Luman2009

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Luman2009! Your additions to Bloch's theorem have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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. 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.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• 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 either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello， Diannaa:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to write back to you.

However, I am frustrated with what happened. I never used any images or figures in what

I published on Wikipedia; every sentence in my published parts is from my writing. I am

fully responsible for my writing. So how could it have any copyright issues?

Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to hearing from you,

Best wishes,

Luman2009 Luman2009 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello， Diannaa:

Thank you very much for your reply.

I did not copy material from either "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4718-3" or "https://doi.org/10.1007/b137381".

My writing aims to introduce some surprising new fundamental results from recent publications, including

"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4718-3" and "https://doi.org/10.1007/b137381" to the readers.

I put all information in my own words and structure and cited the references as required.

My writing is about 1500 words. If 50%(741 words) of it could be found in a book of 204 pages (https://doi.org/10.1007/b137381),

or 58%(860 words) of it could be found in a book of 283 pages "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4718-3",

the facts are not proof that I did any copy from the two books. In particular, the purpose of my writing focuses

on introducing new results of the two books.

Therefore, I believe that only the same paragraphs or more, or at least whole sentences, might be considered a copy.

Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to hearing from you,

Best wishes,

Luman2009 Luman2009 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was detected. I removed the entire addition as the main source article provided by the iThenticate service is behind a paywall which makes it impossible for me to clean it otherwise. — Diannaa (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello， Diannaa:

Thank you very much for your timely reply every time. I sincerely appreciate it.

My previous writing is on a very specific theoretical solid-state physics problem with many mathematics results. Different from articles on other subjects,

one has few choices of wordings and ways of expression to express a mathematical conclusion most precisely and rigorously. Although I did not copy anything

from others in my previous writing, and I believe it won't cause copyright problems, I have no more time to handle this issue. Therefore, I rewrote the section

"A relevant new theory" in a very brief version, without quantitative mathematics results, and published it moments ago. Although the quantitative mathematics

results surely will help readers the most, probably this is what I can do now.

Thank you very much for your all helpful communications.

Best wishes,

Luman2009 Luman2009 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Luman2009/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Luman2009! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DoubleGrazing!

I appreciate your comments on my submission and your very friendly message. I am improving my submission and hope to progress toward a good Wikipedia article. I will contact you and the Teahouse for further help when needed.

Thanks a lot again for your help!

Luman2009 Luman2009 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Quantum confinement has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Quantum confinement. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in my draft. The correct title of my draft is "Quantum confinement of Bloch waves" (which exists under my sandbox as well) rather than the file "Quantum confinement," in which you made revisions today.

I am still not familiar with the Wikipedia system. Sorry for the confusion. Luman2009 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quantum confinement of Bloch waves (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Quantum confinement of Bloch waves and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)