User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Hey!

Hello, I wrote Article about Commercial Bank of Qatar, based on information of their site and fiscal year review. On what right you can delete contribution of other people? Danchik62725 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but we are not allowed to include material copied from other websites. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Article "Business process modeling" - deletion of ISO 9001/14001/27001 cites.

Hello Diannaa,

I definitely think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to protect itself against possible copyright claims by taking special care when quoting copyrighted works. I am from Germany (continental Europe) and naturally had continental European law in mind when I wrote the text passage. However, I subsequently read the Wiki articles "Citation" and "Fair use" and found no infringements in the text passages I wrote. Can you please give me a few clues as to why you deleted the text passages so ruthlessly? Thank you! 1) In particular, I don't understand why you justified the deletions with URLs that I did not specify as citation sources (I personally have access to the original ISO standard texts and the citations come from the standard texts while "https://vdocument.in/as9100-rev-d.html?page=1" is irrelevant to me and "http://docplayer.net/43325989-Comparison-matrix-iso-14001-2015-vs-iso-14001-2004.html" is not a citable at all - it is derivative work). 2) Which legal opinion is the leading legal opinion in the English-speaking wiki (English is spoken in many countries around the world and English is also the official language in some small countries in continental Europe and the UK).

Thank you very much, PZ0151 PZ0151 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not unusual for content to be present at multiple places online. Some are accessible to our automated tools and some are not. So the url I listed in my edit summaries is not necessarily always a match for the citation that you used.

It looks like you've misunderstood how fair use applies to Wikipedia. We do allow short quotations, but that's not what I found here, because there were no quotations, just straight-up copying without any indication that you did not write the prose yourself. That's not allowed; to do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm, that the original text of the ISO standards is't available online (except some short excerpts) - but "[18]", "[19]" and "[20]" together with "18. ISO 9001:2015: Quality management systems - Requirements, Fifth edition 2015-09, ISO, the International Organization for Standardization 2015", "19. ISO 14001:2015: Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use, Third edition 2015-09, ISO, the International Organization for Standardization 2015" and "20. ISO 27001:2022: Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection Information security management systems - Requirements, Third edition 2022-10, ISO, the International Organization for Standardization 2022" should not open any room for misinterpretation.

Nevertheless -thank you and: OK - next time I'll pay more attention to the exact use of quotation marks.

Regards, Steffen PZ0151 (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio on Cecilia Gentili

Hello - would you mind revdeleting this massive copyvio? (Another editor has already reverted it, and the editor has been warned.) Thanks - Funcrunch (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I've revdeled @Funcrunch. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Funcrunch (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Luther F. Carter

Potential copyvio goldmine, looks like. Nirva20 (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Earwig's tool finds nothing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I am shocked. 😲 Thanks, anyway. Nirva20 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Case-hardening

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the Case-hardening article. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Woodlot That looks like a mirror to me. If a website looks cheap, isn’t cited, and the content has been in the article for years, then chances are it’s a mirror. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright issues and COI

Hi Diannaa. Would you be kind enough to take a look at this article? There was a properly sourced section which addressed allegations of human rights abuses by this organization. Now it has been replaced by a contributor – who has made only 3 edits – with material copy pasted from the organization's website. Not only is this a copyright violation, but is also in breach of WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY in my opinion. I'd be glad if you could restore the previous version and delete the ones that contain copyrighted content. Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

List of avatar claimants page

Hi @Diannaa. I saw you had removed some copyright content on this page. I too had noticed that these 2 IPs doing POV edits on couple of other pages and seems possibly same person (105.163.2.244 and 197.248.138.202). I was wondering if it can be looked.

Also, it seems this "List of avatar claimants" is similar to "List of people who have been considered deities". Do you think "List of avatar claimants" page be considered for deletion? Asteramellus (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

yes thanks! Asteramellus (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Asteramellus. Those two IPs both geolocate to Kenya so they could be the same person. Perhaps they edit from multiple locations such as from work and from home, or from home and from the library. It's okay for people to edit from multiple IPs or multiple locations as long as they are not douing so with intent to deceive.

I don't think avatars and deities are the same thing, so I don't think deletion is appropriate here. — Diannaa (talk)

UTRS appeal #84829

Hongqilim was blocked for copyvio's. Does this excessively long request come close enough to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Their definition of copyright is copied directly from our article Copyright which does not give us an indication that they actually understand that they should not be copying other people's work and passing it off as their own. Also Appeal number #84741 which was dated February 10 does not inspire trust either. So no. — Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:December 2023 Libya migrant boat disaster

Hey Diannaa, I am a new editor and made a article in December 2023. Toddy1 pointed out the copyright violations , now I have fixed the violations so can you RevDel all the old versions (15:20, 17 December 2023 to 16:21, 25 February 2024) because they contain copyright violations.

Harvici (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Harvici. I have cleaned the article some more and done the revision deletion. I had two edit conflicts while doing so. Sorry about that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. 😊 Harvici (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs article update reverted due to copyright concerns

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for your welcome message and for letting me know that it is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration. I didn't realize the items I copied from Sachs' PNAS letter were that extensive when I added the content that Hipal reverted and Hipal's edit summary didn't make it clear that copyright was the issue.

If I reworded the content to avoid using any material copied directly from the PNAS letter that Sachs wrote in response to Garry's letter, would it be OK to resubmit that change to the Jeffrey Sachs article?

I think that including Sachs' side of the argument to Garry would make the article a bit more fair and objective, especially since the article is about Sachs (and not about Garry, per se). Nick Nitpicker (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Nick Nitpicker. The content was removed by another user for reasons other than copyright, with an edit summary that mentions WP:SOAP. So you better suggest a proposed edit on the article's talk page before proceeding. — Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

So why did you say in your welcome message to me, "Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Jeffrey Sachs, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license."? Nick Nitpicker (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was listed at CopyPatrol; here is a link to the report, which I assessed. Your edit contained content copied from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9659384/, which is not compatibly licensed. (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 is not a compatible license.) When I arrived at the article, the content had already been removed by another user for reasons other than copyright, so I performed revision deletion to remove the copyright material from the page history and placed a template Welcome-copyright on your talk page to welcome you to Wikipedia and to advise you about our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what happened. It looks like Wikipedia's CopyPatrol bot that uses the Turnitin plagiarism detection service for flagging potential copyright violations actually works pretty well. I didn't realize that I'd used so many (118!) words in common with Sach's letter to PNAS.

It would be very cool if the CopyPatrol bot could automatically alert Wikipedia editors about possible copyright violations in our content before we submit our article updates (i.e. before a copyright violation actually occurs). However, after reading about CopyPatrol, I realize the Turnitin service is still undergoing evaluation by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team so it's understandable that they would not have included that capability yet. Nick Nitpicker (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome message content

Was there an issue with my contributions, or was this just a notice? TheAnonymousPhotographer (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

On Hood–Anderson Farm, you copied from a public domain source without including the required attribution. In the future, simply add the template {{source-attribution}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I'm new here, and as I live near the plantation and have completed a visual analysis of it. Thanks for letting me know! TheAnonymousPhotographer (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I didn't remove the press release content because it violated copyright. It was a quotation, and short quotations are allowed. It was just my opinion that the gallery's own press releases is not a third-party independent source. Their purpose is to sell tickets, so they are not going to publish neutral unbiased information. At your suggestion, I will look for and clean the remaining copyvio from the article. — Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't feel strongly about it either way to be honest. Go ahead and re-add it if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Tuhins (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tuhins, there's nothing in those diffs that qualifies for revision deletion under the policy. — Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It falls under RD4 (oversightable information) - it contains personal information that is non-public (information about family relations, a purported quote from the subject). Tuhins (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't agree. Please email the oversight team if you would like to get a second opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

CCI update

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

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

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

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"

• Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"

• In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record

• Obituary: Vami_IV

• Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday

• WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright material

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

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

I did check the page history of Meherabad and did not find it. Did you copy it from an old revision of Amartithi? If so, you should have said so in your edit summary. In fact to do so is required by the terms of our license.

When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary that the material was copied, and where you got it. Please have a look at this edit summary for an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes took it from old Amartithi article. But I rewrote most of it. Thank you for your support. Fostera12 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright material in Buddhist origins section of Jagannath

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

The place to start is the Commons:Hirtle chart. the book is a Work First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. Publication date is 1962. The book was published in India, without compliance with US formalities. In order for it to be in the public domain, it would have had to have been in the public domain in its source country as of URAA date, which is 1996 for India. The author, Mayadhar Mansingh, died in 1973. In India works are protected by copyright for 60 years from the date of death of the author. This means that the book is protected by copyright until 2033 and was not in the public domain on the URAA date. The last column states the work will not be in the public domain until 95 years after the publication date. This would put it in the public domain in 2057. So I won't be able to restore the content.

By the way, we are required to add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{source-attribution}} after your citation. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to you too!

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

Hello again,

I wanted to follow up on our previous conversation regarding the edit to the Dua Lipa page on Wikipedia.

Dont need anything from your side actually, I have already taken the time to review the content I contributed, with a particular focus on ensuring that it is factual, concise, and fully compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines and copyright policies. This review process was undertaken with the utmost care to respect the platform's standards and the importance of providing reliable information to the community.

Given this careful revision and the assurance that all content is backed by the appropriate copyright approvals through my work with Madame Tussauds New York, I kindly ask for your cooperation in not removing the contributed content without prior communication with me. If there are any concerns or areas that require further clarification, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to address these directly before any action is taken to delete the content.

This approach will help in maintaining the integrity of the information on Wikipedia, ensuring that it remains a valuable and accurate resource for everyone. I believe in the power of collaboration and dialogue to achieve the best outcomes, and I'm committed to contributing positively to this community.

Thank you for your understanding and for considering this request. I look forward to any future interactions and to continuing to support the Wikipedia community in any way I can. Thank you for the attention, best regards PedroOReal (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)