Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa/Archive 93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95→Archive 97

Félix González-Torres - removed prose copied from a press release

The text I added was taken from a press release that is available elsewhere online, and I noticed that the preceding quote is also material copied from another website - why is that allowed to remain in the article? Does it not also violate of Wikipedia's copyright policy? Thanks! Botsponson (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove the press release content because it violated copyright. It was a quotation, and short quotations are allowed. It was just my opinion that the gallery's own press releases is not a third-party independent source. Their purpose is to sell tickets, so they are not going to publish neutral unbiased information. At your suggestion, I will look for and clean the remaining copyvio from the article. — Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, just a question here re: this comment about neutral, unbiased information from museums. I totally understand where you're coming from - and in the case of the discussed article, there are a lot of bigger issues with the way it's constructed and even cited. You are certainly correct that museums have to draw in audiences, but I'm a little concerned by the way you phrased it, because it seems to be implying that museums simply cannot be unbiased sources of information on artists that exhibited at their institutions. Is that what you're stating here? Museums are the primary engine for the scholarship and exhibition of modern and contemporary art - museum in this context meaning traditional public museums that do not sell art (even if they have "gallery" in the name), as opposed to commercial galleries which represent artists and sell art. Again, context is important and the case here seems clear-cut if you're talking about the quotes that were sourced from MoMA or another museum (quoted text from museums that laud or over-describe an artist are not really useable, unless contextually necessary and framed as the opinion of the curator/museum), but your rationale as stated here could easily be applied to a wide range of other sources that originate with museums, not just press-oriented materials. Catalogue essays in books published by museums for instance, one of the most important sources for biographical details of lesser-known artists and scholarly analysis of an artist's style, could be read under this rationale as unusable. Context is obviously key there, too: if a curator/art historian makes a sweeping claim about an artist's importance or other subjective analysis in such an essay, that would need to be identified as such and directly quoted/named. But the idea that museums can't publish "neutral unbiased information" about people whose work they've shown feels like a pretty wild claim. I am not trying to be nit-picky here or anything, and I'm grateful for your work to help clean up this specific article. I'm just a little nervous by the idea that you may have used this rationale in other instances where there's clear reason to use a museum source; in many cases museum-derived sources are the only solid sources for specific biographical information and thorough stylistic analyses of artists, especially for historical artists who simply never received broader sustained coverage until they were older. Thank you for your time! 19h00s (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about it either way to be honest. Go ahead and re-add it if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Tuhins (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Tuhins, there's nothing in those diffs that qualifies for revision deletion under the policy. — Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. It falls under RD4 (oversightable information) - it contains personal information that is non-public (information about family relations, a purported quote from the subject). Tuhins (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't agree. Please email the oversight team if you would like to get a second opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

CCI update

CCI complete

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI!

Sennecaster (Chat) 02:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who took part in this important work. — Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not copyright material, it was rephrased. It was originally from wikipedia article. It is mirroring of wikipedia in an unscrupulous website. This is not copyright violation. Now I have to do double work. And why on earth you remove references cited by me? I am not editing for fun, this is serious amount of time. Pls paste the material in your talk page as a reply to this message and references that you removed from Meherabad. I will rewrite.Fostera12 (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

please paste it here soon.Fostera12 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I did check the page history of Meherabad and did not find it. Did you copy it from an old revision of Amartithi? If so, you should have said so in your edit summary. In fact to do so is required by the terms of our license.
When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary that the material was copied, and where you got it. Please have a look at this edit summary for an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes took it from old Amartithi article. But I rewrote most of it. Thank you for your support. Fostera12 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The book is in public domain, published in 1960. How can it be copyright content? Khinkida (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The place to start is the Commons:Hirtle chart. the book is a Work First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. Publication date is 1962. The book was published in India, without compliance with US formalities. In order for it to be in the public domain, it would have had to have been in the public domain in its source country as of URAA date, which is 1996 for India. The author, Mayadhar Mansingh, died in 1973. In India works are protected by copyright for 60 years from the date of death of the author. This means that the book is protected by copyright until 2033 and was not in the public domain on the URAA date. The last column states the work will not be in the public domain until 95 years after the publication date. This would put it in the public domain in 2057. So I won't be able to restore the content.
By the way, we are required to add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{source-attribution}} after your citation. 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. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to you too!

Hello! Thank you for the warm welcome, and I truly appreciate the guidance and efforts to maintain the integrity and copyright compliance of Wikipedia's content. I'm delighted to be part of this vibrant community. I wanted to clarify that my contributions, specifically the edit to the Dua Lipa page, come from a unique position where I'm directly working with Madame Tussauds New York. As part of my role, I have obtained all necessary copyright approvals to use content from Madame Tussauds' website and associated materials. These approvals ensure that the content I contributed complies with Wikipedia's copyright policies and is available under a suitable free license for use on the platform. Given this context, I kindly request if you could consider undoing the deletion of the content I added, or if possible, restore it so that I may review and make any necessary alterations to align with Wikipedia's standards and requirements. This would greatly help in enriching the Dua Lipa page with accurate and authorized information, contributing to the knowledge and appreciation of her fans and Wikipedia users alike. Thank you again for your understanding and assistance in this matter. I look forward to collaborating closely with the community to ensure the information on Wikipedia is both accurate and compliant with all legal and copyright standards. PedroOReal (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello again,
I wanted to follow up on our previous conversation regarding the edit to the Dua Lipa page on Wikipedia.
Dont need anything from your side actually, I have already taken the time to review the content I contributed, with a particular focus on ensuring that it is factual, concise, and fully compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines and copyright policies. This review process was undertaken with the utmost care to respect the platform's standards and the importance of providing reliable information to the community.
Given this careful revision and the assurance that all content is backed by the appropriate copyright approvals through my work with Madame Tussauds New York, I kindly ask for your cooperation in not removing the contributed content without prior communication with me. If there are any concerns or areas that require further clarification, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to address these directly before any action is taken to delete the content.
This approach will help in maintaining the integrity of the information on Wikipedia, ensuring that it remains a valuable and accurate resource for everyone. I believe in the power of collaboration and dialogue to achieve the best outcomes, and I'm committed to contributing positively to this community.
Thank you for your understanding and for considering this request. I look forward to any future interactions and to continuing to support the Wikipedia community in any way I can. Thank you for the attention, best regards PedroOReal (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder or have their permission, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about 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) 22:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
And the third problem is that running their response through [1] shows it is AI generated. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I have cleaned up some of their additions to articles but I just don't have time to do them all. — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Copy Right Math Equation in Tax increment financing

Hello Diannaa!

Was attempting to replicate the math ( Tax Levy / Tax Base = Tax Rate ) of how Tax increment financing increases taxes from Quigley's Tale of Two Cities: Reinventing Tax Increment Finance page 29 table 11 on the Tax Increment Finance page. I referenced the Authors webpage - is this a quote issue ? I could change the name of the variable names, or do I just need to call out the information is from the author in the sentence instead of just referencing the citation ? https://www.tifreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Tale_Two_Cities-Quigley.pdf I am leery of altering the math.

Cheers! LongestTV (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that all the descriptions are identical to the source. You can see the extent of the problem if you view the CopyPatrol report and click on the iThenticate link. I don't see how you can re-word it into your own words in the present format, which is a table. Is there a way that you can provide our readers of a prose description of the concept without all this copying? If not, we can't keep it, so sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Rewrote the section and found a couple of .gov sources and a news paper article that reference the same math. Do the two .gov references give more leeway ? Mike Quigley the county commissioner when he wrote Tale of Two Cities: Reinventing Tax Increment Financing had his document hanging on House.Gov that I was able to pull from the wayback machine https://web.archive.org/web/20141229061321/https://quigley.house.gov/sites/quigley.house.gov/files/migrated/images/user_images/gt/stories/reinventingTaxIncrementFinancing.pdfand found the same math in Kenneth Nordtvedt Montana House testimony https://leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2015-2016/Revenue-and-Transportation/Meetings/Nov-2015/nordtvedt-tif-dark-side.pdf LongestTV (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The fact that you found these documents at a .gov website does not assure us that they are in the public domain, because works of the US federal government are in the public domain, but works of the individual states are typically not. But everything looks okay from a copyright point of view, because the only overlap appears to be the quotation from Nordtvedt. — Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I think you don't quite understand copyright: protected are creative products, NOT factual or scientific statements, especially given that I modified them. Look up Copyright and then re-instate them. Quote: "Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself" (from the aforementioned Wikipedia page. Do you understand what that means? I hope you do. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Granny already knows quite a bit about eggs. — Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Apparently not. Do your homework before you vandalize pages here. Another option is to TELL authors if you think there is an infringement. That gives them a chance to fix it. Because cases like this are ONLY a matter of rewriting. Thanks.Peteruetz (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but since there's only a handful of people working on copyright cleanup and a high volume of cases to be assessed each day, discussion of each individual violation is not practical.
On Wikipedia, good faith edits are not considered to be WP:vandalism. If you wish to get a second opinion, please consider asking one of the people on this list. — Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio on Wood Carving

Please look at Wood Carving. I see that User:ReaderAlvarez has added paragraphs on Chinese and Dutch wood carving, with much of the text copied verbatim from the references that RA added, and that RA's Edit summaries made no mention of copying content. Both references declare the content being copyright protected at the ends. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies from a new user and trying to learn the ropes here. Will be reviewing it again to see what can be added to page but with violation of copyright content. Any guidance would be appreciated. Want to see any examples and learn further. @Diannaa @David notMD ReaderAlvarez (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Aecws again

Hi Diannaa, thanks for handling round 2 of Draft:Quincy Railroad Co. 2 (I requested CSD the first time). Aecws is back at it again, submitting another draft that's almost entirely copyvio. This time, I was able to revert to before the copyvio was added, could you do me a favor and hit it with a revdel? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, by another admin. Thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. — Diannaa (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Ocala National Forest

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a substantial probability of potential copyright content added March 7, 2020. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Works of the Government of Florida are in the public domain. — Diannaa (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edits to Cape Town Stadium

Can you please provide detail as to the alleged copyright infringement in this article? I have drafted the content with care, and would like to understand what you consider an infringement. Unfortunately, the "[cut / prev]" link is disabled on the history page re your edit, so it is not immediately clear to me what it is that you have deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zingi (talk • contribs) 07:59, March 11, 2024 (UTC)

Some of the content you added was a match for this document. Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. — Diannaa (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

New article: Volodymyr Sirenko

Hello User:Diannaa, I have just created a brand new English article for Ukrainian conductor: Volodymyr Sirenko as part of the Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2024 drive. I started it from scratch and have been extremely careful with the referencing. I moved the page from my user draftspace to the Mainspace earlier today. I did all of this before I became aware that there had been an attempt at an article in 2016 and that you nominated it for speedy deletion. Obviously I would not want this to happen again! My concern is with the photograph I have used, which I obtained from Wikicommons. I have assumed that it was ok to use that photo, partly because it was on Wikicommons, but also because it is currently in use on the other language Wikipedia articles, the Ukrainian one and the German, in particular. Is this the same image that caused the copyvio issues back in 2016? Please let me know as I can remove the image. Thank you. SpookiePuppy (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello SpooliePuppy. The 2016 version of the article was deleted because all of the prose was copied from this page. Yours does not match that webpage at all, so it's okay. The photo is okay too, as it appears to have been taken by the uploader personally and not copied from somewhere else. — Diannaa (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Charles Lauritsen

Possible copyright violation from this website. Yours, Nirva20 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. — Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Citizenship Act

I appreciate your input about copyright material. In the case of the edit to Citizenship Act article, I hope the content can be drafted in different words and published for public access signed Abhijeetsaxena21 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Abhijeetsaxena21


Help needed at CopyPatrol

Hello copyright patrollers, we currently have 90 reports at CopyPatrol that need to be assessed. I worked on it for an hour, and the caseload went UP by ten. Yikes!

Assistance would be much appreciated! Pinging some recent contributors as shown on the Leaderboard: DanCherek, Hut 8.5, Ymblanter, L3X1, and 1AmNobody24. Any assistance you can offer would be perfect, even if you only have time to do a handful of cases. Thanks in advance, — Diannaa (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

thumbsUp: Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Your work has
a big impact!

We are caught up now! Thanks to everybody who participated. — Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can You Please Elaborate Where & How I Violated Copyright Laws In My Recent Edit On Mein Kampf... BTW, According To Me, I Actually Stated The Another Aspect Of Massive Popularity Of Mein Kampf By Adolf Hitler In India, By Citing The Source... Dibyayoti176255 (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't copy prose directly from your sources. To do so is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. There's further details on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Back tomorrow

Hey Diannaa, I am having some trouble getting the reply tool to work in the proper section (feel free to merge this message), but just wanted to let you know that I’ll be back from traveling by tomorrow (Wednesday) evening and will be able to help out then. Best, DanCherek (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dan for the update and for all your hard work at CopyPatrol. Unfortunately I am no longer able to do as many reports per day as I used to do so your efforts are greatly appreciated. You are an amazing Wikipedian slash genius. — Diannaa (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We had a discussion in Talk:Androgen_backdoor_pathway, where an editor requesting a quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndrogen_backdoor_pathway&diff=1213501476&oldid=1213500731

I'm not sure that this quote would not trigger a copyright violation.

I gave a quote but I'm not sure that I was right, could you please check Androgen_backdoor_pathway whether it was OK to gave such a quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Androgen_backdoor_pathway&diff=1213505632&oldid=1213486866 Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is okay to add a quotation under these circumstances. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

CopyPatrol is down

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T360135
Resolved

I have filed a Phab ticket. — Diannaa (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Quickly fixed. — Diannaa (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Malcolm Reed (Star Trek)

Should I request a history merge for the copying from the list article into the draft, or does your edit summary adequately provide attribution? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no way to to a history merge for this. The edit summary provides the required attribution. — Diannaa (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Help Please

Earwig is setting off a few alarms for Ronnie Wavehill, I think the article is OK, could you please double check for me? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hughesdarren, There's some quotations that are skewing the results. Looks okay to me. — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethics Workshop Participation Request

Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see meta research page). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our talk page. Zentavious (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of my copy vio

Yeah, I hastily switched words on that one. I fixed it, however. I was wondering, however, if you knew anyone who could sic an archive bot on the article in question Keanu Reeves in the media. Someone did a sweep once before, but so much content has been added that it's needed again. Thanks, again. I'm a noob who doesn't know much of this stuff. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You could try running the bot yourself: see User:InternetArchiveBot — Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Bioregion and Bioregionalism

Hi Diannaa, notwithstanding your earlier cleanup and notice, it looks like the copyright violations have continued. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E004:1418:F10B:6EBF (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, based on your notice, and after talking with the above user - I did go through the bioregion article to remove any/all copyrighted text, and also shortened the quotes to make sure they were just pieces of quotes - rather than the thing the entirety. Please feel free to review the Bioregion article, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the content or links. I'm just going to leave things as is for now. Sorry, I'm definitely still learning the ropes here a bit. Thanks for your patience.(User talk:CascadiaWikimedian) 12:44, 29 March 2024 (PST)

I've done some additional cleanup at Bioregion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Splitting

Is there anyway we can split Vulva into two articles properly? One for humans and one for non-humans? I want to see if there is a way to properly do it. Thanks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Splits of major articles might be controversial or contentious. The first step is to gain consensus on the talk page. There's detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Splitting. Why do you think this article needs to be split? is the first question you should ask yourself. It's only 6401 words, and almost all of the content is about humans, with only small section at the bottom about other animals. — Diannaa (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I can see your point. Thanks anyway Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Barnstar
Thank you very much for your tireless work in dealing with the endless stream of copyright issues on Wikipedia! 💎🌻 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ToBeFree! — Diannaa (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Fingering (sexual act) should be split into two articles. One for vulvar/vaginal fingering with its current title and the other for anal fingering with the new title "anal fingering". While fingering is a similar activity whether genitalia or anus, they are different nonetheless, in regards to technique and health risks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you've posted on the article talk page, so that's good. You don't need to postabout it here though, since I am not interested in commenting on your proposed split. — Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay then. That's good I'm at least doing the right thing! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there any way to get other editors attention about this? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Is that not covered at Wikipedia:Splitting? See Wikipedia:Splitting#Step 2: Add notice — Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
You're right! Just did that too. Thanks! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Creation of page

Can you help me create a Wikipedia page for artist Jesubamise Afolayan (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to help with this project. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Artist

please help 🙏🥺if you can send someone to do it for me I'll be very grateful. Can I also have your WhatsApp number incase I want to hear from you.. I'm Afolayan Jesubamise Emmanuel known as Jüstt Mëë, a Nigerian afrobeat singer and songwriter. Jesubamise Afolayan (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

New version of CopyPatrol is now live

Please see meta:Talk:CopyPatrol#New CopyPatrol is live for details. One thing of note is that the number of daily reports has pretty much tripled, so please stop by whenever you get a chance and clear some cases. Thanks! — Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that too, not sure how sustainable it will be or if some kind of adjustment will be needed (e.g., the number of false positives seems to have gone up, wherein someone just changes one or two words in a paragraph and it flags a match for the remaining text in the paragraph). DanCherek (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, just saw your comments at Meta and that you already brought this up! DanCherek (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Geddy Lee

Morning Diannaa, not sure if the lyric's at the bottom of this section is a copy vio, could you have a look when you're able, much appreciated. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Short quotations from lyrics are okay. — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanx, that's why I was on a fence with that. Thank you for all you do here. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
yeah I had to think about it for a minute too :) — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Frederick III, Elector of Saxony

Cornelius Benedictus has added a lot to this article. Do you use Who wrote that? Anyway, see [2], Some of that is his. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of the overlap is a giant quotation from a public domain source. — Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, which is the public source? And are you saying there is no copyvio? Doug Weller talk 07:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This document is public domain, being from 1883. I don't see any copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

A recent edit of mine on Jean-Rodolphe Perronet removed by you in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. I can't accress my edits on the article as they are locked somehow.I cannot see the changes I made that triggered this warning, so I am somewhat disadvantaged in responding to your complaint.

I take pride in the number of my contributions to Wikipedia over the past eleven years. I searched my talk page to find my last "Warning". I couldn't find it. I remember somewhere in the past, 2017, 2018?... I got a copyright warning. This "third warning" seems draconian... Risk Engineer (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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. There was a paragraph starting "He was responsible for a number of canals, ..." that matches content on page 133 this document. — Diannaa (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon and hello Diannaa

Hello Diannaa, I made a mistake for quoting An AllKPop report regarding Limited quotation and Paraphrasing, sincerely yours, Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC).

Can you explain me why you literally removed all of the content for “copyright” ??? Prady1 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The content you added was a match for material in this document. The photos you uploaded were also present in that paper. Copying someone else's work is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Quotes

Hi, I saw that you removed literally all quotes from Ancient North Eurasians, but I am not sure if that is correct. These quotes were used to verify the content. Is the main problem based on the respective copyright of the papers or something else? Because for example this paper is[3] 'Open Access' and "licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source". As such I want to ask for the exact reason. Thanks! Regards – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) From what I can see, theres both non-free and cc licensed sources where the quotes were taken from (more non-free ones, then cc ones). The quotes for the correctly licensed ones can probably be readded (if Diannaa agrees), but the non-free ones should stay removed. Nobody (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Than I will later reinclude the correctly licensed ones (if Dianna agrees). Regards – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Quotations inside citations are allowed, but this example seemed excessive to me, particularly since your edits seem unlikely to be challenged. I have no objection to adding back the compatibly licensed ones. The remainder will still be there in the page history if you ever need to refer back to them. — Diannaa (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
OK thanks for the clarification! Regards – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Probable copyvio

Hi Diannaa, I am seeking your advice on a specific copyright infridgement issue. I have just delisted Crusading movement (a GA nominated by Norfolkbigfish) for several reasons, including repeated copyright violations. Close paraphrasing and plagiarism were detected in almost every version of the article. As far as I can remember, first time I indicated close paraphrasing two years ago ([4]). AirshipJungleman29 also detected such issues: [5]. During the FAC review AirshipJungleman29 specifically raised copyright issues, and Norfolkbigfish said that he was "expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue" [6]. Unfortunatelly, Norfolkbigfish proved wrong as during the FAC review I found several examples of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, and an other reviewer Jens Lallensack confirmed some of my finds [7]. The FAC was closed, I opened a GAR, and during the process I realised that even texts revised by Norfolkbigfish contain close paraphrasing ([8]). I turned to you because I do not know what to do. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a fairly common piece of WP bullying from @Borsoka. His standard MO for articles he doesn't like is to bombard them with comments/changes/tags until all other editors lose the will to live. While he has commendable engagement and energy he seems unable or unwilling to work in a consensual way if anyone disagrees. I was working through the article amending any violations that were identified, as he knows well. But because he and I disagreed on some content he nominated at GAR solely and then failed it himself.
Any violations identified will be rectified immediately It was obvious how this would end so I raised at WP:ANI, now closed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I will not comment on Norfolkbigfish ad personam remarks here. They know they may be in big trouble for persistent plagiarism. I also suggested them that they should also review "their" other articles, such as House of Plantagenet and House of Lancaster from copyright perspective. Borsoka (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Borsoka. My suggestion is to list the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems where the article would be examined and further copyright cleanup can take place if necessary.
Hey @Norfolkbigfish, please don't come to my talk page to diss people. I ignore such remarks and form my own opinions based on my own observations. — Diannaa (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies @Diannaa, won't happen again Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Islamic views on sin

Is this version ok?[9]. I will be taking this editor to ANI at some point, still doesn't understand the need to source their text despite multiple warnings. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been lightly paraphrased, but still shows the same content in the same order. So my opinion is that it's still copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
That's what I was afraid of. I've been reviewing their edits and find it hard to find any good ones. And they seem to be doing a lot of editing. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

CopyPatrol has stopped, but..

CopyPatrol has stopped, because Turnitin is down for maintenance. Check https://turnitin.statuspage.io/ for updates. — Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Service has resumed — Diannaa (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism vs Antisemitism

Hi there. It is now more accepted to use Antisemitism instead of the outdated 'Anti-semitism'. The latter was a term created as a pseudo-scientific explanation for the hatred of Jews, often associated with the Nazi ideology of racial classification (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/spelling-antisemitism / https://www.adl.org/spelling-antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism). Additionally, due to antisemitic vandalism, it is often locked pages (such as the Hitler page) in which this correction is needed. Thanks. 81.108.69.245 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Many of our WWII articles use British spelling and words (petrol, lorry for example). The British spelling variant is anti-Semitism. Preferences like this are impossible to enforce site-wide, so please consider opening a talk page discussion on any page you would like to see changed and try to gain consensus for that individual page. — Diannaa (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. Whilst i appreciate the sentiment, this is incorrect. The accepted spelling in the UK is now antisemitism. It is not a preference, it is correcting the historic practice of justifying jew hatred as a scientific practice. Please see an article in the Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-the-way-we-spell-antisemitism-is-as-important-as-how-we-define-it-0j3txpc02) and from a UK Jewish charity (https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2021/04/22/antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism-why-we-dont-include-a-hyphen). I understand its not possible to enforce sitewide but I update it whenever i come across it, but obviously cant do that for the Hitler page. 81.108.69.245 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Please consider opening a talk page discussion on any page you would like to see changed and try to gain consensus for that individual page. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Next time please ask

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

You could have asked me, and I could have simply removed the verbiage. I was trying to save a work by someone else. Again ... you should have asked first. It would have been easier. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical. There's still 50 reports remaining to assess from yesterday (April 20) and there's no time or policy based reason to ask permission before removal of copyright takes place. — Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, the good thing about Wikipedia is that we can revert mistakes. The article has been restored. I now have an "In use" notice at the top, and am working on a revision in my personal space. I'm determined to get this article into decent shape. And on we march ... — Maile (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I am surprised to see that at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship that you say I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either; there's no such thing as "personal space" on Wikipedia; it's all public, available to be viewed by anyone anywhere in the world, and our copyright policy applies there, just like it does in mainspace. I am surprised that you, an administrator since 2016, do not seem to be aware of these facts. — Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, I don't know why you say the article has been restored; it was never deleted. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T363089
Resolved

Patrollers please be aware that some drafts and articles are redlinked at CopyPatrol even though they exist. Please don't automatically mark as "No action needed"; check them in the usual way. This problem is likely due to replication lag, whatever that means! Tracked at Phab report T363089. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Replication lag is a delay in replicating changes in the wiki's database to Wikimedia Cloud Services, where we host CopyPatrol. It is usually due to database maintenance. You can use toolforge:replag to check how much lag there is. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
OK cool JJMC89. Always happy to learn new things :) — Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Irish in Britain Representation Group

Please reinstate our page forthwith. As we made clear on the page ALL the material on the page is our copyright and taken from our archives, most of which are in paper form; minutes, reports, etc , and have been deposited in archives eg Working Class Movement Library. . The page on the Anarchist Federation blog was copied from IBRG articles.. https://www.anarchistfederation.net/40th-anniversary-of-radical-irish-community-organisation-the-irish-in-britain-representation-group/ These are the originals posted by Bernadette Hyland - IBRG member- on her blog Lipstick Socialist. https://lipsticksocialist.com/history-of-the-irish-in-britain-representation-group/ She also wrote the Wikipedia page. We hope that that this makes the position on this page clear. BFCHyland (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.
The 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) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. Nobody was paid for writing the page. 2. If we don't write about our organsation , who else is going to? Are we supposed to wait for 20 or 30 years until some academic deigns to notice us? We think not... 3. The whole point of the page is to share knowledge, which we thought was the point of Wikipedia 4. How we can contravene copyright by publishing our own material. This makes no sense whatsover. 5. Please reinstate our page today. 6 If not please escalate our complaint to whatever is the next level..
BFCHyland (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (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.
While Wikipedia's purpose is indeed to share knowledge, we have guidelines and policies in place that determine what we publish. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which will help you determine whether or not the organization qualifies for a Wikipedia article. — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Tools you use....

Hi thank you for warning me about a copyright issue and removing my narrative. You provided me with some direction of Wiki policies on the copyright issue, but I can not find a couple important items; Can you please provide the link to the tool online you are using to determine plagiarism; and please provide how you verify something is copyright protected? These two items are a little vague and I am sure some sources which claim to be copyright protected actually have no copyright at all. Is this determined subjectively by yourself or is there an actually cross reference to a copyright granted made by the source? Thank you for your help and good work on wiki! Geraldine Aino (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, all 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. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Works of the UK Government and the Australian government are often but not always released under license. There's no subjective determination; if it's not explicitly released under a compatible license or the public domain, or in the public domain due to being really old, we have to assume that it's copyright and that we can't copy it to Wikipedia.
This article is also available here. If you scroll down to the bottom of that page you will see the licensing information: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License. That's not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use or derivative works, and our license does. There's a list of compatible licenses at WP:Compatible license.
The CopyPatrol system checks all edits over a certain size using a plagiarism detection service called Turnitin. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is a popular comparison tool developed by Wikipedian Ben Kurtovic. We use it to compare Wikipedia articles with material found online. It works on many but not all types of web content. When in doubt (or if the source document is inaccessible to me or invisible to Earwig's tool) I use the reports generated by Turnitin. — Diannaa (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! Geraldine Aino (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Julie Ragbeer

Hi! My name is Avery, and I want to ask you about the process for reinstating a Wikipedia page that has been deleted. My friend Julie Ragbeer was recently covered by several entertainment news outlets including Yahoo and Interview Magazine when a promoted Tweet / “X” post about her music went viral. Fans made a Wikipedia page, but we believe some people mass-reported it, and the page was reviewed and deleted. Julie is notable and has a large following now, and is deserving of having a page that people can learn about her career and music. Could you please reinstate it? Thank you in advance for any help you can provide! Averyjoanfaust (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The page was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Ragbeer. I am the third administrator you have asked. Please stop asking random admins to reinstate the page. We are all very familiar with the deletion process and will all give you the same answer: she's not notable enough as defined by Wikipedia for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time. If you disagree with the consensus reached as a result of that discussion, the place to go is Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you removed content from the Yoda page due to copyright issues. Here's my question: in the page's edit history, why are all my edits crossed out instead of treated like edits that are reverted? I was hoping to go back to those edits and harvest some content that didn't violate copyright, but I can't access those earlier revisions. Also, some edits that didn't violate copyright are also crossed out, but haven't been reverted. I'm confused. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Edits that are crossed out have been redacted and "Revision deleted" removed from the public gaze. This is done to all revisions where copyright items appear. It is done to limit the damage done to Wikipedia's reputation by those who add copyright material which is unlicensed for use here by editors. Please refer to Wikipedia:Revision deletion for fullest information. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@Wafflewombat I failed to alert you of this reply. Now I have done so 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Why did you reply, instead of Diannaa? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I was at the gym. — Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Could you explain why you removed some content that didn't violate copyright, and why you redacted at least one edit that didn't violate copyright? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean the part that you already restored? It's too closely paraphrased from the source. Source says:

Yoda was a legendary Jedi Master and stronger than most in his connection with the Force. Small in size but wise and powerful, he trained Jedi for over 800 years, playing integral roles in the Clone Wars, the instruction of Luke Skywalker, and unlocking the path to immortality.

Your version:

Yoda was a Jedi Master who was stronger than most with the Force. Standing 0.66 meters (2.2 ft) tall, Yoda trained Jedi for over 800 years and played an integral role in the Clone Wars. His last apprentice was Luke Skywalker. Yoda's species and homeworld have never been named in any official Star Wars media.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}

Overlapping material is shown in Bold.

To answer your question about revision deletion: In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. — Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll fix the part I restored so there is less or no overlap (and I will provide citations). There were other portions that I didn't think were violations, but since they've been redacted I can't show them to you. It's okay though, we can forget about it. But I'm wondering, why didn't you flag the page and then send me a quick note about the copyright issues? I would have been happy to remove/fix the copyrighted content, but now I have to rebuild the section from scratch. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but since there's only a handful of people working on copyright cleanup and a high volume of cases to be assessed each day, discussion of each individual violation is not practical. Right now, there's currently 108 potential violations at CopyPatrol to assess, and I am hoping to get through the 34 remaining from yesterday before the hockey game starts at 8:30 MDT. — Diannaa (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Of course it's perfectly okay to say "Yoda was a Jedi master" or "Ryan Gosling is an actor" or similar. That said, stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from. — Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and advice. I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into Wikipedia 🙂 Wafflewombat (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal

@Diannaa Hi! I was wondering why my revisions on the Ghaznavid campaigns in India were deleted? I only added sources (where it said citations needed), and wondering how it would be a copyright vio? Noorullah (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a paragraph of text copied inside your citation. Was it intended as a quotation? It was not marked as such. — Diannaa (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@Diannaa Really? I can't recall adding anything outside of citations or for a quote. If so, completely my mistake. Noorullah (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The added prose was inside the citation. — Diannaa (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Inside the citation? As in for a quote parameter? Sorry, I still haven't wrapped my head around what you mean. Noorullah (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@Diannaa I see now that you have unhidden the revision. Honestly I can't say I ever remember adding that in, so I can't say it was even intended as a quote. Noorullah (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Here is what I removed. Was this intended as a quote? or was it an accidental copypaste? Why was it not in the |quote= field of your citation template if it was intended as a quote? — Diannaa (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I guess it was just an accidental copypaste in this regard, sorry. Noorullah (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice please

(If you're busy, just let me know and I can go and bother somebody else)

I came across this article Acapulco Chair, that seemed to be a copyvio. I tagged it for deletion, and then I saw the user who had made it and, given their extensive editing history, was surprised and went to look further. Turns out it was just an unattributed translation from esWiki that somebody had already machine translated. However, when I was looking into that, I checked their editing history and a few articles they've made, and after glancing at the Spanish-language sources, it seems like there's a few cases of way-too-close paraphrasing/copyvios on both of them. (Draft:Tortitas de papa/the duplicateTortita (Mexican food) from here and Pescado a la talla from here)

Now I'm wondering if maybe I've missed something, or if I'm seeing something that's not there. I'd really like a second opinion GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @GreenLipstickLesbian and thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. I have cleaned the copyright material from both pancake pages and warned the user. Deleted the Pescado a la talla. Thank you for the report. Hopefully it stops here — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
No, thank you for doing all the cleaning-up on those pages! Hopefully it does actually stop here; I'll go back and check their other contributions just to be on the safe side. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific 3

Hi I ran across this draft and was going to develop it, but realized it seemed lifted from a book or another source. It failed my copyright tester. Can you please check it? Thank you! Geraldine Aino (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a copy of the deleted article Canadian Pacific 3, which was deleted on April 17, 2024 as copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_93&oldid=1223805781"