User talk:Diannaa

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


There are currently 22 open reports at CopyPatrol. PurgeThere are currently 22 open reports at CopyPatrol. Purge

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Talk page archive
Send me no flowers
List

William Kelly (artist)

[edit]

Hi Diannaa, you removed from William Kelly (artist) a list of the names of artists and writers—contributors to the book Art and Humanist Ideals: Contemporary Persepectives— which you say is "copyright content copied from https://books.google.ca/books/about/Art_and_Humanist_Ideals.html?id=VXxrn62oqAAC&redir_esc=y" That may be the case, but it's an edited blurb from the book in fact (I have a copy) that Google books have themselves copied, and which I did not use...how can Google Books claim copyright over something they have copied?

I'd like to restore the list of contributors please. I'll keep it to just the names, and use quotation marks and cite the page of Kelly's book on which they appear. I sincerely hope Google has no copyright over these people's names, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The "citation that appears to be about something else altogether" as you say, by Schwartzott, in fact cites Art and Humanist Ideals: Contemporary Persepectives in an essay titled "Healing the Pain of War through Art" because Kelly's book is about art as a means of settling or resolving conflict.


Jamesmcardle (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb from the book also enjoys copyright protection. The blurb is also present in multiple places online, including Google. This is quite common.
People's names are obviously not copyright, especially within a simple list with no creative expression. (Lists such as Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time do enjoy copyright protection, because the ranking is subjective and unique.)
The surrounding prose was the problem. The current version is okay, because you have now eliminated phrases with a creative element ("early seminal texts", "art historian Herbert Read as a foundation", etc). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Will watch carefully for such issues. Jamesmcardle (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

material you deleted to pigeon keeping not copyrighted.

[edit]

Pigeon keeping

material you deleted to pigeon keeping not copyrighted.  If you look at the website pigeoncote.com from where this information came from it is in the public domain. The main page even has the C0 icon. But even without that, the material is only a synopsis of what is there. On one hand items are deleted because an editor feels it copies to much, while others edit out because the material is too much of the own work without proper reference. A catch 22 indeed. Small wonder many would be providers of information are discouraged from contributing to our collective information base, and contributing to in other ways as well. I am leaving this comment on your talk page and hope your undo your removal. If not lets talk about it some more.

JohnVerburg (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. I have restored the content. I would not have missed this if the website had the license on all pages, not just the main page. In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{source-attribution}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. It will also help prevent patrollers from making this particular kind of mistake. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for both. I will add the code in the future. I do not really understand the difference with the ref tag, but if it helps others that is what counts and will certainly do so when in doubt.
JohnVerburg (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks again. I went and looked at how you set the tag within, but at the end of the ref tags. That will be easy to do. JohnVerburg (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dear Diannaa, I started to make a translation of the French language article about the ANFR at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_nationale_des_fr%C3%A9quences, but discovered that the ANFR has an English language website, which is more up-to-date than the Wikipedia French language page about the agency, so I paraphrased text from the website instead.

I have written to ANFR to ask permission to use the text at the ANFR website (https://www.anfr.fr/en/about-the-anfr/about-anfr and https://www.anfr.fr/en/about-the-anfr/organisation/departments-and-services as the starting point for an English language Wikipedia article about ANFR. I have also offered to submit the draft to ANFR for approval before submission. GoneDutch (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind request for review of draft article "Sustainable Performance Accounting"

[edit]

Dear Diannaa,

Thank you very much for your review of the dradt of our article "Sustainable Performance Accounting" two month ago. I would like to kindly ask if there might be a chance to review my draft article again. I understand that everyone is busy and I really appreciate your time and support. If you have any questions or suggestions for improvement, I would be happy to hear them.Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards,

Prof. Dr. Knut Henkel Knut Henkel (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, someone else has already reviewed the draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyvio on Scytho-Siberian world

[edit]

I'm coming to you with this because I'm not too familiar with the nuances of copyright violations and I don't know who else to ask for help.

A couple of days ago a section of text was removed from Scytho-Siberian world by User:The4lines [1] as a portion of it was coppied from this source [2]. A modified version was later restored by User:Deusestlux [3] after I had a conversation on The4lines's user page [4], I decided that the new version still constituted a copyright vio as around half a line was coppied word for word.[5]

Now comes the trouble I'm having, Deusestlux has created a third version of the text [6] and I'm not sure if this one is a copyvio or not. Here's the source again [7], the area the port of the initial text was copied from is under the "DISCUSSION" subsection. DervotNum4 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am undecided on this. @The4lines, what is your opinion? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copy of the words.
Here is the original quote:
"We have demonstrated the genetic heterogeneity of temporally and geographically distinct Scythian communities and that their ancestry primarily originates from different steppe-related BA groups, with minimal contributions from ancient Siberian and/or Asian components. These findings confirm the hypothesis that IA populations across vast steppe areas share cultural elements but not ethnicity. We detected a genetic shift in the European Scythian populations over time. Specifically, the earliest examined Scythians, dating to the 7th to 5th centuries BCE, exhibited a greater genetic affinity with the Andronovo culture populations than did later Scythian tribes of the classical era and late Crimean Scythian groups. Moreover, earlier Scythian individuals from the North Pontic Steppe (Scy_South) presented a high genetic heterogeneity and affinity to preceding southern populations This finding contrasts with the genetic profiles of later Scythian groups, which present more shared alleles with more northern, preceding steppe-related groups."
And here is the modified quote:
"Contrary to other more Eastern Scythian groups, these Pontic Scythian communities show continuity with different steppe-related Bronze Age groups, with minimal contributions from the Northeast Asian population represented by Khövsgöl LBA lineage. Specifically, the earliest Scythians, dating to the 7th to 5th centuries BC, overwhelmingly descended from the Andronovo culture populations, while later Scythians were closely associated with preceding steppe-related groups of Srubnaya culture and can be modeled as direct descendants of them.
Deusestlux (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa, DervotNum4, and Deusestlux, the latest version of the text, in my opinion, isn't a copyright violation. However, I will note that the sentence "Specifically, the earliest Scythians, dating to the 7th to 5th centuries BC, overwhelmingly descended from the Andronovo culture populations..." may be considered too close to the source for some, but this isn't something I would revert over. The4lines |||| (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 November 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello again, I have requested deletion of the draft myself. I had wanted an English version of the article to wikilink to, but decided to link to the French page instead. GoneDutch (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Diannaa, I am writing to you with regards to the article on "Byzantine economy" which you have recently edited. I believe that you have removed most of the edits that I have made because it was lifted from "https://idoc.tips/angelikielaioutheeconomichistoryofbyzantbookfipdf-pdf-free.html". However, I did not lift the text from that particular website. Additionally, I am confused regarding the copyright issue of the book, because the research institution that published it had included a link on their official page of the book 'https://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books/the-economic-history-of-byzantium', which leads to the Internet Archive link of the book, in which the entire book was available. Additionally, the Internet Archive link of the book lists Dumbarton Oaks as its uploader. Given that the official publisher of the book had put it up on Internet Archive for free, shouldn't that mean that the book is in the public domain(and subsequently does not violate any copyright)? I'd like to apologize if I had truly made a copyright violation, but I am genuinely confused regarding the copyright status of the book and I'd also like to preface that my understanding of copyright is limited, so do forgive me if I made any errors in my argument. ~2025-32391-15 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book is available at this link, where it is marked as "©2002 Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University Washington, D.C. All rights reserved." At the Internet Archive copy, the book is marked as being licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International license. That's not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification. However, I still have some questions and I hope that you can clarify them for me.
My first question would be that in most Wikipedia articles, the sources they use are generally books that also have copyright. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't most books have similar licenses to the book I've mentioned(as in not allowing people to simply use their book's material for their own financial gain)? Or is the "Economic History of Byzantium" different from most other books?
Is there any way then for the article to be elaborated safely without violating the copyright? After you removed much of the content, I feel that some of the details in the article may be too under-elaborated (especially the section on coinage), and I feel that this would not be beneficial to readers who may want more details. Many details could be found in the book as the book is a comprehensive study of many aspects of the Byzantine economy, and to be unable to use any material from it would honestly remove much important details in the article. Is there thus any way to be able to use some of the information then? After all, there are not many books that are specifically related to the Byzantine economy...

Edit: Hi Diannaa, I just read your message, thank you for your welcome. I have a follow up question regarding the usage of copyrighted material. I now understand that it is not encouraged to lift extensive text wholesale. I would thus like to ask if paraphrasing it would then be allowed? Unfortunately as I've said in my second paragraph of my reply message, the Byzantine economy, like most other economies is very complex and it would require much detail. In your message you said that it isn't ok to copy large extensive text with little altercation. But would paraphrasing the entire text be allowed(or can I only paraphrase small amounts of text)?

Thank you once again for taking the time to read my messages. ~2025-32391-15 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I just read your personal message to my talk page, and I would like to once again thank you for providing me with a greater understanding of the copyright issue. Please disregard my reply message above(I encountered issues trying to edit it so I'm typing out a new reply). I'd like to ask a few more questions that I hope that you would answer for me. The first question would be how much of the text can I paraphrase? I understand that wholesale copying isn't allowed, so am I allowed to paraphrase the entire text from the book, or will paraphrasing large amounts of text also violate copyright? Secondly, would it be possible if you could kindly provide me with access to my edits? I am unable to view the history of my edits and as a result I can't paraphrase my previous contributions to make it more acceptable.
Thank you for your patience with me ~2025-32391-15 (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The normal rules of copyright protection makes it against the law to take someone else's work and use it for financial gain. That does not prevent us from using copyright books, websites, magazines, and so on as sources of information. That's how Wikipedia articles are written.
At the time the article Byzantine economy was created on Wikipedia, the source book The Economic History of Byzantium From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century Volume 1 was protected by copyright. The article created in May 2007 had an 88% overlap with the 2002 source book and therefore was in violation of copyright right from the start. The reason that the problem was not discovered until your addition is likely because there was not a copy of the book available online at that time, which makes detection of copyright violations a lot more difficult. Someone has since uploaded a copy of the book (along with the original copyright notice) to the EDOC website (which seems to be fairly lax about copyright), and that's why our automated detection service triggered a report when you copied some material from the same book.
It's unfortunate that we no longer have a comprehensive article on this topic. Obviously it's detrimental to the encyclopedia to have to strip so much material out of this article, but it's important as one of the top ten websites in the world that we obey copyright law and Wikipedia's own copyright policy. We do however have an article on Byzantine coinage, which could be summarized into the missing section in Byzantine economy. Or you could use the book. Watch out about paraphrasing; too-close paraphrasing is plagiarism, and is also a violation of our copyright policy if extensive. We need to write for Wikipedia in our own words. This is a lot easier to do when you have more than one source to draw from. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can view your edit.
Regarding licenses: There are several Creative Commons licenses with different levels of protection. Some of these licenses are compatible with Wikipedia's license, and some are not. See WP:Compatible license for a list of compatible licenses. When copying from compatibly licensed or public domain sources, it's important that we provide attribution: we need to say that the material was copied and say where we got it from. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for more info on copyright and attribution and how they apply to Wikipedia editing.
Your post is long and complex so I may have missed answering something. Please feel free to let me know if I missed anything or if you need further details on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, thank you for your reply. My computer underwent a reboot and I was unable to access my temporary account, but I am the user ~2025-32391-15 here. I will edit my contributions tomorrow and I'll let you know. 👍 ~2025-32725-27 (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I've tried my best to paraphrase my previous contributions to the best of my ability and I've edited the article. Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources other than the book so I couldn't add additional sources. I hope the new version doesn't violate any copyright, but I'll be willing to rectify any violations. ~2025-32908-54 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new version looks okay. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support 👍 ~2025-32908-54 (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material in user sandbox

[edit]

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for removing the copyrighted material from Alejandro Frangi. The user has re-added the material to their sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Affrangi/sandbox . Are you able to remove that as well? Thank you. Cerulean Depths (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for reporting. The photo (file:Frangi FREng 2023b.jpg) might be okay to use. Probably not "own work" though, as the uploader name is the same as the subject of the photo. It might be a work for hire; the metadata shows it was taken with a fairly posh camera. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]