Close Wikipedia and copyright

 Hello Chemistry Online1, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research. Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow. Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

DMacks. Thanks for your guidance. Please we should add these organic compounds (Nigellicine , Nigellidine , Nigellimine, Carvacrol , α- Hederin , Thymol , Thymoquinone , Dithymoquinone ,thymohydroquinone )into page of Nigella sativa or black seed.If you have proper education in chemistry especially in "organic chemistry "then you will understand. I respect the senior editors but page of Nigella sativa is missing organic compounds.Thousands research papers of journals of high impact factor carrying information about Nigella sativa. But if you see page of Nigella sativa, it seems an agricultural or forestry page. If you don't mind may I ask your specialization in chemistry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistry Online1 (talkcontribs) 10:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

DMacks Please update your knowledge. Always go for research and read publications. Now Wikipedia needs updated persons. I edited the page Nigella sativa with that reference which was already mentioned there. For support of that reference I am giving you this link, please visit this site. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=182.10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistry Online1 (talkcontribs) 12:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

added external linksEdit

I had added one reference link to page Бесхвостые , tutorvista had added its 4 links, then why not i can add one more reference link from other website. Its not promotion, but the page which i have, also tells about fron digestive system. So is that bad to put a reference link on that page. Please guide me.

Support request with team editing experiment projectEdit

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Maybe you should not rollback my code in the word "leapyear"Edit

Hi, DMacks:

    When I fixed the some mistake of python code in "leap year", my code is rollback by you for the reason "Too much detail/WP is not a how-to manual". I'm software engineer, and I found many people don't known the history of "leap year", include the textbooks about programming in china. the wrong code is used for getting "leap year"(before 1582). So, I spend some time to study this question, and wrote the code which let more people know "leap year". can you allow the code is added to the context of "leap year".
   It's my first commit in Wiki. :)
   Best Regards
   Jerry.Liu, Beijing, China


   PS:
   I have add python code to bake of baidu. let more people knows the history of "leap year".  My English is poor, maybe you can know what I said.  hah.

Help with importing a non-free file from CommonsEdit

Hi DMacks! Can I ask if it would be possible for you to locally import file:Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet.jpg (from the Commons to Wikipedia) so that it may be used under fair use on Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet? Thanks, --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify some of its tagging? You added {{No source since}} but the description says:
|source=http://www.affaires-etrangeres.gouv.ga/
|author=Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
And regarding licensing, there is an OTRS ticket listed. If that ticket supports open-license, then we don't need to do fair-use and it can stay on commons. But if there is a sourcing problem, then that makes it unusable even under fair-use on enwiki. I've reached out to an OTRS agent to get more information about the ticket (presumably if it includes a declaration of proper license release it also would support a specific source, even if we can't state in detail what that source is). Will follow up with more info when I hear back... DMacks (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket does not refer to this specific image (neither license nor source), merely the nature of the {{FCO}} tag in general. The image also states "This file comes from the Flickr stream of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office", which seems to contradict the |source=. If it's originally from that Ministère, then the FCO licensing is not relevant. Even if it were to be on FCO's flickr stream, "Note: This permission only extends to content provided by the FCO and does not include third-party content." If instead it's FCO's content being hosted on the Ministère's site, then we need more specific sourcing to be able to verify that fact. Either way, I do not think there is currently enough information to meet the NFCC policy burden about sourcing. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. It would appear the real source of the image is from this website. --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Clarification: the original (but not immediate) source for the image is indeed affaires-etrangeres.gouv.ga. Do you think this would meet the NFCC policy burden? Best, --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Good detective work! The gouv.ga site (full image) does not have an open license, and wazobiaglobaltimes (cropped image, on commons) neither has an open license nor gives credit to gouv.ga. I think we could use either image by NFCC, cited specifically to where we get it. If we use the crop, we don't need to cite the full from which they cropped it. And regardless, the OFC tagging and OTRS ticket are off-topic. Could you update the description on commons? Then I'll transfer it and delete there. That way, even the deleted material is *correct* and clarifies why it had to be deleted. DMacks (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks DMacks. I've updated the image details on Commons, including links to both sources (the immediate and original), while removing the bogus licence. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
All done. Thanks for bearing with this drawn-out process and working on articles on interesting topics! DMacks (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted file restorationEdit

Hi DMacks, do you think you could restore the file:Bruce Millan 1992.jpg? OTRS permission for the image is confirmed by the ticket:2019112010009942. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  •   Done. I don't have OTRS permission to confirm the ticket, so I'm not going to change the tagging myself. DMacks (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      Thank you. Can you also restore the 20:20, 5 March 2011 version of file:John Rickman.jpg and export said version to the Commons? The author of the painting in the image died in 1859. Thanks again, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I revived that version on the enwiki file and also added linked and updated the source URL. There seems to be a larger image at that source, maybe upload it to this enwiki and then we can send the whole thing to commons? Or else just upload that higher quality one to commons and not bother with this enwiki history at all? DMacks (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dissolve.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-31Edit

13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-32Edit

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2020Edit

This Month in Education

Volume 9 • Issue 7 • July 2020


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issuse

Ammonium nitrate and "critical mass"Edit

Hi DMacks,

I am sorry that I do not understand the "Talk" function in Wikipedia and find the jungle that the links in the email sent to me by Wikipedia incredibly confusing. I like the idea of including the reference to runaway chemical reactions - that is what happens under the right conditions with Ammonium Nitrate whether it is supplementing combustible material as an oxidising agent, or simply explosively decomposing in its own right, or a combination of both.

However, the more I think about it, the less relevant any idea of "critical mass" becomes to me when talking about chemical explosives. ANY amount of the right chemical substances can undergo a runaway exothermic reaction under the right conditions of temperature or pressure. Under the right conditions of confinement, it will lead to an explosion. In other words, I don't think that the concept of "critical mass" or critical amount applies. If the amount is really small, it just isn't much of an explosion. Unfortunately, we saw yesterday what 2,750 tons of AN can do under the right conditions.

Bunmoh (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bunmoh: Wikipedia has a TON of features and ways of using them, no question it can be confusing! I agree that the "mass" itself is not the sole concern (as you note, temperature and confinement matter, which also relates to shape of the material). And also not every runaway reaction is explosive by nature. How about "Both decomposition reactions are exothermic. Consequently, under certain conditions, it can become a runaway reaction, which can lead to an explosion." ? DMacks (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dmacks - I had a crack at a further edit along the lines you suggest. What do you think? I believe that, in the case of AN, atmospheric pressure is enough of a confinement to cause an explosion once that runaway reaction takes hold. Here in Australia, it is used in bulk in the mining industry, especially to help with removing large volumes of dirt and overburden in open cut mines. In that case, it is usually buried in holes, soaked with diesel fuel and detonated with an explosive charge, so the explosion is partly its role as an oxidiser for the diesel fuel and partly explosive decomposition. Bunmoh (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice. I tweaked it a little more. We'd need a cited source that atmospheric pressure is sufficient confinement. Our ANFO article talks about the mixture with diesel fuel. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Bunmoh (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Last comment - I think the text of this little passage is about as good as it can get now. It is both concise and accurate.