User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Early European modern humans

Hi! I'm currently reviewing the Early European modern humans article and the Earwig's Copyvio Detector indicated that it found a high probability match ([1]). However, I'm quite unsure if this is right because the website pointed to by the tool well, seems odd. It appears to consist of random texts including a (near) verbatim passage found in the reviewed article. The site does not appear to be a typical mirror, but I don't know what to make of it. Should I just disregard results such as this or not? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The webpage contains snippets from Wikipedia as well as from journal articles and weird commentary. Our article has undergone a complete rewrite by a trustworthy editor since July so although the Wayback Machine has never archived the suspected source webpage I can pretty much guarantee that this is a false positive.— Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized this must be a false positive, I just wondered if I should record the website someplace as a false positive.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You can add a Template:Backwards copy to the article talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Content attribution

Hi Dianna - I discovered that most of this is directly copied from here. I read their commons license and have filled in the article cn's with cite details. Do you think that is sufficient to satisfy attribution? Regards CV9933 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

CV9933, Sorry but the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. The content was added with this diff. We can tell by the lack of proper formatting that it's a copypaste. Have a quick look before I remove it and perform revision deletion.— Diannaa (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for your quick response. CV9933 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding adding attribution, there's a couple of ways to do it. You can do it manually like I did here or you can use the {{CC-notice}} template. — Diannaa (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A useful tip - thanks. CV9933 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Reckless Removal on Your Part again

Dear Admin with all due to respect you removed hours of my work If you had just asked me in my talk page I would have gladly re-edited the page - instead in you removed it within one second which is taking me hours to re-add. P Australianblackbelt (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Georgina Long content edit

Hi Diana I am new to Wikipedia. I work at the Melanoma Institute Australia for Georgina Long and Richard Scolyer. I have been asked by them to update the content on their Wikipedia page. They provided me with their CV, awards and image to be used. I added but you have now removed. Can you please provide some guidance to me on how I can do this. They are very specific on the info they want included on their own pages. I cannot paraphrase their awards, achievements and titles as they are quite specific. Please advise how I can manage this. I need to do this urgently for Georgina Long and Richard Scolyer. Mia Varley (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2021 (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 the copyright holder has verbally given you 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 yourself or your employer 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. Another user has posted some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page.

The subject of a Wikipedia article does not get to dictate what the article says. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources such as newspapers, reliable websites, and the like. While job titles and the names of awards don't need to be re-worded, it's not okay to copy-paste material from people's CVs or their employer's website. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to my talk page for my reply.

Not much to type here. Just the subject line is good enough. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Doane Family Association of America

You've made a mistake by deleting the Doane Family Association of America. It is EXACTLY the same ty[e of organization as The Jamestowne Society, The Mayflower Society and hundreds more. It was very clear in the first paragraph that this organization was a non-profit. This is VERY UPSETTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarderDimi (talk • contribs) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The main reason I deleted it was because pretty much everything was copied from the organization's website. You can't do that, because it's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Regarding the notability issue, please see WP:Notability (organizations and companies) as to how to determine whether or not an organization meets our notablilithy requirements. The main point is there should be extensive detailed coverage of the organization in multiple independent secondary sources such as newspapers, reliable websites, and the like.— Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

First, None of the material is copyrighted None. Intentionally so. I'm a member of the association.

Second, your explanation is diiferent from what you published. I AM NOT A FIRST TIME author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarderDimi (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright.

Another 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.

Finally, the notice on your talk page was placed by a different editor. They mentioned the lack of notability, and when I reviewed the article I noticed there was also a copyright issue, so I added that rationale to the deletion. See the log entries to review my deletion rationales, which includes the nominator's rationale as well as my own.— Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm done. No more contributions from me. No more donations.

You are not consistent with your policies. I find hundreds of pages where the policies you cite are ignored. You've decided to attack this page out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarderDimi (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright deletions

Hi Dianna. Certainly didn't intend to violate any copyright. Thank you for catching and correcting the problematic text! Brakoholic (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Problematic IP Address User: Blanking of Content

Hello, Diannaa. I'd like to report IP Address user 80.195.7.194 for persistently blanking content on the page Balochistan cricket team. Your soonest response to this concern is highly appreciated. TheHonchoMindset (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sprecher Content Deletion

You deleted my additions to the section, Stock sales during COVID-19 pandemic. My first paragraph came directly from reference 14 of the page. My second paragraph was taken form this public article on Politico https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/16/senate-ethics-committee-drops-probe-loeffler-stock-trades-323795.

Can you please explain why? Fgbwashdc (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Fgbwashdc

"Publicly available" and "in the public domain" are not the same thing. The source webpage is marked as "© 2021 POLITICO LLC" and their terms of use page indicates that " The materials available through this Site are our property of or the property of our affiliates or licensors, and are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws." This means that to add text copied from there is a violation of our copyright policy. Almost everything on the Internet is protected by copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is also true for CNBC, reference 14, which is copyrighted material. So that, too, should be deleted, ie., the second paragraph in the Stick Sales section. Fgbwashdc (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Fgbwashdc

Thanks

[2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Jessica Wallenfels

Is it possible to get access to some of the deleted/hidden material? I'm now rewriting heavily, but missing a lot of my citations and research, not just the problematic sections - I had pasted some to my sandbox but it's mostly missing there too. Thanks. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I will have to send it to you via email because copyright material is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts.— Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Received. Thank you! --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The content in your sandbox was the same as the material you had pasted onto the article talk page. Sent in the first email.— Diannaa (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you take pride in deleting other people's contributions?

Hello Diannaa, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa

1. I know one of your surrogates (or maybe yourself) will delete this post, and may start attacking me, but I know someone needs to be brave enough to stand up to your selective and punitive deletions that fly in the face of US fair use law.

2. I also know that Jimmy Wales and the main body at Wikipedia support these deletions.

3. I have seen first hand what happens to people that go up against people in power against people like yourself, but someone has to speak up, because your deletions are detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Active_measures#A_significant_portion_of_what_I_added_to_this_article_was_deleted_by_User%3ADiannaa

== A significant portion of what I added to this article was deleted by User:Diannaa ==

A significant portion of what I added to this article was deleted by User:Diannaa

The article in question which all references were deleted in this article, can by found here:

• Jolanta Darczewska, Piotr Żochowski. (June 2017). Active Measures Russia’s key export. Centre for Eastern Studies. ISBN 978-83-65827-03-6

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” -- Martin Luther King Jr.

Infinitepeace (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. — Diannaa (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sprecher

The text that I was trying to add is in the public domain. One paragraph links to the exact same story, reference 14, and the second paragraph to an article on Politico.com. These two paragraphs make it clear that he and his wife, Ms. Loeffler, were not investigated by the DOJ nor the Senate Ethic Committee. Not adding them leaves the impression that they are under investigation. That's not true. That leaves the Wikipedia page incomplete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgbwashdc (talk • contribs) to my user page

@Fgbwashdc: The content I removed was copied from Politico and CNBC. Neither of these websites is in the public domain: "© 2021 POLITICO LLC; The materials available through this Site are our property of or the property of our affiliates or licensors, and are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws." "© 2021 CNBC LLC. All Rights Reserved." — Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

But then isn't that also true for this paragraph, "On March 20, 2020, the consumer advocacy group Common Cause filed complaints against Sprecher and Loeffler with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the United States Senate Ethics Committee, and the United States Justice Department, requesting from the latter a criminal investigation of the couple for violations of the STOCK Act," which is also taken from CNBC (reference #14, the very same article that I used and you deleted." @Fgbwashdc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.194.216 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not a match: compare— Diannaa (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And what about the text from the Politico.com article you removed? It's the very same article as reference #6 in Kelly Loeffler titled "Senate Ethics Committee drops probe of Loeffler stoke trades." 108.28.194.216 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Fgbwashdc 108.28.194.216 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) 108.28.194.216 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the first paragraph I tried to add, I've edited it and changed the reference: On March 20, 2020, Intercontinental Exchange said in a statement that the nearly 30 transactions involving the couple were “in compliance” with company policies. “Mr. Sprecher and Senator Loeffler have made clear that those transactions were executed by their financial advisors without Mr. Sprecher’s or Senator Loeffler’s input or direction.” Does this pass muster? Thanks. Fgbwashdc (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Fgbwashdc

Maithil_Brahmin

My well sourced edits in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maithil_Brahmin was deleted by Sitush on the plea that such details are unwanted in Wikipedia!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maithil_Brahmin&type=revision&diff=560587461&oldid=560587307

If Sitush has no interest in this article, who gave him a right to prevent others from reading? Later, I copied those deleted portions on my wikidot website. Many years later, someone named Ashutosh Jha added those portions and you deleted them on the plea of copying copyright materials from wikidot. Ashutosh Jha perhaps did not know that the material he copied from wikidot page were originally copied to wikidot by me from my contributions to Wikipedia article Maithil_Brahmin. Sithush wrote on talk page that the sources I used were in Hindi. Unfortunately, these details were published only by two authors in book form and both books were in Hindia, no English writer ever wrote on structural divisions among Maithil Brahmins. Wikipedia prefers English but if English sources are absent other sources can be used. Sitush vandalised my work and that is why I stopped wasting my time on Wikipedia. Now, you are deleting those old Wikipedia materials again on the plea that they belong to copyright materials of wikidot! I am not going to waste my time on edit wars in Wikipedia. VJha (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have undone the revision deletion, but I am not going to re-add it, because there aren't any citations. It's sourced to Wikidot, which is a Wikipedia mirror, and when Sitush removed the content he said "far too intricate in detail for this encyclopedia, and the sourcing is vague"— Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio-revdel request

You deleted Draft:Saigon Joint Stock Commercial Bank. Would you consider giving Draft:Sai Gon Joint Stock Commercial Bank a copyvio-revdel for the same copyright violations? If not, that's okay, someone will get to the on-page pending request sooner or later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am busy - it's already tagged.— Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know you are busy. I am the one who tagged it :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am getting very little help nowadays, and the revdel queue is one way to get more people involved.— Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Another admin took care of it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revise my edit request

Hello, I looked at the feedback you provided for my article and completely reworded everything, please let me know if there are any other changes required in order to have my article be accepted. Draft: Draft:Amina Muaddi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xforeverlove24 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The draft is in the queue to be reviewed. Please have a look at the notability concern; that's why it was declined the first time.— Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Copyright violation"

Dear Diannaa,

thank you for your remarks concerning my edits in Jessie Saxby. In my humble opinion, it's not always clear when a text is a literal copy from a (clearly indicated) source, and when it is a citation. Next time you think that my text is too close to the (copyrighted) original, just let me know, so that I can change it, but please, don't delete it, without leaving anything behind. In Dutch we say: don't throw away the child with the bathwater (in this case: the complete link to the quoted source). Every now and then, I just work online, and I don't always have a backup of all the little additions I make. Happily not in this case, by the way. And let me be absolutely clear that I always want to change things, if you think it necessary (although it's not always easy for a non-native speaker). I did give it another try, and I hope this is alright, now. Many greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, unfortunately discussion of each individual violation is not practical. Please ensure your edits comply with our copyright policy before you publish the page.— Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

SFI edit

Hi Diannaa

I just made a small update to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Forestry_Initiative page. I also used four tildes to sign my edit. Sorry to bug you with this but am I doing this correctly? Thanks Ecwwoodworth (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it is the copyright violation

I think following material might suffer from copyright violation. I wonder if you give me a favor and check it. Thanks!

• material which was cited in the article:"Legal and literary documents show that those slaves used for sexual service were differentiated at slave markets from those who were intended mainly for domestic services. These slave girls were called "slaves for pleasure" (muṭʿa, ladhdha) or “slave-girls for sexual intercourse” (jawārī al-waṭ). Many female slaves became concubines to their owners and bore their children. Others were just used for sex before being transferred. The allowance for men to use contraception with female slaves assisted in thwarting unwanted pregnancies."
• material which was cited in the source:"Evidence from legal and literary sources indicates that slaves intended primarily for sexual service were singled out from those intended primarily for domestic service (khidma) at slave markets. The first group was referred to as slaves for pleasure (muṭʿa, ladhdha or another word for pleasure) or, bluntly, “slave-girls for sexual intercourse” ( jawārī al-waṭʾ). Some of these slaves became their masters’ concubines and gave birth to their children, but others were probably used sexually for a period of time before being transferred to fulltime domestic service, which was facilitated by the permission to use contraceptive methods with slave women."Saff V. (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)