations I added that I assumed were a concern - the manufacturing section - are still oddly there. I suspect I am seriously missing something - i will keep this in-mind when I add a citation. Kindly Dr. BeingObjective ( talk) 14:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not the citations you chose, but that the prose you added has already been published somewhere else. That's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood - I will be more cautious - many thanks for the clarification. BeingObjective ( talk) 15:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I rephrased my paraphrasing in 1881–1896 cholera pandemic and now await humbly for your approval, before I spend more of my precious time contributing to Wikipedia and not be bluntly and rudely reverted. You were probably right that I too hastily tried to improve a poorly written and badly maintained article and paraphrased too closely, but I was rather surprised to be threatened with a block. After so many years on Wikipedia, I think I deserve better despite my mistakes. I thought there is something like WP:AFG. If you think this is the best way to retain a contributor to Wikipedia, well … you might reconsider that. Instead of templating me, you could have left a message on my talk page and I would have considered that seriously. Anyway, I hope to cooperate in the future in a more gentle and considerate way. - DonCalo ( talk) 20:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the template; the volume of daily reports precludes issuing personalized messages. Your new version still presents the same ideas in the same order using very similar wording, so I have had to remove it. — Diannaa ( talk) 20:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please could you revdel this diff as a copyright violation. The first sentence was copied from durr.com, and the second sentence was copied from expresspharma.in.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa ( talk) 20:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I hope you're well. Since I've been back (post my blocking a few weeks ago), I have lost some of my abilities (I'm not sure what they're called); specifically, when I created an article it was auto-confirmed, now they sit draft (for example). I think there were some others as well (like reviewing draft articles and approving them etc). Any chance I could get these back? Thanks Tobyjamesaus ( talk) 05:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tobyjamesaus. The term you're looking for is "advanced permissions". The removal was done by admin User:MER-C so you should ask them instead please. I don't think you'll be getting your auto-confirmed back just yet, as we'll want experienced reviewers to continue to check your new articles for some time yet. (I am still doing daily spot checks of your contribs too). — Diannaa ( talk) 15:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:NelsonExpression has been adding images to articles asserting that they have the copyright "donated" by the various school pupils that they have been working with. The images are at commons here. Although this user is currently blocked because of a username issue, they state that they will be back with an acceptable user-name. My concern is that I do not believe that a teacher or project leader can upload images claiming that the children who have contributed their photographs have "gifted" the copyright to their teacher/ project leader. A number of the images are unsuitable or unhelpful where they have been inserted, but that can be dealt with through normal editing processes. Yours views on the copyright issue would be most appreciated. Many thanks   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   13:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Velella, that's a very good question. The person who took the photograph is the copyright holder. They may have said verbally or otherwise that they've released the images into the public domain, but we can't take the uploader's word for it that this has taken place. Wikipedia and the Commons have procedures in place for this, via the WP:VRT and Commons:VRT systems. I have tagged the images as needing permission emails and proper releases being sent. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photomicrogram planaria head end eyespots visible mag40x ImgPx2000x2176 Karisah Smith via NelsonExpression.png. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. That is very useful. I had assumed that the uploaders arguments were non-compliant and I shall now keep an eye out for the new username, should it appear, in case the behaviour continues.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   15:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa, I'm dealing with a parallel situation-- a WikiEd class whose prof isn't proficient and isn't supervising, and the Wiki Ed contact is traveling and busy, but they've been prettly clearly encouraged to upload photos of BLP subjects to Commons without adequate instruction, and it looks like none of the images have clear copyright status. I don't do commons, and don't know where or how to get someone's attention on this without going over and learning Commons. I tried digging in to the bowels of Commons, and couldn't find my way around at all to flag the images, and that experience was enough to convince me that, even if I knew where or how, I really don't want to get involved at Commons. Is there a place on en.wiki where I can flag these images for someone's attention? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. If the images are on the Commons, we have to deal with it on the Commons. Sorry but it's a time-consuming pain in the you-know-what whenever a pocket of such uploads is found. But it's not particularly difficult to do; it just needs good attention to detail so nothing gets missed.

When you are on one of the suspect images, there should be a menu of options on the left; "nominate for deletion" or "No permission" for example. I was going through the ten uploads that Velella reported and tagging as "No permission" when I discovered there'd already been a deletion request filed, so I listed all the images there as well. I also tagged the images with the "no permission" notice and informed the uploader, listing all the suspect images like this.

Another alternative: it's a well-hidden fact that the Commons has an Administrator Noticeboard: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard where you could bring this matter to the administrators at that wiki instead of dealing with it yourself.. — Diannaa ( talk) 16:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thx, Diannaa ... after all these years, and how much of an old dog-new tricks problem I always have-- going to the admin board will do the trick ... I'm not getting any younger! Appreciate the help, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought you might say that! Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. — Diannaa ( talk) 16:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You've got the picture :) I posted over there [1] ... hope some ageism doesn't get triggered, because at this stage in life, I am who I am, warts and all! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

She is SandyGeorgia! Many hidden traits — Diannaa ( talk) 16:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

And how I miss the days of editors of the ilk of our dearest Tim Vickers ... that post was so funny when it happened, and then that Raul was the one who put in my user page even more ... thanks for the kindness. It's been needed :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, In reviewing Tomato chlorosis virus there appears to be a bit of cut and paste happening. Ive reworded it and warned the (new) editor. Could you please strike some of the history if you think it is required. Thanks. Hughesdarren ( talk) 06:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) @ Hughesdarren That article ( https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffmicb.2021.693457) is open access and licensed under CC-BY 4.0, so it's not a copyright violation, if it's attributed. Which it is in this case. Nobody ( talk) 06:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking @ 1AmNobody24:, is there an easy way to check if something is open source or not? I eventually found it for this by rereading the entire page from top to bottom, or will it always be noted at the bottom if it is there? Regards. Hughesdarren ( talk) 07:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Hughesdarren Here's the keywords i use to search on sites and documents: open access/open-access, Creative Commons, Attribution, CC BY/CC-BY, copyright. Nobody ( talk) 08:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Cheers will do, reviewing is becoming such a complicated pain I beginning to think I'll go do something else. Anyway thanks for your help @ 1AmNobody24:. Regards. Hughesdarren ( talk) 08:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Selby Abbey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) These two edits have 230 words of text directly lifted from https://www.selbyabbey.org.uk/washington-window - starting with "The shield is white with two". This is Selby Abbey's website, so it might be irrelevant. The editor's IP changes often, so communication attempts seem futile. The "It is thought to form the basis of the modern day" appears to be synthesis.

• Edits 13 Nov — Edits 14 Nov

Any suggestions? Thank you! Adakiko ( talk) 18:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed the anon's edit to Talk:Selby Abbey#Washington Window update 2023. Editor states they have permission, told them to clear it with VRT. Cheers Adakiko ( talk) 19:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for checking out and revdelling the edits, Diannaa. Cheers Adakiko ( talk) 22:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa! I have been working on a draft of an article about a nurse educator named Hector Hugo Gonzalez. I did not remember that much of the work I had done was word-for-word from a source. I feel that I have removed much of the possibly offending material, attempted to avoid excessive close paraphrasing, and it's now passing Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I thought that I might ask you to take a look at the draft and let me know of any remaning copyvio issues and make any revdels as necessary before I publish the article to the main space. Article: Draft:Hector Hugo Gonzalez Most recent Copyviodetector: [2] Thanks so much! Wikipedialuva ( talk) 09:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ Wikipedialuva: The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa ( talk) 09:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping me with this and letting me know! Wikipedialuva ( talk) 09:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I was wondering if there is the possibility of excluding certain pages from being assessed against WP articles when using Earwig. Right now, I am getting a score of 63.2% when checking the page on Catherine, Princess of Wales, due to the existence of this webpage. This online article was published on 15 December 2012, and most of its content was already available on the WP article by the time of its publication ( revision from 15 Nov. 2012). So should we just ignore this score, especially since the article is undergoing a GA review? What does the policy dictate for such instances? Keivan.f ^Talk 05:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I ran the page on Earwig again and got a score of 35.9% (i.e. "Violation Unlikely") since it ignored that website. I'm not really sure what's going on with it. Is this a thing that happens with other pages as well? Keivan.f ^Talk 12:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Keivan.f. When I check againbst revision 1185354247, which was the revision in place at the time you posted your first message, I get the same result as you - 63.2%. But when I check against the current revision, I get 35.9%. I don't know why this is happening. Perhaps the bot operator can help. Fun fact: https://www.womenfitness.net/kate_middleton2.htm is used as a citation in the article, but it's an obvious Wikipedia mirror, so it needs to come out. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that this post at Talk:Mukesh Ambani‎ was a copyright violation. I have not found a URL for it. The text has a format that looks right in edit mode (or diff mode), which I regard as a giveaway that is has been copied and pasted from somewhere else. I have pasted a warning on the IP editor's talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Toddy1. They've pasted in the outline of their school assignment. Obviously copy vio. I will do some rev-del. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa ( talk) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

See this edit. You have a typo in the name of the template so it didn't populate correctly. You need to do it so it will put the correct signature into the notice. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks, — Diannaa ( talk) 01:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You recently did some copyright removal edits at Stanbic Bank 20 Series. I've tried to deal with some of the other issues on the page after those and it turns out that there's what appears to be a very similar copy of the page at Zimbabwe Domestic Twenty20 Competition - for example, the 2006-07 section is a direct copy from the same source that I think you removed content for from the Stanbic page (these are essentially the same competitions and I plan to do some redirecting fairly soon).

Looking at the page history it all seems fairly hopeless - a lot of the 07-08 and 08-09 seasons stuff seems to come from the same source. There might just be some useful bits from other sources in there - I've taken a full copy of it to use sources. I have no idea what the best way to resolve this is - if necessary, stripping almost everything out or, I suppose, the CSD route if you think it's entirely hopeless. If you could have a brief look... Thanks - I'll watch here for a few days Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Digging into history, I think the Zimbabwe Domestic Twenty20 Competition article was the source of this - Hain9 appears to have copied across content that 9 SAGAR added there on 16 November. I think. Both have edited each page recently. I can deal with adding properly referenced content eventually, but the first priority, I assume, is to deal with the copyvio disaster. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The page should have been moved to the new name rather than copy-pasting its content to the new title. I don't think a history merge is possible due to the parallel development of the two pages. I have copied over the copyright compliant history that I did on the Stanbic Bank 20 Series to the Zimbabwe Domestic Twenty20 Competition page. I did revision deletion at Zimbabwe Domestic Twenty20 Competition but not at Stanbic Bank 20 Series, where the copyvio content had been present for ten years or more. Stanbic Bank 20 Series is now a redirect to Zimbabwe Domestic Twenty20 Competition. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa ( talk) 20:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No worry - thanks for the cleanup. I only spotted the other page after your initial revdel. I'll see if I can get any actual sense to the page at some point Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I knew something didn't sit right - this is a duck of UniverseSagar yes? I knew the name didn't quite sound right but couldn't place it at first. I'll open an SPI in the morning my time, but as a heads up just in case things kick off in the meantime. Not sure about Hain9, but there are some interesting similarities there. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 23:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm New users in Wikipedia I like edition in Wikipedia you talk on my talk box I'm not copyright is not Working and Not Possible Please I need Help SAGAR ( talk) 05:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you speak English well enough to edit the English-language Wikipedia. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm carefully reviewing the text of the intro to the Mace Neufeld biography, given your claim that it in some way violates the copyright to the obituary in Variety. Please do not remove all of the intro but rather, indicate which actual sentences violate copyright, if any. The facts of an individual's life cannot be copyrighted, only the actual text used in the sentences. Ross Fraser ( talk) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The new version looks okay from a copyright polnt of view. Thanks for taking the time to re-write. Note the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's content, so anything present in the lead that's not present in the body should be added to the body of the article. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I've been writing a new article that is ready for review, but it turns out the page already exists. The existing page just has a redirect. I'm actually a little unclear how I kick off the regular review process similarly to a new article that hasn't been created. If I just move all the content at once I am sure it would break the spirit of of a regular edit. Do you have any ideas?

Article: User:Snake playing a saxaphone/deep gluteal syndrome

Where it should eventually be: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Deep_gluteal_syndrome&redirect=no Snake playing a saxaphone ( talk) 08:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What needs to be done is to move (not copy) the draft page to the desired title. I have gone ahead and done that for you. (You could have moved the page ito article space yourself if you had not already created the desired page and edited it). Next, I marked the page as unreviewed to get it in the queue for our regular reviewers to assess the page. (If you had moved the page yourself it would already be classed as unreviewed). — Diannaa ( talk) 11:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

How does copyright apply to citations? Can an entire paragraph be quoted in this case I tried to remove [3]? The quote says almost the same thing as the body of the article already does paraphrased. Vacosea ( talk) 00:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the quote is necessary because the source article is readily available. But it's not something I would edit war over. Short quotations are allowed. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, you have made changes to the Wikipedia article for Megan Cassidy-Welch, which is a newly created page. I don't think anything in the article constitutes a copyright violation. You have deleted and hidden content and I can't find the changes you have made on the deletion log or anywhere else - it's probably me, but I've looked and I can't see it. I do not think it's necessary to delete and hide material just because there wasn't an edit summary added when the change was originally made. Please can you show and explain your changes to the page? I am more than happy to add further references or work to improve the page if that is necessary. Many thanks, Srsval ( talk) 12:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You can view the log entries for the page here. It shows that I hid a couple of revisions where there was some copying from this source. It looked like an accidental copypaste that you corrected immediately, so I didn't issue a warning but did the revision deletion anyway. Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. Most of the overlapping content is titles of journal articles and not a problem. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajaykumar465. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, since May I've been addressing a tracked syntax error on Wikipedia called the Tidy Font bug, which is where user specified colored links are improperly written and do not display correctly. I'm down to the last few hundred of this error and one page you page-protected in 2013, User talk:ZappaOMatic/Archive 2, has a few of this error. I was wondering since you were the page-protector if you had any objections to lowering the page to Extended Confirmed (either temporarily or indefinitely) so I could address these and the other WP:LINT errors on the page?
Thanks, Zinnober9 ( talk) 23:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection. But ZappaOMatic, whose archive it is, is the one who requested the protection, and is still active. It might be best to consult them as well before we proceed. I suspect the protection is no longer needed, as well. — Diannaa ( talk) 01:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you, Diannaa. Courtesy ping, @ ZappaOMatic: Thoughts? Do we have your blessing to proceed? Zinnober9 ( talk) 01:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No objections here, go right ahead. Zappa ⚡ Matic 04:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Zinnober9 the protection has now been removed. Please proceed with error repairs! — Diannaa ( talk) 13:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! Zinnober9 ( talk) 15:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@ ZappaOMatic: Do you need to have page protection restored? If so, what level of protection ? — Diannaa ( talk) 18:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No need to re-protect. I asked for them at the time as a safeguard against any possible bad actors, but I think they've caused more trouble than helped considering how often I get approached about syntax/technical issues in them as they grow deprecated over time (plus I think I'm a decent enough guy to avoid people who are petty enough to go after me like that). Zappa ⚡ Matic 04:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa.

You deleted part of my contribution to the molecular cloud article over copyright concerns. The article you mentioned I copied from (The Evolution of Molecular Clouds by Richard B. Larson) is properly referenced on the article. That paper is also published in a book called The Structure and Content of Molecular Clouds: 25 Years of Molecular Radioastronomy and is referenced under that name. Unfortunately I didn't save the article anywhere else so I can't compare it side by side to see what was wrong with it. It would be helpful if you could tell me what paragraph you considered to be too close (I thought I had paraphrased enough) or if it was just a matter that you didn't find that article in the references.

Also would it be possible to rework those portions of the text and show it to you first before trying to resubmitting to the article? I don't want to submit something that is going to be considered a copyright violation. I know you're probably too busy for this sort of hand-holding but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Thank you for your hard work. DGSATI ( talk) 20:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. There's a copy of the article here as well which allowed me to do some manual checking as well. It wasn't just one paragraph but 14 paragraohs all told that I had to remove. Some parts were paraphrased a little and some parts were copied pretty much unaltered. Sorry but I am unable to help you rewrite the content. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually you helped me plenty, I'm checking the report (nice tool!) and a 73% similitude is ridiculous, I should pay more attention to what I'm doing. Thanks again and apologies. DGSATI ( talk) 21:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Dianna. I've written the new sections for the molecular cloud article again from scratch. Would you be so kind as to check if everything is OK now? I'm very confident no human or bot would suggest there's a copyright issue this time. I'm sorry to bother you with this article again.

Also, I've been editing Wikipedia for just a few weeks, is it a faux pas to ask for an admin to take a look at an article I edited or should I wait until a bot comes along and tell someone there's a problem?

Thank you for your patience. DGSATI ( talk) 01:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The new version looks okay from a copyright point of view. Not all potential source articles are visible to me and some are not visible to the tools that we use either. This particular problem was found by our CopyPatrol system, which uses the iThenticate tool and Turnitin, access to which is donated to us by the good people at Turnitin. This tool can see behind some paywalls such as those that protect many scientific and medical journals. We also have our own tools such as Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Earwig's tool cannot access a lot of journal articles, but it can look at some paywalled publications such as the New York Times, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and others. So in most cases if you're working from scientific papers I won't be able to pre-check your work, and it's beyond the scope of what I am prepared to do regardless, as I am trying to limit my time online to protect my health. — Diannaa ( talk) 10:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for taking the time to respond. This incident was a valuable lesson for me. Take care of yourself Diannaa! :D DGSATI ( talk) 11:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw you made an attribution edit to Framnes Mountains saying it copied content from Mount Henderson (Holme Bay). That is not exactly accurate. A lot of the Framnes Mountains content on features comes from the public domain Geographic Names of the Antarctic (PDF), 1995. This in turn is copied with minor editing by the public domain GNIS Antarctica Detail articles, and by the Australian Antarctic Data Centre Gazetteer. Articles about ranges, mountains etc. in the Framnes Mountains often copy content from one or more of these three sources, and the same content may appear in a parent and child article. I think the attribution is (now) usually correct. The copying could be made more obvious, e.g.

According to Geographic Names of the Antarctic (1995):

This is a very large mountain¹

That seems a bit awkward to me. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's okay to copy prose from public domain sources as long as it's properly attributed, typically via one of our templates. I see that you actually did that in the edit that got flagged. I guess I should have noticed that; sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. It was just an oddity. Article A copies from source PD1. Article B copies from source PD2, which holds a copy of source PD1. The articles' back matter acknowledges the copying, but it does not stand out in the text. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, As I understand you're an administrator and are very well-versed in page history and copyright issues on Wikipedia, may I ask your help with the following page? Patsy O'Connor (currently Afded) was Proded and deleted in the past. Should the page be kept, is there an easy way to restore the original history so that copyright can be attributed? Thank you very much. Best, (Note: I would have asked User:Joe Decker, the administrator who had performed both Prod and deletion back in 2011, but his page said he left Wikipedia. I apologise if there was an appropriate forum to request or discuss such tasks). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Mushy Yank: That's a good question. There's no need to restore the old history, because the content is not the same. — Diannaa ( talk) 11:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Saw you providing attribution edits on 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis and wanted to ask how my attribution edits have been recently. I know that you reached out to me in the past (not sure how I can see any attribution errors on my part), so I wanted to make sure I'm still doing well with this. Also, is it true that you do not need to attribute your own edits between articles? I was told this by a separate user, though have continued to attribute in edit summaries just to be safe. Thanks for your help that you've already provided! WMrapids ( talk) 07:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any further problems. It's true that if you are the sole author of the prose being copied, attribution is not required. But it's a good idea to do so regardless, as it's useful to patrollers such as myself. — Diannaa ( talk) 11:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Just wanted to clarify if my edits have improved since our previous interactions. WMrapids ( talk) 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, one of your userboxes states that you're 113th on the list of editors by number of edits. However, the list itself has you at 109. RedundancyAdvocate ( talk) 02:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw that, but I don't always update. 109 is actually a new high point I think! I will change it. — Diannaa ( talk) 02:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, congratulations to you. Maybe one day I'll get myself a spot on there. RedundancyAdvocate ( talk) 02:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can become a fun addictive hobby, or a great way to contribute to society in your spare time. Cheers, and happy editing — Diannaa ( talk) 02:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Diannaa, Do you know if the English wiki accepts fair use?, I would greatly appreciate the help. I have a problem with images from copyright free sites that have use restrictions or for other reasons do not come Creative Commons. (cc of message sent to CambialYellowing, they advised me that you may be able to help me). ChefBear01 ( talk) 15:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The Commons and the English Wikipedia both accept compatibly licensed images. The English Wikipedia (this site) accepts fair use images, but only under strict conditions. Please see WP:NFCCP for the non-free content criteria. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Diannaa Hello, just out of curiosity, how did you know that the pdf that I cited was copyrighted, I'd like to know how to look out for copyrighted content in the future, thanks. Dr Ulster ( talk) 17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Annacloy here is the link to the page just to help. Dr Ulster ( talk) 17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa ( talk) 22:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall keep that in mind. Dr Ulster ( talk) 01:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shoe_size&diff=1188433058&oldid=1188117544. It is a straight copy of the source cited. Are there any mitigating factors? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a list of data in alphabetical order and contains no creative expression. I would say that it's not copyrightable. Regardless, I wonder where the heck they got this data? What makes this website a reliable source? — Diannaa ( talk) 22:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a user by the name Re Packer&Tracker who has removed sourced content from the article Prithviraj Chauhan. The user stated that they have concerns because of the neutrality of article which I addresed per WP:CONACHIEVE and modified the language of my edit but now the user is objecting for no reasons stating 'I still can't agree' which is stopping me from achieving consensus per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. It is a humble request to block the user or warn them, whatever you think is necessary as they have removed sourced content wihtout any legitimate explanation and are also using disruptive measures. Gspgoat^{( talk)} 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The user have also reverted edits 3 times wihtin 24 hours violating the WP:3RR rule, despite the warning I gave them on their talk page. Gspgoat^{( talk)} 19:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, I misread the rule but the actions of the user still comes under edit warring Gspgoat^{( talk)} 20:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Please find a more appropriate place to report this. For example, if you wish to report edit warring. please go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks — Diannaa ( talk) 22:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Good morning, I'm not too sure about your edit summary is supposed to mean? "Attribution: The edit dated 2023-12-08 07:57 contained content copied from the Wikipedia page at 2023 New Year Honours; see its history for attribution. (See WP:RIA for more information." The article you reference was also made by me, so am I supposed to attribute myself? Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Attribution is not required if you are the sole author of the content that was copied. But it's useful for patrollers such as myself if you do so. — Diannaa ( talk) 02:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

My articles are autopatrolled. Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There's other types of patrolling being done, such as checking the cases in the queue at CopyPatrol. Your edit was one of the items listed there recently. — Diannaa ( talk) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear @ Diannaa, I observed you have deleted the content from the Gramanya page.The content was written by me.Page to page I have refered and added the content.Yes few well source content was copied from deshastha page as it is related to Yajurvedi deshasthas and few are related to CKP(The contents were cross verified before adding).Anyhow go through the content and revert back as I have spent a lot of time in reading books related to gramanya.The time should not go in vain. The whole contents are well documented without any misinformation including court case. 2409:40F2:8:A3F0:5D14:7DA3:50D3:EC15 ( talk) 21:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The content has now been removed by two different people. Please visit the articke's talk page and make your case there as to why it's appropriate to add the content, which was largely copied from Deshastha Brahmin. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@ DiannaaFirst it was removed on the misconception that I am sock.only you are removing it considering it is unattributed.see Gramanya means intercaste dispute of Maharashtra it occurred between the caste mentioned in that article.Deshasthas gramanya is already in the deshasthas page when it is mentioned there I think it’s not against Wikipedia policy. 2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 ( talk) 01:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Diannaa

”The Konkanasthas were waging a social war on Deshasthas during the period of the Peshwas. By the late 18th century, Konkanasthas had established complete political and economic dominance in the region. As a consequence, many members of the literate classes, including Deshastha and Karhade Brahmins, left their ancestral region of Western Maharashtra and migrated to other areas of the Maratha empire such as around the east Godavari basin in the present-day states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. For example, many Deshasthas, Saraswats and CKPs moved to newly formed Maratha states ruled by the Scindias, Gaikwads and others that were at the periphery of the Peshwa's kingdom. After the Maratha empire under the command of Chimaji Appa, the brother of Peshwa Bajirao I (1700-1740), captured Vasai from the Portuguese in 1739, local chitpavan brahmins contested the claim of the local Shukla yajurvedi brahmins, who had lived under Portuguese rule for nearly two hundred years, of being brahmins . The full Brahmin status of the Vasai Yajurvedis was affirmed by an assembly of learned Brahmins in 1746. However, the case came up again in 1808 in the waning years of Peshwai. Richard Maxwell Eaton states that this rise of the Konkanastha is a classic example of social rank rising with political fortune”

@[[User:Diannaa|Diannaa] Hope you are confused with above statement as per the source it’s applicable to all 5 castes participated in gramanya,In deshasthas page they have used .Should I reframe the sentence when they have used in other page ?I don’t think using the content within Wikipedia is against policy.The same source gives point of view of authors about this including deshasthas. 2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 ( talk) 01:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@ DiannaaAs per your suggestion I have dragged that to discussion(Talk Page).So I’ll revert it now let them see the content and develop if any changes they want. 2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 ( talk) 05:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@ DiannaaI have removed ditto of deshasthas brahmin and Chitpavan related content as of now.I have added talk page if anyone is ready to contribute.As of now I have reverted with new version.Hope this works.

Regards, 2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 ( talk) 05:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa
Can you take another look at that page? It came up on CopyPatrol again. Thanks Nobody ( talk) 07:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have done some revision deletion. I can't find the latest new additions anywhere online, and I can't find a book or journal article with the title "Galina Ustvolskaya: Music as Obsession", so that's all I can do. — Diannaa ( talk) 11:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Found it on her website [4]: "Galina Ustvolskaya: Muzika kak navazhdenie (Music as Bewitchment)" ISBN  5-85772-006-0 Nobody ( talk) 12:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Галина Уствольская. Музыка как наваждение" is the title in Russian, but Google does not offer a preview of the book. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not paying as close attention as I should, but I think it has been 5 hours since the most recent report. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It stalled at 13:17 and resumed at 18:19. No one filed a ticket as far as I know. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So I missed the restoration by "that much". Sorry, it has been a busy time with family and other committments. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this edit of yours at Our Lady of the Hens [5] may have been unnecessary. I was – and I am – the sole author of Feast of Our Lady of the Hens, that I created as Vicipaedianus x and later expanded as Est. 2021 ( as you can check) translating the Italian page that I wrote myself in 2014. Did I copy content from mysef? Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Est. 2021, even if you are the sole author Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia still applies and should be followed. Nobody ( talk) 10:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@ 1AmNobody24: Thanks for clarifying, this matter always confused me. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 10:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, attribution is not required if you are the sole author of the content that was copied. But it's useful for patrollers at CopyPatrol if you do so. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I just started on Wikipedia. I have a draft that has not been submitted for review. Nothing on there was copyrighted. I wrote it all myself. I write for a living, including research proposals, scientific books, and scientific papers. I don't understand why you are touching a draft that has not been submitted for review. It says I have 6 months or more before I have to submit. I have only worked on it for 5 days! Once it is submitted for review then input is appropriate. I did not realize that anyone else would be interfering with my draft. This was not helpful and very detrimental. It is hard as a first time user to learn how to put Wikipedia pages together. And now I have to figure out what is even happening here. It is not ready for review at all. I have not put in the references or completed the text. What is happening here? I cannot even tell how much you deleted. And you removed my version so I cannot get it back or even compare? You erased everything so I cannot even see what you changed? Please do not do this again. Why would you do this? In science, project names are not copyrighted and repeating project and thesis names exactly is important, appropriate, and not plagiarism or copyright infringement. This is how science is properly listed. The names of research projects are meant to be repeated exactly and are well-considered. The words convey specificity. It's taken me an hour and half to try and find out what you did as I am new. Matt Allen's CV on his website does not suggest his project names are copyrighted, nothing here is copyrighted. You saw that I had placeholders for references on every line. Why not ask a question instead of destroying and deleting all records of my work? Why would you even go into to someone else's draft prior to review? And you made everything difficult to track, compare, review, or undo. I am confused why you are doing anything with this draft prior to when I submit for review? I confused as to why you wouldn't have a discussion with me instead of making changes and then making them unavailable for comparison and delete all the records for no reason at all. If you would like to help me learn about Wikipedia practices, please explain what your objection is instead of deleting all record of my text. This is not my job and this page will take time to put together piece by piece. I will submit when it is ready for review. That certainly isn't now. And deleting 4 separate revision records of mine to make it hard for me to figure things out was completely unnecessary and harmful.

Sierra16235 ( talk) 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Sierra16235. Sorry you are having a bad experience. 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 hhttps://allengroup.wayne.edu/2020FebruaryMJACV.pdf. Copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. Wikipedia's copyright policy applies to every part of the website, including sandboxes, drafts, and talk pages. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day at CopyPatrol. Since there's only a very small group (today there are only three people) working on the CopyPatrol queue, 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. — Diannaa ( talk) 16:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not a violation. The title of people's research project and theses are going to be the same in multiple places. Your approach would mean that science could not be discussed. These are not copyright protected phrases. Multiple phrases in science cannot be expressed differently. Including scientific methodology and terminology. His thesis is also on this page, word for word as it is a title. What is your scientific background? Please stop this. Who is above you and how can I stop this? Scientists will care what his research was. And the title of his research describes it exactly. Words in science cannot be changed from a project title or a thesis title. For the same reason as his universities are listed exactly as worded in his CV as well. As are the names of his advisors. These are names and titles NOT text from these documents. They will be found multiple places. His awards will be listed as their proper names, as described on many other pages as well.

Please provide a rewording that retains the entire, specific meaning of the following project titles:

1. Catalytic functionalization of photoluminescent porous silicon. (his undergraduate research project)
2. the development of ring opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP)-derived polymer conjugates of the cytotoxic enzyme RNase A and synthesis of contrast agents for MRI integrated into ROMP-derived polymers and graft co-polymers.

These are project titles. THEY NEED TO BE EXACT.

How do I file an appeal or a complaint to get you to stop? Sierra16235 ( talk) 21:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, the Wikipedia template has a place for the thesis title and year to be displayed. And the thesis is a copyrighted document. But the title is used in multiple places. Project titles are the same. I am not posting a research abstract or the contents of his undergraduate or graduate theses. These are titles and subtitles of the project. They can be posted anywhere without violating any copyright. Just like the thesis title. Sierra16235 ( talk) 22:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And according to you, if a researcher mentions their projects in their CV, those projects can never be mentioned again? That is simply false and completely unreasonable. Sierra16235 ( talk) 22:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And his CV will certainly be cited. There are multiple places left for references. But this is not done yet. Sierra16235 ( talk) 22:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And you are making it too hard to even work on. Sierra16235 ( talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't even had a chance to learn how to add the reference. It says I have six months before review. Please stop. Sierra16235 ( talk) 22:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Are these the titles of projects, or of a thesis? A thesis title needs to be exact, and it should be in italics. I don't see any reason why the title of a project needs to be exact. You could re-word it, or leave it out.

I should also mention to you that before any article is accepted for publication in the encyclopedia, the subject has to meet our guidelines for notability. For academics, the guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The subject's own CV is not considered to be a good source. The key thing you need to do is provide several independent reliable sources that demonstrates the subject's notability (as Wikipedia defines it).

There's no deadline. A draft is not eligible for deletion randomly at the end of six months. It's eligible for deletion if nobody has edited it for six months. — Diannaa ( talk) 22:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I did not ask for editing help yet, nor did I submit it for review. I am trying to get a first draft which you have made impossible.

Project titles do need to be exact. Are you a scientist? Because I am. This is NOT an academic profile it is a scientist profile. It is designed to highlight both the scientist and his science.

I gave you two project titles to reword, please show me how you can reword it and not change a single part of the scientific meaning.

You can't. Because like a thesis title, a project title has meaning to every word and the word order. And I haven't gotten any of the reference in yet. I just learned how to do links. It has been only 5 days.

Please list your scientific credentials? You do not seem to know anything about scientific projects. Of course they need to be listed. Do you have profiles scientists that exclude their science?

I am reading one small section of the how-to make a page at a time. This will take months and you are ending it at day 5. Because I cannot spend an entire Saturday fighting with someone over a draft that is not ready in any way for review or discussion or edits from others. It is just getting started. You are using your superior knowledge of how Wikipedia works and your special access to make judgments on things I do not think you understand and are not even complete yet. Why not wait until it is written with the references included and submitted for review? What is the point of this? I have more than 20 years experience in research science. I am a research scientist. I deal with scientific projects and theses every day. Certain things in science look like plagiarism but they are not. Paper titles, thesis titles, project titles are all the same. Some descriptions are word for word by multiple authors and multiple places as scientifically that is the only way to say it. As for formatting, I HAVEN'T EVEN gotten to that yet. If you look at the past revisions. I added the infobox and added things in a bit at a time. Then I learned to reformat and add links. And I read more and kept editing. It is much closer to completion. I just started the education section yesterday. Why are you doing this?

I am not interested in you correcting anything until I have had a chance to draft in and learn how to do each step, how to format, what to link, what sources to reference, etc. I haven't read that yet. This is my first attempt at a page and I cannot spend my entire Saturday on a project I am doing on the side (for fun) that is not complete and has not be submitted for any outside input at this stage. Input comes when it is ready for input—not with each word I draft! You are destructive and harmful. And you make it hard for anyone new to try and put a page together. No section is complete yet. I am just learning.

Stop trying to correct something that is not ready for your input yet. Wikipedia content creation, formatting, editing, etc. takes more than 5 days to learn. You are just making it impossible. You are not helping. If you think you are, you are wrong. Sierra16235 ( talk) 22:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

He meets multiple criteria listed under your Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Including, but not limited to, the first two honors listed in the honors section that I haven't referenced or linked yet. Plus the fact that he is Chair of an R1 University Chemistry Department. And much more. I haven't even started talking about his research. I think he qualifies in 5 or 6 of the 8 criteria and it says I only need one. You would know this if you let me finish the page without interference. And many of his peers are already on Wikipedia in similar fields. I researched published pages on Wikipedia that cover similar individuals before I started. Please stop making me defend something you should not even be reviewing yet. Sierra16235 ( talk) 23:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a guide to get you started with adding citations: Help:Footnotes. See also Wikipedia:Inline citation. Wiki is hard, so sorry — Diannaa ( talk) 22:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I was actually enjoying learning this before you came along. No one should be trying to correct each word a new person types before the content is submitted for review or editing. I write for a living. No one edits my work in real time before it submitted for feedback or review. That would make writing impossible. This page is not public. It is an incomplete draft by a new contributor that is weeks if not months from review submission. Sierra16235 ( talk) 22:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And because of you, I have spent hours on this page, but been prevented from spending the time learning about how to do this or creating new text and content. Your approach is overly aggressive and confrontational especially for draft that has just been started. Sierra16235 ( talk) 22:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A draft you create is not your property and is not private; it's open for anyone to edit; all pages are immediately visible online. I am a Wikipedia administrator that specializes in copyright cleanup. My reason for visiting the page is because you included material that was previously published elsewhere. Copyright content is not allowed, not even temporarily for editing. It would have been preferable if you had noticed the message at the top of each edit window: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." That's what happened here. Please don't add any further copyright material to Wikipedia, and our paths need never cross again. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, the names of scientific projects are usually identical to the names of scientific theses and are not copyrighted. A thesis is a published version of a scientific project or multiple projects depending on the thesis. The project title becomes the thesis title. Listing the names of projects, theses, proper names of universities, or authors would always be found in multiple locations. I do not see at all how this had any copyright issues. As an administrator please provide me with the proper way to file an appeal or complaint. As you've pointed out, Wikipedia is hard for a beginner to understand in 5 days. Sierra16235 ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You could ask for a second opinion from one of the people listed at this list. You could try posting at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems but responses there are typicaly quite slow. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, can you weigh in on if this is actually a copyright or plagiarism issue? nableezy - 02:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a borderline case; I would take it out. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 80.216.151.223 ( talk) 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The section has been removed from ANI. There were also duplicates posted at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Is Diannaa special admin on Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#Diannaa over limit, and a re-post at ANI. It's possible that all three IPs are the same person, although they geolocate to three different countries.

• 80.216.151.223 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.47.141.30 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (this one left some extremely offensive edit summaries) — Diannaa ( talk) 14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Concerning 1.47.141.30 the range 1.47.136.0/21 looks also interesting. Nobody ( talk) 15:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  @ 1AmNobody24: Update: DrKay has blocked the range 1.47.128.0/19 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two weeks. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Another one from Sweden 94.255.133.122 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). — Diannaa ( talk) 14:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa,

The Edith Alma Ross biography I submitted was deleted for copyright infringement. The website from which much of the text was taken [ http://www.plantsofiowa.com/BDI_collector_bios_3.html#Ross,%20Edith%20Alma] is mine. In other words, I copied my own work, reworded it a bit, and submitted it to Wikipedia.

I read thru Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but it's not clear to me which action to take.

The text implies that, if I donate my own material, other people will be able to edit the Edith Alma Ross Wikipedia page. I thought that was true for all Wikipedia pages! If it's posted someone else can revise it.

I don't know what avenue to take. I've not plagiarized someone else's work. Please advise. Wapsie Crossing ( talk) 15:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Hi @ Wapsie Crossing, the part of Donating copyrighted materials that applies here is:
If you would like to allow Wikipedia or another Wikimedia site to use your content, be it text or images, but don't want to put a license statement on the website, you still must release it under the free licenses noted above and can do so in the following ways:

For text, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries:

(1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org;

(2) After sending the email, place {{ Permission pending}} on the article's talk page.

Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

Hope this helps. Nobody ( talk) 18:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that "other people will be able to edit the Edith Alma Ross Wikipedia page". It's true that pretty much all Wikipedia content is editable by anyone, and they don't need to get the author's permission before they do so. It's just a way for us to make it clear that people who are not comfortable with their content being edited should not donate it. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. I wonder have you already looked over that large third paragraph at Paternoster Row. It looks a bit like copy and paste to me. I see some concerns have been raised, over various matters, at User talk:79.161.199.20. Regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Martinevans123 and thanks for the report. The paragraph was started in a series of edits on October 28-29, 2019 and the same IP has been adding little bits to it ever since. I can't find anything online that matches. I am going to remove it anyway, as it's been awaiting citations for 4 years. — Diannaa ( talk) 11:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, User:Pinapplepizzafromdominos has created another Copyvio draft. Shouldn't this be stopped now? Thanks for the advice Nobody ( talk) 12:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked - thanks for the notification. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, if only copyright violation was the only problem here, since your edit last month. More copyright issues, in addition to COI and socking. When you have a chance. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi 2601. I found a bit more copyvio to remove. Two other admins have also recently visited the page. The current version looks ok from a copyright point of view, and the page is semi'd till March 2024 (by Cullen328). — Diannaa ( talk) 11:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and happy holidays. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 16:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, They're still doing it after your second warning. Might be time for a page-block to get their attention. Nobody ( talk) 09:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't block for this. I usually give 3 warnings and just clean up after them from that point forward unless the case is extreme. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, I'm not sure I'd be that forgiving. IMHO But that's still fine. Nobody ( talk) 12:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@ 1AmNobody24, There's really no category under the blocking policy where failure to add attribution is a criterion for a block. Disruption is a criterion, but in my opinion having to be told something twice or even three times is does not constitute disruption to the point where a block is justified. Have a look at the talk page of Cs california ( talk · contribs) ^[no ping], towards the bottom, as an example. You will see that the time of multiple editors is being wasted and the user is showing extreme failure to get the point. That's the point at which I would consider a block — Diannaa ( talk) 14:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That honestly sounds kinda frustrating. That you can tell it to someone over and over, without being able to stop them. Blocking them temporarly to prevent further disruption (which it is), until they can convince you that they can and will attribute in the future should be allowed. Nobody ( talk) 14:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup is not for the faint of heart. It's best to take a Buddhist non-attachment approach and not get frustrated or angry or whatevs. — Diannaa ( talk) 04:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The site that I used text from - in their disclaimer, they wrote that the use of their text is OK if their site is linked to, which I did.

MalaMrvica ( talk) 19:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The place where I found the matcjing content was https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/phase-change-material. which is marked as "All content on this site: Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V., its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved". — Diannaa ( talk) 19:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the second source on Doina phaeobregma copyrighted? I can't find anything about the copyright status of these publications. Scorpions1325 ( talk) 04:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a link to the actual publication. It was published in 1978 without a copyright notice. Commons:Hirtle chart is the place to go. It says, "1978 through 28 February 1989: Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years: None [i.e., no copyright protection]. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities." So the document has no copyright protection, unless the author applied for and received registration within five years of the original publication date. There's databases where you can find out whether or not it was ever registered. Here's one — Diannaa ( talk)

Hi, I'm being reverted here by a single-purpose copyvio merchant - I suspect COI too, not to mention some incompetence. Johnbod ( talk) 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have done some revision deletion, deleted a draft, and warned the user. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa ( talk) 19:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod ( talk) 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me asking this here, but would you mind taking a look at the Loxanthocereus faustianus article? It seems to be a very close paraphrase from a machine translation of one of the sources- the unusual phrase "diameter thickness" has been used in the article, which is both a) a really weird thing to say and b)something that only seems to happen when Google translates the original document's "espesor" into English. (It won't translate "esperor" by itself into "diameter thickness" because the word itself just means "thickness".) There's no word-for-word match to the machine/human translation, but I'm having a hard time imagining that somebody would willingly type the phrase "diameter thickness." Could really do with your opinion. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 05:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, Harrisia caymanensis. A few lines seem rather close to its second source- but I do understand there's only a finite number of ways you can describe a plant. I'm not entirely sure if this covers it, however. However, one sentence looks like it has been copy-pasted directly. Again, sorry to bother you with this- but thank you for all you've already done on this issue. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 07:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian and thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. These are very likely more unattributed translations from the German Wikipedia by Cs california. I have asked on their talk page to fix it. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay- I did look at the deWiki and esWiki, but I can't remember finding any obviously similar articles to compare with. Thank you for helping me clear this up! GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 18:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, me again. As of a few hours ago, they added another very close paraphrase/blatant copy and paste onto Turbinicarpus valdezianusfrom what I believe to be this webpage (webarchive link from Jan of this year). I have reverted their edit, but it needs removed from the history. Thank you! GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 07:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, thank you for everything you're doing here- and explaining the term revision deletion! Don't know why I didn't figure it out before! :)

Taking you up on your offer to post a request here- I explained in my edit summary when I removed the material (and I might get around to rewriting, but Cantharellus subg. Cantharellus has the same issue, but this time directly from one of the sources. (Ctrl+F-ing "usually smooth" will get you to the part of the article it was lifted from.) Strangely enough, though, not the source it was cited to- but the second source. Unfortunately, this was inserted at the time of article creation, so I think the entire history might have to go.

When browsing through the article creations, I left the "subsection of a genus" ones alone, but I think now I've found 3, not lifted from a different Wiki but from either a source or other non-Wiki webpage, I'm going to have to look back on the ones I originally skimmed over. And again, thank you for doing all the behind the scenes/techy stuff. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 04:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You guys are overstepping your editing by blanking the section please read this supreme court ruling scientific facts are not copyrightable.-- Cs california ( talk) 09:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Facts are not copyrightable, but prose is copyrightable. The source webpage for Turbinicarpus valdezianus is marked as being available under a compatible CC-by-SA 3.0 license. It's okay to copy compatibly licensed material, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance by including the template {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=bysa|from this source=yes}} as part of the citation. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. There's detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources. — Diannaa ( talk) 11:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The second case, Cantharellus subg. Cantharellus. The article cited by Cs california is behind a paywall, so I was unable to check and see if matching prose is present there. However I did find it in the article found by GreenLipstickLesbian, which is compatibly licensed under a CC-by 4.0 license. So I have re-added the content and changed the citation to Zhang.

Releasing journal articles under a compatible CC-by or CC-by-SA license is becoming a fairly common thing, so it's important for everybody to watch for that. There's a list of compatible licenses at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? — Diannaa ( talk) 12:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I genuinely didn't even think to check if the journal articles would be licensed! I will be sure to double check in future. Thank you for fixing my mistake. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 20:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at Bulbophyllum sect. Tripudianthes? Specifically, the phrase "are deciduous, and drop the leaves in the winter, and flowers in the winter or spring from the leaf-less pseudobulbs" appears directly in this blog post, dated 2019. On the bottom of the blog, the author has written "Photos with human subjects: all rights reserved. Others: CC BY-SA 4.0" which seems to refer to the images and not text, but I'm wary of making a mistake again. The author is on commons, where they've donated all their pictures, but they don't seem to have been active since 2019. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 06:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that the license applies only to the photos. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, Bulbophyllum sect. Cirrhopetalum seems to be rather close to this source. The Earwig Copyvio tool doesn't agree with me, but I think that's because the phrases are just disjoint enough that a computer won't see the patterns a humans will. For example, looking at the quote that the webpage attributes to Dr. Clair R. Ossian, we see "the dorsal sepal is much smaller than the lateral sepal. the lateral sepals have inrolled and generally adnate margins, and there is generally umbellate inflorescence" vs the Wiki article's "The dorsal sepal of Cirrhopetalum is much smaller than the usually inrolled lateral sepal which has adnate margins." The information under the "Description" heading follows a similar pattern.

The webarchive link from Dec 2021, but older versions seem to confirm that the text's been on there since 1997 or earlier). Given that this appears to be a commercial website(so I can't imagine is freely licensed/in the public domain), I've found no indication of a license, and that the text's existence predates the creative commons license, and that one quote on the webpage apparently pre-dates the webpage, means that I don't know what to do here. There's always the possibility that this website plagiarized from a different, non-internet source, that was retroactively made free/cc4-ed, and I don't want my mistake to be the reason the situation escalates further than it already has been. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 07:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the webpage you found is the actual source of the content they added. This is based on the use of the phrase "obscurely angled". There's no such thing as an obscure angle as far as I can tell, and this error has been copied into our article. There's been an effort at paraphrasing as some of the content is presented in a different order than the source, but the wording is very much the same. It's difficult but not impossible to work with scientific terminology. Even for science articles, content should be written in our own words and not copied from the source. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

In the end I decided to clean both these articles. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No you are both wrong here and that is the wrong source too the page is from here I just simply copied the relevant parts and pasted it as I do not have admin tools to merge the attributions. Cs california ( talk) 07:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean " to merge the edit history". What you did is called a cut-and-paste page move, which is the wrong way to move a page to a new title. In order to preserve the edit history, you should have moved the page using the move function. I will request a history merge. Regardless, the copyright material that I removed has been present in the source website since at least 1997 and our article was not created until 2005, so it has to stay out.

Per GreenLipstickLesbian's suggestion, I am going to request that a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations case be opened so that the remainder of your edits can be checked in an organized way. I am also removing your autopatrolled user right, which means that all your future article creations will be checked by experienced patrollers. — Diannaa ( talk) 11:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

This has section that you deleted due to copywrite issue. Very similar content is actually used in multiple sites like this or this. Also the site does not include any copywrite notice. It's possible to include the content in the article? Tamle2nd ( talk) 23:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Tamle2nd ( talk) 02:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have closed all Wikipedia windows on the phone, whether edit or not. I guess when I need to translate I will have to email the links to myself to avoid having an open edit window on the phone. I haven't figured out what triggers the bug, except that having many windows open seems to be one of the factors, so I am positing a memory management issue. Not that it matters if they aren't planning to fix it. That new reply button also seems really convenient but requires cleanup of a second post of random text in about 30% of uses.

Anyway, I'm cured of trying to Wikipedia on my phone. Hopefully this answers what you wanted to know; if not ping me back, I guess. I will be going through those articles again today regardless of this, since I am there in the first place trying to untangle the units that did carry out pogroms from those that did not, and going through them round-robin seems to help in identifying the discrepancies.

I noticed when I came to this page that you are working on Holocaust articles. I remember reading that now, but had forgotten, or I would have asked you about this already. A couple of extended questions follow. If you are busy and it's TL;DR, of course I understand, but having been reminded that you, an editor I respect and a librarian to boot (!) are working in this topic area, I am hoping to interest you in some of my current problems.

Have you been in the Lithuania Holocaust articles? The slaughter in Lithuania was massive -- the figure 95% of the Jewish population keeps coming up, and that's in less than six months. So there are even more strong feelings than in other Holocaust topics I have seen, and some sources say that in wider society (vs. Wikipedia) this was historically compounded by Soviet propaganda for Soviet reasons. There does seem to have been a lot of PoV pushing on Wikipedia over the years, ironically not so much by the people currently blaming each other for this. I've been adding in some facts but most of the search results I am getting are from the Lithuanian archives, and some of them contradict sources published by the Polish archive IPN. Other editors might reasonably ask the due weight question of why Lithuanian archives would be any more reliable than the Polish. (The short answer is legislation, but that is also an incomplete answer.)

For context, sources discuss Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, German and Jewish versions of events, with occasional mentions of Lativa, Estonia, Byelorussia and Finland on specific points.

• Is there some Polish equivalent to the French Gallica or BNF that I could go to directly? I figure a librarian might know that, and I am having trouble Googling "Polish narrative" since it isn't so much that I want results in Polish as that I want results that show the reasoning/rationale behind certain assertions by the Polish government under the Soviets. I would prefer English but Polish or another language would be ok. I can expand on this if the request doesn't seem clear.

• I would also be interested in any suggestions for German or Hebrew archives. In particular, maybe the Germans have records/summaries/cites about whether a given unit was in fact a training unit on a certain day, which is a point of contention. One article I am looking at claims, with a cite to IPN, that this unit committed a massacre, whereas evidence given by former Lithuanian archivist Bubnys says (simplifying) that the 258th wasn't ever part of the Holocaust, and that this was the 12th and 13th. I've confirmed the part about the 12th and 13th elsewhere, and I haven't yet verified the IPN source or put in enough effort on that specific source to declare it unverifiable, but that's an open issue and saying "on the one hand the Polish say this but the Lithuanians on the other hand say that" would be more useful if it were possible to bring in German or some other records. I've had a little success with French, just because I speak it, but the people who were actually involved should be represented before we go there, no?

• On the Hebrew side, there seems to have been little attention paid in the Wikipedia Lithuanian Holocaust articles to the cultural losses in Kaunas, which should be documented if possible. It was the seat of a certain school of Talmudic interpretation, one source said, for example, which sounds important. Naturally the loss to scholarship is dwarfed by the wholesale slaughter, but it seems to me that due weight requires more than the years-long wrangling we currently have on Wikipedia about whether certain given collaborators were also war criminals. Vilnius similarly seems to have had its own separate and vibrant Jewish history, but I gather that Lithuanian society was culturally segregated and consisted of parallel worlds. Perhaps you know someone who would be interested in tracking that down for a larger article? Right now though I am struggling to put together 2-3 sentences about how immense the cultural losses were in the genocide also.

Even more long-term, the Russian disinformation and minimization of Jewish identity deserve a separate article.

But the short-term goal is just to at least disambiguate and un-conflate the various incarnations of the Resistance, the militias and the German administration.

Thanks for reading, any suggestions that you may have would be very welcome Elinruby ( talk) 22:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby and thanks for your interest in Holocaust topics. I had to stop working on article improvements in mid-June 2016 when we got the CopyPatrol interface working. Looking after the CopyPatrol queue consumes almost all my editing time, with maintenance of my watchlisted stuff consuming the remainder. So Schutzstaffel (April 2016) was my final big GA project. While I was working on that suite of articles, I had to restrict myself to sources that are available at my local library or through inter-library loan (which only extends to books on hand in participating libraries in Alberta). I did buy a small number of books too. I don't have access to archives or anything like that, and locating content on Lithuania via interlibrary loan would be problematic without titles of books to look for. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

ok. I just thought you might know something I don't about archives in the region. Appreciate the reply. Elinruby ( talk) 22:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I wondered if you could have a look at Bill Buchanan (computer scientist). It has several long quotations from the subject of the article, and although they are referenced, I am wondering if this is excessive use of non-free content. Hope you can advise - many thanks. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do think it's excessive but I don't have the time or inclination to clean it up tight now. Certainly commentary about how wonderful if is to live in Edinbugh and similar remarks can come out. — Diannaa ( talk) 22:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a start and will come back to it. Tacyarg ( talk) 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)