This is an archive of past discussions about User:Diannaa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There was still some copyright content present, so I have cleaned it up. Go ahead and submit the draft for review if you think it is ready. — Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I submitted the draft for review and it got deleted due to possible bias. Is there anything I can do to change this? What specifically can I change to get it approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresusfedu (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't assess drafts. You might consider asking your question at theTeahouse. The draft was deleted for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, not for bias. — Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
always good to see you hard at work - yup the issue is such that with so much tagging on talk pages and then remembering the correct way of moving things is a bit rusty. Thanks for the reminder... JarrahTree13:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Jamesmcardle
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for the report. Sorry to have to do this, but I have blocked Jamesmcardle for violations of our copyright policy. He can resume editing once he shows he has a much better understanding of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
No problem, and thank you for being willing to deal with problems that most don't want to deal with. Jamesmcardle has unfortunately decided to retire, so I've blanked his user page per his request. — SamX [talk·contribs]23:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Odd copyright issue
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
That's not the same thing as releasing content under a compatible license, and is not compatible with uploading images to Wikipedia or to the Commons. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Diannaa, I'm sorry for that issue yesterday. I didn't know that what I do was wrong and I'm unaware of it (copyright violations). I've just doing good faith in editing and not intended to do copyvios. I'll have changes some words in the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia article. Anyway, thanks for remind me about the matter and after this, I will be more careful when added contents in Wikipedia articles in the future. Fandi89 (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Don't bother with apologizing. Diannaa was just very rude to me when giving me a warning for a copyright violation that I wasn't aware was a copyright violation: "And no, you do not get to make a certain number of copyright violations per year." Obversa (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Diannaa. Could you please take a look at the question I raised at Talk:Hydrogen vehicle regarding your revision-deletion? (I pinged you but I've learned some editors have pings turned off so these days I'm communicating the old-fashioned way. Let me know if you have a preference for pings or for notifications on your talk page ). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Now that I can see what was deleted, I'm struggling to understand why it was considered a copyright violation in the first place, In one of the sections there are some longish quotes, so I kind of understand the logic, but in two of the sections the text in question appears to be highly dissimilar from the source text. I ran some of it by the Copyleaks.com plagiarism detector and got a match of 0%: https://pasteboard.co/hQRXxbPQDFxS.png . What am I missing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand that part, and no worries. But I still don't get why this would be a copyright violation even if the source was copyrighted. Was that a mistake too or are my standards for close paraphrasing much, much looser than yours? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the hasty response; I am very tired and should have read your question more carefully. The case was listed at Copypatrol. Click on the iThenticate link to see what was found by the detection service. The tool we typically use is Earwig's tool. The source document is too big though for Earwig's tool, which typically times out after a minute or two if it's not able to complete the task in that time. So I assessed it manually. Some but not all of the edit was within quotation marks. There was not a lot of copying but enough that the tool would have picked it up even without the quotations. There was also copyied content that is not shown in the iThenticate comparison. So I paraphrased it to remove the copied content that wasn't inside quotation marks. — Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see where I was confused. I saw you deleted three revisions and thought that meant you saw copyright problems in three sections, but I understand now that there was only one section in which you saw issues. Thanks for explaining and for fixing things, and thanks for all the hard work you do. I've often seen your work over the years and I've always been amazed by how accurately you do it. I hope you're getting some well-deserved rest. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi again Dianaa. I have a tangential followup question - I'm looking for a plagiarism detection tool that will work in user sandboxes so that I (and my trainees) can check for issues before putting new content in mainspace. I set up a subpage, User:Clayoquot/Energy2, with the text that CopyPatrol flagged and ran it through Earwig's tool, but Earwig's tool failed to flag the problematic text. Is there away to run something similar to CopyPatrol on one's own sandbox or other subpage? Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Earwig's tool has several limitations.
It doesn't handle large documents very well, and will almost always time out before finishing its look. The particular source with matching text for the case we are talking about is 524 pages, which is too large for Earwig to handle.
Not all types of pdfs are searchable by Earwig's tool.
It can't see content inside "frames", whatever the heck they are, but you will know it when you see it.The basis for CopyPatrol is the iThenticate tool and Turnitin, access to which is donated to us. This tool can see behind some paywalls such as those that protect many scientific and medical journals. Earwig has no such access, but it can look at some paywalled publications such as the New York Times, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and others.You should not be testing for plagiarism/copyvio on Wikipedia. Copyright content is not allowed anywhere on the site, not even in sandboxes or drafts. Nobody should be pasting copyright content into sandboxes thinking it has not actually been published; it most definitely has been published to the Internet and is just as publicly available as content in article space and is licensed in the same way. Earwig's tool can be used for sandboxes or drafts same as article space. CopyPatrol checks article space and drafts, but not user sandboxes.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just had to request a copyvio revdel for Aú, an article that this user wrote. I saw that you have warned them twice since August for adding copyrighted material to articles. Mind taking a look into this? The Night Watch(talk)19:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you very much for your understanding and patience, and for giving me another chance to continue increasing and enriching the content of Wikipedia. Much appreciated! 🙏TheEagle107 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
You erased all my translations I made from the Salamanca version of the Spanish wikipedia.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Diannaa: No Dianna, I just translated everything from wikipedia version in Spanish [1]. Still in 2016, wikipedia in Spanish had the same version [2], and even a few years earlier. I demand that it be revised please.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Earwig's tool typically cannot see behind the paywall of many scientific and medical journals, but the service used by Copypatrol can. To solve this, I assume by examining the source url listed in all four CopyPatrol reports that the source document is likely a paper titled "rock-hyrax-middens-a-palaeoenvironmental-archive-for-southern-african-drylands" ands sure enough such a paper exists. it can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.08.018. The editor who created the draft is not the sole author of the paper, which is not released under license, so they don't have the right to post it here or to release it under a compatible license unless all the other authors agree to do so. So what has to happen is for us to go through and remove all provably copyvio sections as shown in the four iThenticate reports. I am gonna go ahead and do that now. It looks like some was also copied from the abstract, which is not paywalled, and can therefore be picked up by Earwig's tool. — Diannaa (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
It may be worth exploring the source and detail of the guidelines you mention. I am, according to the copyright regulations of Elsevier, allowed to reuse text, images and figures that I have created. The submission does not include changes made during review or otherwise in the publication pipeline. Could you please provide me with the documentation you are applying to make your decisions? It does not seem to be consistent with those of the publisher, or the rights of the author to post pre-publication versions of even the complete paper online with open access.
Anybody could create a Wikipedia account that matches your name. Following the procedure of getting a ticket through the Volunteer Response System gives us proof that you are who you say you are, thus protecting you and your copyright.
You are not the sole author of the paper which youy copied from. All the authors have to agree with its publication on Wikipedia.
Saying you have the right to share the work is not the same thing form Wikipedia's point of view as releasing it to us under a compatible license such as the the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; this license has rights and obligations that go beyond unaltered sharing of your work.
Reproducing the paper here is not the final result of your action. Wikipedia's content is available (subject to the terms of our CC-by-SA 4.0 license) to anyone anywhere to share, republish, and modify, and use for any purpose whatsoever, including commerical use. Release under license is irrevocable. You and your co-authors all need to decide if that's what you really want to do, and then send via email to the Volunteer Response Team your decision to do so and choice of license as already described to you on your user talk page.
1) I understand that, and would of course be happy to provide any further information required. I have gotten a ticket through so hopefully that is sufficient. If not, very happy to provide more info.
2) It is not standard practice for all authors to sign-off when any individual author makes a pre-print publicly available. I am not finding any specific stipulation in this regard on Creative Commons, and am also not seeing clear description of a relevant case in the Wikipedia documentation. It is quite vast, however, so I could easily be missing it. Please help me find just what you are referring to so I may better consider the submission vis-à-vis Wikipedia's regulations.
3) I understand this.
4) I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the paper not being a result of my final action, but I have contacted the VRT as regards copyright concerns.
While awaiting clarification and resolution on this case, might I perhaps ask a favour of you as well? The edits that have been made have critically gutted the contribution, with the result being both rather incoherent and misleading. The remaining text, barring the first paragraph and image, is also drawn from the pre-print of my published work, and should thus also be part of the discussion regarding copyrights. Considering this, I have tried to remove these other images and text from the page, but a moderator is not allowing me to, suggesting that I may be 'blanking what has been added'. Of course, nothing was added by anyone else, only removed, and I would be very grateful if you could remove the rest of the text that I added until we can resolve all concerns. If you (and perhaps Ozzie10aaaa) were to remove them this must surely be acceptable.
Thank you very much in advance, and I look forward to hearing more regarding my tickets.
I am not a VRT agent so I don't have access to their email queue. The content can be restored after the ticket has cleared. — Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa,
Sorry for the confusion. I understand that you are not a VRT agent, and that the eventual restoration of the material I submitted will depend on their conclusions ("Under section 201(a) of the US Copyright Act any text from any paper where you are one of the joint author makes you and all the other authors joint copyright holders and each of you can reuse the content as you wish").
What I was asking was whether in the interim you could remove the rest of the sections that have been gutted to ensure no misleading or factual errors exist as a result of the deletion of critical context.
I have tried to do this, but the argument is (apparently) that I do not have the right, as your edits, despite containing no new material, are protected from any further amendment. At least, my effort to subsequently correct my material after your edits was blocked.
While VRT has concluded that I did, and do, have the right to post the material, it would be great if in the interim you could remove the rest of those sections that were subject to extensive deletion.
They restored it to the version that remained once you had removed what you deemed to be copyright protected. They restored it because they thought I was blanking you, rather than just removing the remainder of the original submission that I had created. They have refused to let me remove it, because they are under the impression, it seems, that it is content that you created. If, however, you were to remove it this argument would no longer apply, even if it were valid. DrBMChase (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Since there's already a discussion on the talk page and two people objected to your removal of the content, it's inappropriate for me to jump in and act like I'm the boss. Regardless, the point is moot, as your ticket has cleared and I will be able to reverse the copyright removal shortly. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Dr Chase may or may not have taken the photos and created the graphs, or it might have been one of the co-authors. It's best to prepare a deletion nomination at the Commons that lists all the uploads and cites the paper I already mentioned above as a likely source. A :Commons:VRT ticket is required (the ticket formerly known as OTRS). Then notify the uploader and he can respond at the deletion nomination. I can do it later if you're not sure what to do. Thanks — Diannaa (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at [4] and since it is a 'image copyright issue' (and I've never done OTRS), it may be safer if someone with more experience handles this, though I can assist, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
All images nominated for deletion. If you want to examine what I did please check my recent contribs at the Commons. — Diannaa (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, Diannaa, how are you? I wondered, after you blanked and listed this, did you look in detail at other contribs of this user? I've started on that, and am not at all reassured by what I've found – three more pages listed at WP:CP and one instance of unattributed CWW. Just checking with you in case this is ground you've already been over. I'm still in awe at the amount of work you manage to do, while I seem to get less and less done, particularly in the copyvio area, and my content creation activity is close to zilch. Regards as always, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jlan, no I did not look at their other contribs. I figured if they were a habitual copy-violator that they would have surfaced as such by now, since they've been editing since 2004! If you have time for a closer look that would be great. Re: content creation: I don't have time for that any more either. Haven't done a Good Article nom since SS in 2016, the year we got CopyPatrol up and running. Coincidence? I think not. I am very glad to have a tiny watchlist as well. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, feeling pretty stupid about this post – turns out there's been a CCI open for the user since 2015! Shouldn't we be blocking users whose copyvios are so bad they need to be investigated? (Wizardman has blocked this one, BTW.) Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Moneytrees suggests prompter blocks for copyvio, even for longtime users, even if we can expect it to be painful or heartbreaking for both us and the editor. He also indicates he's in favor of opening CCIs on all blocked copy-violators. See User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks, User:Moneytrees/Copyright RfC 2023. The unblocking admin also needs to be monitoring the user for a month or more when unblocking. I have two I am currently watching — Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
As an aside to that, I started looking through the 2011s to see what was what. To my surprise, 6 of the remaining were not blocked, 5 of which are still active. The one of the five that does concern me a bit is djflem, as you gave him a copyright warning and removed copyright that was significant enough to revdel in 2016 and again in 2021. Are those significant enough to look more closely at that one? I'd of course rather not expand the CCI and/or block for the last issue being a couple years back, but if someone still isn't getting it... Wizardman00:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello copyright patrollers, we currently have 84 reports at CopyPatrol that need to be assessed. Assistance would be much appreciated! Pinging some recent contributors as shown on the Leaderboard: DanCherek, SphilbrickYmblanter, L3X1, and Moneytrees. 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) 13:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I am hoping you can advise about whether there is copyvio in Evan McKie. The current version has lengthy quotes from a couple of sources, particularly La Notte. These are properly referenced, but the length of the quotes makes me wonder whether copyright would apply. Would you mind having a look if you have time? Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not a copyright violation to use that much quotation, but it's a violation of our non-free content guideline. I have cleaned it up quite a bit. Removal of that one giant quote for sure makes it a better article. If people want to know what the criteria for that award they can visit the website. — Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes sense, and the article's much more readable now. I'll have a look at NFC for future understanding. Tacyarg (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Rock hyrax middens (pt 2)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Diannaa (also pinging @C.Fred), there's a VTRS ticket 2023091910006337 dealing with the text. As mentioned above Dr Chase (and the ticket also verifies his identity) is one of the co-authors of the text and therefore has joint copyright on the text. Under section 201(a) of the US Copyright Act each author can do as they wish with the entire content of the joint work (see [7] and [8]). As Dr Chase has, in the ticket, provided a consent statement releasing the content of the paper at [9] under CC-by-sa-4.0 I think any issues about copyvio of the text are resolved and subject to anything you want to add, I suggest we undelete the revdel'd revisions. Dr Chase is aware that Wikipedia is a collegiate environment and I don't think WP:OWN is going to be an issue.
Thanks for the info about joint works. Good to know. I see you have taken care of restoring the content as well. So thanks for that too. Case closed. — Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The joint work info, especially about the rights of each copyright holder to act independently was new to me to. I really did not expect US copyright law to give so much freedom and was fully expecting to see that consent of all copyright holders to be required. Nthep (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Diannaa. I gather you know which edit I am talking about without the need for me to provide diffs. I'd like to but it's all been "ghosted". I didn't know what the rules were here. Actually I altered the text to "redevelop" the points raised selling the same message. I'm not sure I did a good job. Being from Switzerland, I speak German (native), French and Italian, all better than I do English. LOL. I ssumed if you follow the reliable sources you could retell the whole story as long as you do in using your own words. Sorry if I got something mixed up. --Truehans (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Diannaa. Hoping you can help with Jonathan Freeman-Attwood. Earwig reports an 81.7% chance of copyvio when comparing to his biography at the Royal Academy of Music. I reverted to a version just before this edit from 2015, which I though cleared most of the copyvio (there was another substantial edit in 2023 which also looks like it uses material from the RAM). However, firstly if I do that we lose references that have been added since, and secondly the copyvio actually seems to go back further, to 2011 at least, when an editor posted on the Talk page "I am happy to confirm that the Royal Academy of Music has authorised free use of Prof Jonathan Freeman-Attwood's biography on wikipedia". Could you have a look and advise? I am happy to take it back to basics if that is the best way to go. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Tacyarg: A declaration on the article's talk page unfortunately isn't enough in this case. Wikipedia only accepts content that allows commercial use and derivative works—that is, content that's compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0. The website's terms and conditions page indicates that the content may only be used for non-commercial purposes, which is incompatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0. (The belief that content licensed for non-commercial use is compatible with Wikipedia's license is a common misconception.) I'm not as familiar as Diannaa would be on the procedures to follow if the authors want to release it under a license compatible with Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure they'd have to go through the Volunteer Response Team. In the meantime, the copied text needs to be removed. — SamX [talk·contribs]20:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I assumed, I didn't mean to suggest that I thought that the 2011 statement was acceptable. I'm just hesitant about going back to the 2011 non-copyvio version here as we'd lose 39 references that have been added since (of varying quality). I've also sometimes been told when I've requeated revdel that far back that it's too problematic in terms of losing article history, so wanted to check. Tacyarg (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Diannaa, I came across the Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields article here and was going to try to help tidy-up, however, Earwig is 79.6% (and the CoI aspect looks tricky too). I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to approach a situation like this and thought I might ask you to have a look (as you recently intervened in the context of an article I was reviewing for NPP). Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the content copied from joannashields.com. I won't be doung revision deletion, as the material has been present for too long (since 2014). Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
That looks like a false positive to me. The first two items on the list are obvious Wikipedia mirrors. There's also a report at CopyPatrol that's a false positive. — Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Thanks for your patient explanation- it was an honest mistake & really hasn’t happened before but will be mindful going forward. If this is considered resolved, may I request you to please delete the message ? Thank you for your understanding ! Medhavigandhi (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Diannaa. I hope you don't mind me seeking clarification from you on an editing issue that I keep running into but I would like the benefit of your extensive editing expertise. (I am raising it here as a general issue, rather than on the specific article talk page because it affects more that the one article.) I recently noticed that you removed the Category:1945 deaths from the article Adolf Hitler that included categories for both "1945 deaths" and "1945 suicides", on the basis that the former was a parent category of the latter. I recently had a question on this issue on a different article, and another editor explained to me that "xxxx suicides" is a "non-diffusing category" of "xxxx deaths", which is an exception to the general rule that articles are not placed in both a category and its subcategory and, therefore, both should be included. Please see the explanation in Help:Non-diffusing subcategories (Wikipedia:DUPCAT) and the explanatory note at the top of any "xxxx suicides" category. This issue seems to come up a lot, with different editors both adding and deleting the "xxxx deaths" category to articles containing the "xxxx suicides" category. I want to be sure that the issue is being addressed in a consistent manner and that I have a firm understanding of which is correct. Most of the articles of persons who committed suicide in 1945 contain both categories. What is the right approach here? Thanks in advance for your assistance and clarification. Historybuff0105 (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy reply. So, I guess we are on the same page with this. In future articles and edits, I will continue to treat the two categories as "non-diffusing" and include them both. Thanks again for taking the time to look at this. Historybuff0105 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Diannaa! It's been a while since our last conversation. I hope you're doing well. I'm reaching out because I could use your expertise on something. My good wikifriend, @L'OrfeoGreco:, has translated an article he originally authored on Greek Wikipedia and has asked for my assistance prior to GAN. While I think it's quite well done, there may be an issue I'm not entirely sure about, so I'm seeking your wisdom. Specifically, the "synopsis" section seems to closely mirror the source. Could you please take a look, determine if there is indeed a problem, and perhaps offer a few potential solutions? Thank you! Cinadon3611:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I am uncertain about rewording the text. Also about structure, since our text follows the same events in the same order. Maybe I being too cautious. Have a look here:
Source:".... Odysseus becomes Aethon—a shipwrecked Cretan nobleman, the incident of Penelope’s fifty lovers with the shooting contest in the courtyard becomes the challenge for Nausicaa’s hand. A charming secondary plot is woven around Robert Graves’s idea that the Odyssey was not written by Homer at all, but by a woman—the Princess Nausicaa being that authoress. Her story reveals how and why she came to write it."
WP Text "... The mythical Odysseus is rendered as "Aethon", a shipwrecked nobleman from Crete who courts Nausicaa. In accordance with the work of Robert Graves, a secondary theme of the libretto is the depiction of Nausicaa as the author of The Odyssey."
Or at Act I
Source: "I follows a brief Prologue, wherein Nausicaa disputes with the Minstrel Phemius the old bardic interpretation of Penelope’s role in the Odyssey. Scene 1 shows Alcinous, King of Drepanum, bidding farewell to his Queen Arete, to his daughter Nausicaa, to his young son Clytoneus, and to his courtiers. He is going in search of his elder Laodamus, who has mysteriously disappeared. Bidding all to be faithful to their appointed duties in his absence, the King proclaims the terms under which suitors for Nausicaa’s hand will be considered: “The decision must rest with the princess herself"
WP Text "In the short prologue of the opera, Nausicaa converses with the aoidos Phemius regarding the role Penelope had in The Odyssey. Later on, the King of Drepanum Alcinous departs to search for his son Laodamas, who has mysteriously gone missing. Before leaving, Alcinous stipulates that his daughter is to choose the suitor she prefers on her own criteria.
Or at Interlude:
Source: The Interlude preceding Scene 2 finds Nausicaa and her mother expressing their fears that the missing Laodamus is dead, and in Scene 2 Nausicaa reveals these fears to Clytoneus. As he laughs as his sister for her “woman’s fears” they overhear Antinous, Eurymachus, and two other noblemen in the courtyard below, whose stealthy conversation reveals a plot afoot to overthrow the Palace. Her worst fears confirmed, Nausicaa calls upon Athene for aid
WP Text: An interlude follows, in which Nausicaa and her mother, Queen Arete, discuss the possibility that Laodamas is dead. Then, they express their fear to Nausicaa's brother and Arete's son, Clytoneus. At that moment, the three of them overhear Antinous, Eurymachus and two more suitors discussing a plot to overthrow the king. Nausicaa calls on the goddess Athena for help.
Or at act III
Source: The King returns, and learning of Nausicaa’s endurance in his absence, asks what boon she would claim as reward. She then demands that in return for his life, the Minstrel Phemius shall sing in future her version of the Penelope story, portraying her as a faithful and valiant wife in her Lord's absence. Phemius accepts the terms reluctantly, and the opera concludes with general rejoicing.
WP Text:The King returns and, after inspecting the situation, decides to reward his daughter for her prowess. In exchange for his life, Nausicaa asks Phemius to henceforth sing her own version of Penelope's story. The aoidos reluctantly accepts and the opera is concluded in an atmosphere of general merriment.
Are you aware that the Powerbase article is a copy of earlier versions of this article's Wikipedia page, which was used to create their "own content" when it doesn't belong to them: hence, you have picked up a false positive? Please undo that part of your revision. As a contributor to the GA Nominations page, I hope I always try to keep to the rules, but I may go wrong now and again. I will revise the Belfast Telegraph page when you have done so. Regards to you Billsmith60 (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I did investigate that possibility but could not find the matching content. Can you please point me to the earlier version that you they copied it from? Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello again, I'm away for a week shortly but will investigate this and revert to you. I'll restore the short description in the meantime. Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
As I understand it. you are claiming that I've violated copyright by taking text from https://adct.org.za/most-reverend-archbishop-stephen-brislin/ that describes his coat of arms... but what copyright is on that, and I'm certain the Archbishop - whose website it is - would want his explanation to go along with the graphics??? There was a citation requested and I linked to the page - but this has no copyright. Perhaps you are thinking about US law... but I respectfully do not think it applies. Matthew Charlesworth (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2023 (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. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. How can I restore my edits after you have removed them and linked what I did to your username? If I put "" around it, saying "According to the Archbishop: "quote text" referencing that it's from that page, would that be enough? Or must I get a permission from the website - which is his own website by the way - to quote the text? What I do not understand is instead of just removing the offending text, you removed ALL my edits (most of which did not involve that text... Matthew Charlesworth (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Revision deletion was performed on a series of edits, but the only thing that was removed was the descriptions of the crests. It's better if you rewrite the content in your own words; it's too much for a quotation. — Diannaa (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok - I've tried to reword it in my own words, but I ended up adding more than what was in the original source. Hopefully it doesn't violate any copyright now. Matthew Charlesworth (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Urgent copyright question
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Diannaa!
I would like to make a quick question on a subject of your specialisation.
I am the main contributor to the article Nausicaa (opera), currently a high priority GA candidate.
I just came across this audio file on Internet Archive; it is the opera's one and only recording, available in its entirety via the IA.
Do you think I could add the link at the "External links" section, or is doing so forbidden? I mean, the recording is not distributed without copyright regulations, because it was originally published in 1961 by a commercial brand.
Thank you in advance!
L'OrfeoSon io22:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Diannaa,
You have deleted our page citing "Copyright Violation". As the co-author of this document I am very frustrated with the ambiguous nature of these "processes"... From the last posting, I spoke with Jimfbleak and he pointed me to the tool that is used to verify possible copyright infringement. We have run this article through, completely reworked sections to ensure the tool did not find suspicions of violations... and the Only suspicious violation we couldn't clear was a third-party wiki which scraped our Draft page From wikipedia!
We are trying to provide a community service here just as yourself by providing useful information to the public about open standards, and working very hard to follow the guidance of each editor that comes along... but we find no consistency. Can you please assist??
-Kind regards, Peter. Pbrunnen (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Who is User:Ferroaf and why are they re-creating the draft using the same/similar content as the deleted draft? Instead of starting a new draft with the same content you are supposed to request undeletion of the deleted/abandoned draft. If a different person re-creates the draft using the same content as the deleted draft, they are in effect taking credit for content written by someone else, as the attribution required under the terms of our license is lost. DON'T keep re-starting as a new draft with the same content, or we lose the attribution required under the terms of our license. Also, another copy of the draft was created at Draft:DICONDE and yet another copy was created at User:Ferroaf/sandbox. Copying content within Wikipedia without providing the required attribution is a violation of the terms of our license. So don't do that any more please!Handwiki is an obvious Wikipedia mirror that often hosts copies of deleted pages. But there's also a bit of material copied from https://www.ndt.net/article/reliability2009/Inhalt/th5b4.pdf that needs to be reworded. You can check this using Earwig's tool. The parts that overlap need to be reworked regardless, as they will be unintelligible to our readers (" Since there is no concept of a patient in the nondestructive testing industry" and "DICONDE is extended with new information modules or attributes as needed to describe the required metadata" is gonna be meaningless jargon to our readers). But there's not enough overlap with that page to warrant deletion so I have restored the draft so you can continue to work on it. But stop with the unattributed copying and repeated re-creations using the same content. If it gets deleted through inactivity or any other reason please request undeletion using the instructions already provided to you by Liz at the bottom of your user talk page. Don't let anyone copypaste another version of the page at another title, either.Please post here on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa,
The user Ferroaf is the chair of the ASTM DICONDE committee; I am the co-chair. We are volunteers at ASTM who develop standards. I had written the original article and had been trying to go through the review process, but I kept getting different responses on what was wrong. I finally gave up and user Ferroaf decided he would give it a try.
The original article was posted under Draft:DICONDE and another user renamed it to Draft:Digital Imaging and Communication for Nondestructive Evaluation. So we continued to use that name as it seemed that is what the wiki community wanted from us. We did not start a draft under a different name...
Honestly, I had tried the undelete process twice and was summarily ignored both times. When we attempted to discuss the issue with the users who deleted the pages recently, we were told that there is nothing they can help with because the page is already deleted. I did finally get the information about Earwig's tool from a user by the name of Jimfbleak. Ferroaf put the draft in his sandbox so that we could work on the text where the Earwig's tool was complaining of similarity and ensured that we had a green pass on it before the last draft was left yesterday.
Twice you requested undeletion and the requests were not summarily ignored; the August 8, 2022 request was declined because the draft was at least in part a copyright violation. The September 13, 2023 request was removed by yourself 2.5 hours after you posted it.
The draft has been created multiple times with the same/similar at two different locations by two different editors. A copy was also made at Ferroaf's sandbox. Like I already explained, that's not okay, because unattributed copying is a violation of the terms of our license. Don't put a copypaste of your draft in a sandbox somewhere! Don't create the draft at more than one title! One copy only, one location only, or the attribution chain is broken. Submitting the draft under a different username or at a different title will NOT increase its chances of acceptance.
The draft has been declined five times. April 21, 2021: Not notable; improperly sourced. April 26, 2021 (five days later): Not notable; improperly sourced. January 11, 2022: still improperly sourced. January 8, 2023: Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, with a big red stop sign. One reviewer commented "This is acronym soup and almost certainly needs to be re-written from scratch by someone who understands what this is and can explain it to a layperson.". September 12, 2023: declined for copyright reasons due to the copying from https://www.ndt.net/article/reliability2009/Inhalt/th5b4.pdf (68.5% overlap according to Earwig's tool).
As I explained, Ferroaf put it in his sandbox so we could check it against Earwig's tool. The new article guide even says that you should start in your sandbox... I don't understand how you are saying we are doing unattributed copying; the last revision of article passed Eerwig's tool.
We spend a great deal of effort to add a lot of external sources to the document that were not related to ASTM or direct work of the committee. Having chatted with a few people in IRC, that was frustrating because I was told "just add some more third-party references", which I did, and it was still rejected.
January 8, 2023 -- How is it acronym soup when each acronym is defined and we added links to the relevant wikipedia articles? We also cleaned up the text again for the last draft. Also, how is this article any different from the related DICOM article on which we based our structure? The German Wikipedia picked up the same content from the post of one of our German committee members on our first go.
" September 12, 2023: declined for copyright reasons due to the copying from https://www.ndt.net/article/reliability2009/Inhalt/th5b4.pdf (68.5% overlap according to Earwig's tool)" -- As I said, we tested this in Ferroaf's sandbox with Earwig's tool and received a green pass on the last edit of the document... Yet again you deleted it saying it was copyright infringement.
As for deletion, I never saw a notice about that delete on August 8, 2022 and I wasn't able to find the note on that. Bad on me I guess...
Re: the sandbox. You can't copy within Wikipedia without providing attribution as required by the terms of our license. At a minimum, this is done by providing an edit summary saying where you got the content. In other words, it's got nothing to do with Earwig's tool; internal copying is only allowed if attribution is given to the original authors. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic.Re: my deletion. When I restored the draft I saw that I had made a mistake. There was a little copying from https://www.ndt.net/article/reliability2009/Inhalt/th5b4.pdf but not as much as there had been on September 12 when it was deleted for copyvio. Sorry for the mistake.In general, to establish notability, we like to see at least three sources independent of the subject that have in-depth coverage of the subject (not just passing mentions or content about related topics). You might consider asking at the WP:Teahouse if you have further questions as to how to improve your draft. — Diannaa (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you recently redacted a whole bunch of edits at this page (on a very contentious topic that is in the news due to the war in Ukraine and the controversial celebration of a member of the unit in the Canadian parliament) for copyright violation. I was one of several editors whose edits are now hidden. Looking at the page , it now once again includes several errors that were corrected in recent errors. The source, doi 10.1080/13518046.2012.705633, for which you found copyright violation, is the main academic source on the article's topic, and was used with citations. Is there any way that the hidden edits can be reviewed to save the work of identifying all the problems again? Or of restoring recent edits that do not create copyright problems? Thank you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
My edit was strictly to remove the copying of copyright material, which was in a section titled "Other Locations". Recent edits that did not have copyright issues were not removed, but were hidden as part of the revision deletion process. 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. Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your kind comments. As far as I think, I have used my own words from the source, and I have taken precaution to cite the work as well. You need to probably educate me on this point. If a source says, "sun rises from the east", there are very few ways, I can rephrase it. I can probably say, "our star is always seen in the east in the morning" or something like that. But it would radically change the meaning. I have tried to rephrase the information using my own words without really changing the meaning substantially. Of course that is my personal view. I also add that I am a beginner, so probably I have indeed done some mistake. But a little education from experts like you is always welcome. I have no problem in accepting another person's view, as long as I can clearly understand my mistake. I am a bit sad, in this case, I cannot. Thanks anyway.
Anil1956 (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. You can see that in addition to the quotation there is quite a bit of content copied and only lightly paraphrased from the source. It's a violation of our copyright policy to have that much material copied directly from your source, so sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me see this, and get back to you. Thanks again for this piece of education. I did not know about it.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Diana, the text you removed from the OntoUML article is licenced under Apache 2.0 license, and hence, can be used when the source is provided. Pedropaulofb (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Apache 2.0 license is not a compatible license according to this chart. Besides, the pages are marked as "MIT License" not Apache. Neither of these licenses appear to be compatible according to the chart. — Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you deleted a large section which took me hours to edit - this is not a valid way to address copyright concerns - a notice should have been posted so I may address your concerns. Please provide my text so I may further work on it to address your points. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confuciussx (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but prior discussion is not required before removal of copyright content takes place. Regardless of the copyright problem, the content appears to have been taken from a self-published Wordpress document, which cannot be considered to be a reliable source. — Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Alan_Campbell_(pastor)
Hello again, I am certain that I saw the "copyrighted" text somewhere, but evidently not in that article's history. Hence, I will use the sources from the other site to revise the text of this article and include only quotes, since a quote cannot be amended. Pardon my "senior moment". Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you show me how to access the text of the last edit I made before your deletions, so that I can restore the good structure I put in place and not have to start again from scratch and rely on my fading memory? Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
You can't access that version any more because it has been revision-deleted. I'm not sure what you mean by structure, so I have sent you the material via email. — Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. I've revised the above, using sources available to anyone to summarise the new text and include part-quotes only. You should see what I was referring to by the "structure", which is much improved. I trust the revision passes muster now before I begin to expand it. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please check this edit for the Hooper-Cochrane review and Reynolds-WHO review where direct copyvio text appears to be lifted. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Cleaned. I wish the detection service would have caught some of these edits, as it's been going on since February. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I don't understand why the editor who violated copyright rules did not use ChatGPT to rewrite the article. They are living in the 16th century; how foolish can they be? Hey buddy, don't waste your energy on reporting copyright violations because there are many AI content rewriting tools more powerful than ChatGPT. 83.233.69.68 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I found a number of copy-right violations at the article in the title (which I came across as part of the NPP October drive). I've removed the immediately obvious violations. You've previously warned this editor over copy-right issues; the article was created after your warning. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. Current version appears to be clean. User is currently blocked and appears to have had a chatbot write their unblock request. — Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Diannaa's Retirement Should Be Considered
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
We find ourselves in the year 2023, where a potent tool like ChatGPT exists to paraphrase and rework content with a diverse range of perspectives. With Wikipedia's copyright detection mechanisms in place, Diannaa's role may seem redundant and unnecessary. It raises a valid question: Diannaa, why are you still actively contributing to Wikipedia when we have ChatGPT at our disposal? Perhaps it's time to consider retiring and enjoying some well-deserved rest at home. This is a sincere suggestion, and I'm genuinely curious about your future plans.
Many Wikipedia editors are now turning to ChatGPT and Quillbot to assist in rewriting articles, making it increasingly challenging to detect copyright violations. I apologize for this, but could you please share your thoughts on the advancements in AI writing?
Diannaa's work is invaluable and her retirement would be a major loss for the project. We may be close to reaching a point where AI can assist in rewriting articles, but we're certainly not there yet. I doubt we'll ever reach a point where copyright infringement ceases to be a problem. ––FormalDude(talk)23:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree, she is a legacy, but it is nearly the end of her era. See what will happen with AI in the near future on Wikipedia. Regards. 82.209.143.46 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Request for Article Review as I am new and don't know much
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Diannaa,
I've written an article on "Freelance Marketplaces for Beginners" and need your expert review to ensure it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. I aim to contribute positively and wish to avoid any issues. Your feedback on neutrality, sourcing, and formatting would be invaluable. Can I share the draft with you for review?
Sorry I don't have time to help with that project. I suggest you visit the Teahouse, where editors experienced with helping new users are standing by. — Diannaa (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please when you have the time could you take a look at User talk:OperaBalletGirl’s edits in relation to the Evan McKie article they say on their talk page that”we have organized a team to monitor why this account in particular has been edited in with an unusually high frequency lately.” They refuse to explain their connection to the subject despite repeated requests and continue to use “we” in their responses. Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Diannaa and sorry if I have caused you any trouble. I was going through my edits to look for a specific one and saw that an edit I made to the Carvana article was revision-deleted. Based on the fact that my edit was the first one suppressed, I assume that it was the problematic one. If possible, could I have the diff mailed to me to try to fix the issue? I think that the problem might have to do with a connection to the MI DoS Press Release that was released three days prior to Freep's article, but am not 100% sure. (If the problem is that I messed up sourcing to the DoS Press Release regarding the specific violations, then I apologize again for the trouble.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The edit that brought me to the page was dated 2023-10-10 17:03, but in the course of investigating that edit, I decided to check the whole article, and discovered content copied from multiple sources, as you can see by the edits I performed on October 11. I have investigated and it was actually the edit prior to yours that should have been the first one revision deleted as the material therein is copied directly from the source. Here is the edit. Your edit was actually ok. I will do revision deletion after you have had a chance to examine the edit. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha, and no problem at all. I was just worried when I saw my edit was the first one struck, but thank you for looking into it again and also for fixing the article by removing the copyrighted content. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the link. That's funny about Sean Combs; I you can look at archive 1 of the talk page for the whole back-story of what prompted me to nominate the article for GA. Oddly enough this GA nom torture chamber was going on at around the same time which just goes to show you how horrible things used to be. It's surprising any of us have stayed on. — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
That was wonderful. I happen to be on this page because of an incident that is shaking my resolve to contribute to Wikipedia, and watching this YouTube video has made my day. Thanks. And of course, thanks to Diannaa for everything she does. S Philbrick(Talk)13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Something fishyThanks Moneytrees, Oops, now I've gone down an Instagram rabbit hole. And looking for an inspirational image for y'all I found something fishy. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I just did something, I think for the first time ever, and wanted to check with you in case you had thoughts on a better procedure.
An edit to Building information modeling was reverted by another editor. The copy patrol entry reports a 98% match with an article which is behind a pay wall. I don't have access to it. I'm aware that we have a resource that can help look at things behind pay walls, but that seems like a fair amount of work just to confirm that it is in fact a copyright violation. I chose to revision delete it on the assumption that it is almost certainly a copyright violation, failing to revision delete it has implications I won't go into for beans reasons, and if it turns out my assumption is wrong, it's almost trivial to undo. I've run across similar situations in the past typically past to essentially means and turning it over to you to take care of. I'd like to handle it if you are on board with my handling but am reaching out in case there's another option I am missing. S Philbrick(Talk)18:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The content all appears to have been copied from Stellar population rather than external websites, which means it was a violation of our license terms (as attribution was not provided). But it's not a copyright violation per se, and not something for which we do revision deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
