User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Minoxidil

I see you revdeleted the content I reverted on Minoxidil. However, the editor did make another revert that XLinkBot reverted. I was wondering if that content was copyrighted too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's the same. Good catch – thank you.— Diannaa (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hi Diannaa, see here for a copyvio of Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing it. Your tireless efforts are much appreciated. BilCat (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Kashmir shawl

Hi Diannaa, can you run a copyright check on this newly added content? I have already spotted several bits taken from other web sites. But a more thorough check would be useful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I found material copied from one place. If you find other things please let me know. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

how do you know there is a copyvio?

hi Diannaa! I am curious as to how you know there is a copyvio. I review thesis and use Turnitin for official reports. Otherwise I randomly copy-paste paragraphs into a search engine to see if there are hits. But the wiki space is large. Are there any automated tools to search for copy-paste? Vikram Vincent 16:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The most useful tool is https://copyvios.toolforge.org/. There's also https://dupdet.toolforge.org/ but it's quite primitive by comparison. For instances where Earwig's tool cannot view a source, https://copyleaks.com/text-compare comes in handy (I typically paste in the text I want to compare rather than comparing urls). Use that one judiciously though – you only get a limited number of free looks per day. — Diannaa (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio - RAF Stenigot

Diannaa, thanks for the heads up on the WP:CV for the RAF Stenigot article. I was editing at work and had to log out unexpectedly in the midst of paraphrasing and rewriting copied info. In hindsight, I should have copied my edits into my sandbox for a later time, and returned the article to its original state. It won't happen again. Doghouse09 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Doghouse09: Please don't save copyright material in your sandbox either. It's not allowed. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or copy the material into an external editor if it's not yet ready for publication and you have to leave for a bit. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa, received and understood. Doghouse09 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Copyrights

Hi Diannaa Thanks for highlighting on Usage of copyright material in the article Federal Judicial Academy. I will be careful in this matter and keep due diligence in the future.
Thanks & Regards
--Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Blanked ping

I'm sure you'll have had a notification of my ping to you but in case it has been obscured when the user in question blanked it, it regarded this: [1] Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy to check this out if you have some specific urls from which you believe they copied. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back so quickly. I’ve quickly rechecked a couple of the edits and in those cases I’m now wondering if they’re internal after all, rather than external copy/pastes but external sites have mirrored them. What I’d done was check a few of the editor's larger edits at the England article, picking any likely looking suspiciously well-formed sentence or substantial phrase and googling it in quote marks. One example was the sentence “England was at the forefront of the illegal, free rave movement from the late 1980s, which led to pan-European culture…” from this edit, which has various ghits, internal and external, but I now see it may have originated at the Culture of England article. Nonetheless, it’s an indication they’re still disregarding your post about attribution. I’ll recheck some other edits when I get a chance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Summit Public Schools (Charter school operator)

Please see this [2] addition as a possible copyvio from [3]. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've done the revision deletion. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Countess Markiewicz House

Thank you for drawing my attention to the copyright issue. I think what happened was that I was so narrowly focused on getting architectural terms right, that I inadvertently reproduced parts of the original text. My apologies. I have rewritten the section describing the architecture - it is much shorter and I hope it resolves the issue. Hopefully architecture can be described in terms that avoid reproducing text from the source in question. Apologies for causing the problem. Autarch (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have transferred the contents of the temp page into article space. Thank for the prompt attention to this problem.

By the way your archive box on your talk page is broken. The reason for this is because for some reason your archives start at Archive 4 instead of Archive 1. The easiest way to fix this (I think) is to create empty archives 1, 2, and 3. Then all your archives will be listed in the archive navbox. (Other methods would work too, such as moving/re-naming all your archive pages or creating a custom archive navbox.)— Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for transferring the page and thanks for your advice on my talk archive page. I'll sort that out today. Autarch (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Autarch I've been thinking about this, and a better long-term solution is probably to rename/move each page. Archive 4 becomes Archive 1, and so on down the line. Then, you'd need to re-set the counter in the template {{User:MiszaBot/config}} so that the bot archives material to the correct place. If you want me to set this up for you please let me know. Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

University of Northampton (13th century)

Hi, I have noticed that edits to University of Northampton (13th century) by now blocked User:D A R C 12345 seem to be closely based on a University of Northampton blog, including using all four references from the blog. Earwig gives 67.8% similarity. I have subsequently replaced a long quotation.

The Earwig link is here

Do you think any further action is needed? TSventon (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, I had already changed the text of the royal proclamation to a longer quote from a version by Arthur Francis Leach (died 1915), so I have excluded that from the quote brackets you added. I hope that was correct. TSventon (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's still a quote. Quotations of 40 words or more get a block quote template. In html markup, a colon indicates a list, not a quotation. Citations go after the quote, not before it. One bit of text is in italics for no apparent reason.— Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly when an article has copyvio problems, it often has other problems as well. I have removed the italics which were present in your version. I have put the shorter blog quote in a block quote template, followed by its reference, and the longer proclamation in another block quote template, followed by its reference, does that look OK? I don't use block quotes often. TSventon (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks.— Diannaa (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Annuxsing

The above user persists in adding copyvio articles... lots and lots of G12 deletions.--- Possibly (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup complete. Please let me know right away if the problem persists— Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Don Lane (politician)

I am not sure what this one is about, you wrote: Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://theworker1891.blogspot.com/2013/08/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I checked the website you reference:

https://theworker1891.blogspot.com/2013/08/

There is no original content on that page, it is word for word from the Fitzgerald Report (Page 116), it is just not properly referenced. The original material is here:

https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Docs/Publications/CCC/The-Fitzgerald-Inquiry-Report-1989.pdf

I am not sure what the content on the page you are referring to that is copied - I can’t see the edited text? Chris from Mt Gravatt (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were attempting to add it as a quotation? Quotations get quotation marks, not italics. Because I couldn't locate a copy of the report online, I was unable to determine its copyright status, so I removed it. Perhaps if you would have mentioned the pdf as part of your citation and properly attributed it or marked it as a quote. I have added it back with a block quote template and a properly formatted citation— Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and a heads up

Thank you for all you do to keep us free of copyvio. I noticed you just left a welcome note about it to ProudLondoner’s userpage; I previously left them a note about the same issue which they reverted. Wanted to give you a head’s up that there may be a recurring problem. Thanks again for all your thorough, important work. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ant etkenmen

Why did you remove the lyrics to "Ant etkenmen" claiming copyright even though the song was published in 1917 by an author who died in 1918? Ergo the lyrics are 100% PD in both US and country of origin. You also made it impossible to view the ENTIRE revision history!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The content is okay to keep. Sorry for the mistake, I am not sure how I got confused and thought the anthem was written in 1992. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Mejilis designated it their official song in 1990's. But it was written LONG before then. In the future, PLEASE - for God's sake - be more careful about such huge changes.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry.— Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon

Hello Diana!

I saw you reverted the page because you deemed it not to be sourced. I was the one who originally rewrote that entire paragraph about his early life months ago. That part was there. The text from "I am more Tuscan......" all the way to "Corsican families of the interior" are from the exact same source (Patrice Gueniffey). It is linked there. I noticed yesterday, someone removed the text and all I did was to add it once again. You can check the source. (Jules Agathias (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC))

Sourced or not, the material is practically unintelligible and has no place in an A-class article, so sorry.— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Self-published, promotional editing

Hello! I found you via the big banner pointing me to recently active admins, I hope posting here is fine :) I recently tripped over a promotional and self-sourced edit on my watchlist - and curious, I looked over the contribs of said user and found all of them promotional/self-sourced. What is the correct thing to do here? Report said user somewhere? go through their contribs myself? ping them here? Leave it be? Thank you! Mvbaron (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the best place to start is the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If you want to tell me which article, I can check it for copyright issues, as those often go hand in hand with promotional/paid/COI editing— Diannaa (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post it there. (scary noticeboards) Article in question was e.g. this diff [4] Thanks! EDIT: this was me, removing a self-sourced section, the promotional diff imo is [5] -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Croatian art

Hi Diannaa, thanks for the warning about copyright issues with the text I've added. I had thought that as the sources were a government website (culturenet is published by the Croatian Ministry of Culture) that the text is in the public domain, and therefore OK to use. Is that not right? So I would now need to go back through and recreate my own descriptions of the artwork instead? Thanks for your help, I really do want to improve the quality of the information about Croatian art, so appreciate you taking the time. Farscot (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is what it says on the culturenet.hr website:

On the About Us page[[6]] "Culturenet.hr is a project initiated by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia and the Open Society Institute-Croatia aims at pooling available information resources on Croatian culture (organizations, associations, institutions, projects, etc.), encouraging their elaboration and enabling cultural workers to find in one place information of interest to them as well as partners for their projects. The project CultureNet is thus geared at promoting cultural co-operation in Croatia and co-operation with foreign countries as well as contributing to enhanced co-operation between Croatian cultural institutions, between institutions and artists and all of them with the broader cultural public."

And from the legal page[[7]] "Documents and images may be reproduced without limits, with attribution of the source"

So that should mean it's OK to use their text for this article? Farscot (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a copyright notice at the bottom of each page that says "All rights reserved © Culturenet Croatia 2021" so that's why I removed the material. In my opinion it's not possible for us to do otherwise when it says "All rights reserved" at the bottom of every page. — Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if the legal page says the content may be reproduced without limits? That's a tough one, but I will bow to your experience on the matter, and start rewriting. I respect the need to keep Wikipedia squeaky clean. Thanks! Farscot (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for all the extra work.— Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright on Eurofighter Typhoon procurement

Hello, I did not copy the Eurofighter info from UK Defence Journal, I took it from Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Singapore. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The source article is dated March 9, 2019, at which point we already had the content in our article Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement, so it's okay to keep. In the future, when copying from one Wikipedia article to another, please say so in your edit summary. In fact such attribution is required by the terms of our license. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for details of exactly how to provide attribution and why we have to do it. Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issue stated for Ashu Suyash was incorrect

I am the creator of page Ashu Suyash which was created with original information from our official website at- here

Please do not delete the page under copyright infringement as our information is original and valid. Please approve the draft and help me publish it. --14:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)CRISIL Ltd (talk)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. 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. Sorry but I can't find any article titled Ashu Suyash and you have no edits to any articles (deleted or not), so I can't get specific about what happened to your article.— Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

HI Diannaa, what are special licensing permissions , can you please explain in detail. Also, the message shows that my page Ashu Suyash was in drafts when you deleted it under copyright infringement. Not sure how you cannot find my page. Please help me take the page live. 103.66.214.37 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyvios on Spaceplane

Hi Diannaa, an IP user has added presumably copyrighted text to Spaceplane, which I've reverted here. This revert may also contain copyvios. The source is here. Thanks as always, and keep up the good fight. BilCat (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Refv-del complete. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Socketpuppet Investigation

A user placed me on this investigation. Please rectify him. Here is the link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ichika Kasuga いちか かすが (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Rectify? I'm not sure what you expect me to do.— Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Jaffna hospital massacre

Hey, could you look at this once more? I tried removing the timeline section from the article a couple of days ago since it is very clearly copy-pasted from this site (Earwig's Report), but it has been re-added. 2405:201:4013:80C2:9D1C:FD7A:A08D:1957 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking the other user's edit summary, he has pointed out that the supposed source page has copied from Wikipedia. Note the section is headed "Here is the Wiki-time line". We've had that timeline since the article was created, on December 21, 2008.— Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I failed to see the line. Thank you for the efforts. 2405:201:4013:80C2:9D1C:FD7A:A08D:1957 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Reasoning about RD1

Hey Diannaa. Hope you don't mind a relatively broad question! I've been going through CAT:RD1 a bit lately and I need some help calibrating my threshold for where revdel is appropriate when large swaths of history would need to be deleted to hide the copyvio. To pick a rather extreme example, would you consider this a sufficient amount of copying to warrant RD1 of 3,500+ revisions going back to 2008? It's a non-trivial amount of copying, amounting to several paragraphs of text, but it's also a lot of history to lose, with many significant prose edits. I declined this last week; again a revdel request for 3,500+ revisions, but only two paragraphs copied. I think my decision was correct, but was it? As I understand it from a legal and policy perspective, and from prior discussion, basically anything can be redacted provided usernames are kept in the history for attribution (which is almost always, so I don't know why that's mentioned in WP:RD1); there is no legal need to attribute specific parts of the content to specific editors. But in practice, I don't think we'd want to delete 3,500 revisions of valuable history to hide a two-paragraph close paraphrasing. Where do we draw the line? — The Earwig (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(hijacking due to me often being a requestor of massive revdels) Interested to hear your thoughts as well since many of these are borderline. I'd like to not make the sysops run away from RD1 during CCI cleanup if possible and this situation comes up a lot in the older cases. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I also said this on discord but I'll post it here for posterity (or whatever the word is): I would say no. I've not revdeled in similar circumstances; with that much history I only revdel if the violation was very large (5-7K+ usually) and had a chance of being re-added. For example, I revdeled about 2700 edits on Carlos Slim a few days ago over 13k bites of violations, but in that case a lot of those edits were from the violator who added it (Backendgaming) Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 04:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I also would say no. I used to do some pretty extreme revision deletions but the way the policy is currently worded and the response from the community to similar cases means I don't do massive revdels any more. The only cases where I would hide 10+ years of history would be where there's fewer than 50-100 edits involved. Like Moneytrees I have done some big ones where there's a good chance the material will be re-added, like we often see with articles about India (castes, temples, gods and goddesses in particular) — Diannaa (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The Earwig, I think again a few extreme revdels but I have seen the discussion that suggests this is not appropriate. While I understand the thought process, it leads to an odd conclusion. As a project, we absolutely do not want editors contributing copyrighted information to articles and if it happens, we will not only remove it, but we will remove it from the history to ensure that no one can link to an old version of an article which contains a copyright violation, unless it's been a long time in which case we will ignore it. That's a very unsettling policy.

I sometimes wondered whether the foundation ought to commission a developer to create a bot which could re-create the history of the article as if the problematic edit never occurred. My guess is that someone will point out that this sounds nice in theory, but implementing it is a lot tougher than I realize. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Odd one

Hi Diannaa, an IP copied some of the article text of Arthur Smith (American football, born 1982) to the article's talk page per this diff. Should that be revdeled? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't need to do revision deletion for that.— Diannaa (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just wasn't sure, so better to ask. BilCat (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Is copyPatrol down again?

I dont see any new reports in five hours or so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Activity has resumed. A five-hour outage.— Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, in case you've forgotten, in the old ticket phab:T256501, Eran said the bot will automatically re-start at the 4 hour 5 minute mark if no new reports are filed at CopyPatrol. If the restart fails it will try again every 10 minutes.— Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa, I had forgotten, thanks for the reminder. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio

You're my expert, I'm afraid. Could you spare a moment to look at Microfibre and the edit history, particularly my last two edits. It is copyvio from http://autexrj.com/cms/zalaczone_pliki/1-07-3.pdf I believe. but is it??? I'm out of my comfort zone. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of David Bangs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Bangs, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bangs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)