User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Paternoster Row

Hello Diannaa. I wonder have you already looked over that large third paragraph at Paternoster Row. It looks a bit like copy and paste to me. I see some concerns have been raised, over various matters, at User talk:79.161.199.20. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Martinevans123 and thanks for the report. The paragraph was started in a series of edits on October 28-29, 2019 and the same IP has been adding little bits to it ever since. I can't find anything online that matches. I am going to remove it anyway, as it's been awaiting citations for 4 years. — Diannaa (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

3 G12 Drafts in 1 day

Hi Diannaa, User:Pinapplepizzafromdominos has created another Copyvio draft. Shouldn't this be stopped now? Thanks for the advice Nobody (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked - thanks for the notification. — Diannaa (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Mullen Automotive

Hi Diannaa, if only copyright violation was the only problem here, since your edit last month. More copyright issues, in addition to COI and socking. When you have a chance. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi 2601. I found a bit more copyvio to remove. Two other admins have also recently visited the page. The current version looks ok from a copyright point of view, and the page is semi'd till March 2024 (by Cullen328). — Diannaa (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and happy holidays. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

List of minor Hebrew Bible figures, A–K

Hi Diannaa, They're still doing it after your second warning. Might be time for a page-block to get their attention. Nobody (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't block for this. I usually give 3 warnings and just clean up after them from that point forward unless the case is extreme. — Diannaa (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, I'm not sure I'd be that forgiving. IMHO But that's still fine. Nobody (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24, There's really no category under the blocking policy where failure to add attribution is a criterion for a block. Disruption is a criterion, but in my opinion having to be told something twice or even three times is does not constitute disruption to the point where a block is justified. Have a look at the talk page of Cs california (talk · contribs) ^[no ping], towards the bottom, as an example. You will see that the time of multiple editors is being wasted and the user is showing extreme failure to get the point. That's the point at which I would consider a block — Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That honestly sounds kinda frustrating. That you can tell it to someone over and over, without being able to stop them. Blocking them temporarly to prevent further disruption (which it is), until they can convince you that they can and will attribute in the future should be allowed. Nobody (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup is not for the faint of heart. It's best to take a Buddhist non-attachment approach and not get frustrated or angry or whatevs. — Diannaa (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Cold Energy Battery

The site that I used text from - in their disclaimer, they wrote that the use of their text is OK if their site is linked to, which I did.

MalaMrvica (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The place where I found the matcjing content was https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/phase-change-material. which is marked as "All content on this site: Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V., its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved". — Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

Is the second source on Doina phaeobregma copyrighted? I can't find anything about the copyright status of these publications. Scorpions1325 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a link to the actual publication. It was published in 1978 without a copyright notice. Commons:Hirtle chart is the place to go. It says, "1978 through 28 February 1989: Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years: None [i.e., no copyright protection]. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities." So the document has no copyright protection, unless the author applied for and received registration within five years of the original publication date. There's databases where you can find out whether or not it was ever registered. Here's one — Diannaa (talk)

Wedgwood

Hi, I'm being reverted here by a single-purpose copyvio merchant - I suspect COI too, not to mention some incompetence. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have done some revision deletion, deleted a draft, and warned the user. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible close paraphrase/copyvio

Hope you don't mind me asking this here, but would you mind taking a look at the Loxanthocereus faustianus article? It seems to be a very close paraphrase from a machine translation of one of the sources- the unusual phrase "diameter thickness" has been used in the article, which is both a) a really weird thing to say and b)something that only seems to happen when Google translates the original document's "espesor" into English. (It won't translate "esperor" by itself into "diameter thickness" because the word itself just means "thickness".) There's no word-for-word match to the machine/human translation, but I'm having a hard time imagining that somebody would willingly type the phrase "diameter thickness." Could really do with your opinion. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, Harrisia caymanensis. A few lines seem rather close to its second source- but I do understand there's only a finite number of ways you can describe a plant. I'm not entirely sure if this covers it, however. However, one sentence looks like it has been copy-pasted directly. Again, sorry to bother you with this- but thank you for all you've already done on this issue. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian and thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. These are very likely more unattributed translations from the German Wikipedia by Cs california. I have asked on their talk page to fix it. — Diannaa (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay- I did look at the deWiki and esWiki, but I can't remember finding any obviously similar articles to compare with. Thank you for helping me clear this up! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, me again. As of a few hours ago, they added another very close paraphrase/blatant copy and paste onto Turbinicarpus valdezianusfrom what I believe to be this webpage (webarchive link from Jan of this year). I have reverted their edit, but it needs removed from the history. Thank you! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, thank you for everything you're doing here- and explaining the term revision deletion! Don't know why I didn't figure it out before! :)

Taking you up on your offer to post a request here- I explained in my edit summary when I removed the material (and I might get around to rewriting, but Cantharellus subg. Cantharellus has the same issue, but this time directly from one of the sources. (Ctrl+F-ing "usually smooth" will get you to the part of the article it was lifted from.) Strangely enough, though, not the source it was cited to- but the second source. Unfortunately, this was inserted at the time of article creation, so I think the entire history might have to go.

When browsing through the article creations, I left the "subsection of a genus" ones alone, but I think now I've found 3, not lifted from a different Wiki but from either a source or other non-Wiki webpage, I'm going to have to look back on the ones I originally skimmed over. And again, thank you for doing all the behind the scenes/techy stuff. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You guys are overstepping your editing by blanking the section please read this supreme court ruling scientific facts are not copyrightable.--Cs california (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Facts are not copyrightable, but prose is copyrightable. The source webpage for Turbinicarpus valdezianus is marked as being available under a compatible CC-by-SA 3.0 license. It's okay to copy compatibly licensed material, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance by including the template {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=bysa|from this source=yes}} as part of the citation. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. There's detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources. — Diannaa (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The second case, Cantharellus subg. Cantharellus. The article cited by Cs california is behind a paywall, so I was unable to check and see if matching prose is present there. However I did find it in the article found by GreenLipstickLesbian, which is compatibly licensed under a CC-by 4.0 license. So I have re-added the content and changed the citation to Zhang.

Releasing journal articles under a compatible CC-by or CC-by-SA license is becoming a fairly common thing, so it's important for everybody to watch for that. There's a list of compatible licenses at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? — Diannaa (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I genuinely didn't even think to check if the journal articles would be licensed! I will be sure to double check in future. Thank you for fixing my mistake. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind looking atBulbophyllum sect. Tripudianthes? Specifically, the phrase "are deciduous, and drop the leaves in the winter, and flowers in the winter or spring from the leaf-less pseudobulbs" appears directly in this blog post, dated 2019. On the bottom of the blog, the author has written "Photos with human subjects: all rights reserved. Others: CC BY-SA 4.0" which seems to refer to the images and not text, but I'm wary of making a mistake again. The author is on commons, where they've donated all their pictures, but they don't seem to have been active since 2019. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that the license applies only to the photos. — Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, Bulbophyllum sect. Cirrhopetalum seems to be rather close to this source. The Earwig Copyvio tool doesn't agree with me, but I think that's because the phrases are just disjoint enough that a computer won't see the patterns a humans will. For example, looking at the quote that the webpage attributes to Dr. Clair R. Ossian, we see "the dorsal sepal is much smaller than the lateral sepal. the lateral sepals have inrolled and generally adnate margins, and there is generally umbellate inflorescence" vs the Wiki article's "The dorsal sepal of Cirrhopetalum is much smaller than the usually inrolled lateral sepal which has adnate margins." The information under the "Description" heading follows a similar pattern.

The webarchive link from Dec 2021, but older versions seem to confirm that the text's been on there since 1997 or earlier). Given that this appears to be a commercial website(so I can't imagine is freely licensed/in the public domain), I've found no indication of a license, and that the text's existence predates the creative commons license, and that one quote on the webpage apparently pre-dates the webpage, means that I don't know what to do here. There's always the possibility that this website plagiarized from a different, non-internet source, that was retroactively made free/cc4-ed, and I don't want my mistake to be the reason the situation escalates further than it already has been. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the webpage you found is the actual source of the content they added. This is based on the use of the phrase "obscurely angled". There's no such thing as an obscure angle as far as I can tell, and this error has been copied into our article. There's been an effort at paraphrasing as some of the content is presented in a different order than the source, but the wording is very much the same. It's difficult but not impossible to work with scientific terminology. Even for science articles, content should be written in our own words and not copied from the source. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

In the end I decided to clean both these articles. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No you are both wrong here and that is the wrong source too the page is from here I just simply copied the relevant parts and pasted it as I do not have admin tools to merge the attributions. Cs california (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean "to merge the edit history". What you did is called a cut-and-paste page move, which is the wrong way to move a page to a new title. In order to preserve the edit history, you should have moved the page using the move function. I will request a history merge. Regardless, the copyright material that I removed has been present in the source website since at least 1997 and our article was not created until 2005, so it has to stay out.

Per GreenLipstickLesbian's suggestion, I am going to request that a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations case be opened so that the remainder of your edits can be checked in an organized way. I am also removing your autopatrolled user right, which means that all your future article creations will be checked by experienced patrollers. — Diannaa (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nishio Aikido

Hi Diannaa,

This has section that you deleted due to copywrite issue. Very similar content is actually used in multiple sites like this or this. Also the site does not include any copywrite notice. It's possible to include the content in the article? Tamle2nd (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No. 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) 14:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Tamle2nd (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks and a question

OK, I have closed all Wikipedia windows on the phone, whether edit or not. I guess when I need to translate I will have to email the links to myself to avoid having an open edit window on the phone. I haven't figured out what triggers the bug, except that having many windows open seems to be one of the factors, so I am positing a memory management issue. Not that it matters if they aren't planning to fix it. That new reply button also seems really convenient but requires cleanup of a second post of random text in about 30% of uses.

Anyway, I'm cured of trying to Wikipedia on my phone. Hopefully this answers what you wanted to know; if not ping me back, I guess. I will be going through those articles again today regardless of this, since I am there in the first place trying to untangle the units that did carry out pogroms from those that did not, and going through them round-robin seems to help in identifying the discrepancies.

I noticed when I came to this page that you are working on Holocaust articles. I remember reading that now, but had forgotten, or I would have asked you about this already. A couple of extended questions follow. If you are busy and it's TL;DR, of course I understand, but having been reminded that you, an editor I respect and a librarian to boot (!) are working in this topic area, I am hoping to interest you in some of my current problems.

Have you been in the Lithuania Holocaust articles? The slaughter in Lithuania was massive -- the figure 95% of the Jewish population keeps coming up, and that's in less than six months. So there are even more strong feelings than in other Holocaust topics I have seen, and some sources say that in wider society (vs. Wikipedia) this was historically compounded by Soviet propaganda for Soviet reasons. There does seem to have been a lot of PoV pushing on Wikipedia over the years, ironically not so much by the people currently blaming each other for this. I've been adding in some facts but most of the search results I am getting are from the Lithuanian archives, and some of them contradict sources published by the Polish archive IPN. Other editors might reasonably ask the due weight question of why Lithuanian archives would be any more reliable than the Polish. (The short answer is legislation, but that is also an incomplete answer.)

For context, sources discuss Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, German and Jewish versions of events, with occasional mentions of Lativa, Estonia, Byelorussia and Finland on specific points.

• Is there some Polish equivalent to the French Gallica or BNF that I could go to directly? I figure a librarian might know that, and I am having trouble Googling "Polish narrative" since it isn't so much that I want results in Polish as that I want results that show the reasoning/rationale behind certain assertions by the Polish government under the Soviets. I would prefer English but Polish or another language would be ok. I can expand on this if the request doesn't seem clear.

• I would also be interested in any suggestions for German or Hebrew archives. In particular, maybe the Germans have records/summaries/cites about whether a given unit was in fact a training unit on a certain day, which is a point of contention. One article I am looking at claims, with a cite to IPN, that this unit committed a massacre, whereas evidence given by former Lithuanian archivist Bubnys says (simplifying) that the 258th wasn't ever part of the Holocaust, and that this was the 12th and 13th. I've confirmed the part about the 12th and 13th elsewhere, and I haven't yet verified the IPN source or put in enough effort on that specific source to declare it unverifiable, but that's an open issue and saying "on the one hand the Polish say this but the Lithuanians on the other hand say that" would be more useful if it were possible to bring in German or some other records. I've had a little success with French, just because I speak it, but the people who were actually involved should be represented before we go there, no?

• On the Hebrew side, there seems to have been little attention paid in the Wikipedia Lithuanian Holocaust articles to the cultural losses in Kaunas, which should be documented if possible. It was the seat of a certain school of Talmudic interpretation, one source said, for example, which sounds important. Naturally the loss to scholarship is dwarfed by the wholesale slaughter, but it seems to me that due weight requires more than the years-long wrangling we currently have on Wikipedia about whether certain given collaborators were also war criminals. Vilnius similarly seems to have had its own separate and vibrant Jewish history, but I gather that Lithuanian society was culturally segregated and consisted of parallel worlds. Perhaps you know someone who would be interested in tracking that down for a larger article? Right now though I am struggling to put together 2-3 sentences about how immense the cultural losses were in the genocide also.

Even more long-term, the Russian disinformation and minimization of Jewish identity deserve a separate article.

But the short-term goal is just to at least disambiguate and un-conflate the various incarnations of the Resistance, the militias and the German administration.

Thanks for reading, any suggestions that you may have would be very welcome Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby and thanks for your interest in Holocaust topics. I had to stop working on article improvements in mid-June 2016 when we got the CopyPatrol interface working. Looking after the CopyPatrol queue consumes almost all my editing time, with maintenance of my watchlisted stuff consuming the remainder. So Schutzstaffel (April 2016) was my final big GA project. While I was working on that suite of articles, I had to restrict myself to sources that are available at my local library or through inter-library loan (which only extends to books on hand in participating libraries in Alberta). I did buy a small number of books too. I don't have access to archives or anything like that, and locating content on Lithuania via interlibrary loan would be problematic without titles of books to look for. — Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

ok. I just thought you might know something I don't about archives in the region. Appreciate the reply. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Bill Buchanan (computer scientist) and quotations

Hi Diannaa, I wondered if you could have a look at Bill Buchanan (computer scientist). It has several long quotations from the subject of the article, and although they are referenced, I am wondering if this is excessive use of non-free content. Hope you can advise - many thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do think it's excessive but I don't have the time or inclination to clean it up tight now. Certainly commentary about how wonderful if is to live in Edinbugh and similar remarks can come out. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a start and will come back to it. Tacyarg (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy New Year! — Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

CopyPatrol is down

I have filed a Phab ticket — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T354145
Resolved

Happy New Year, Diannaa!

Happy New Year!

Diannaa,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy new year! — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Dawood.XV (talk · contribs)

requests unblocking at UTRS appeal #82193. OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No, not okay to unblock. The user was only unblocked for 13 days before copyright violations resumed. Then they apparently started socking to add more copyvio. They appear to now be subject to a checkuser block by Yanla and a 3X ban. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dawood.XV/Archive — Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Diannaa,
Wishing you a Happy New Year filled with joy, success, and the satisfaction of knowing that your contributions make a lasting impact. With sincere gratitude,
–RV (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! Happy new year! — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for feedback.

Thanks for you feedback on my talk page. I'll admit Copyright isn't something I've dealt with much before. I'm treating it is a learning experience!

Ref the removed material, the domain from which I obtained the document has the following copyright statement: "With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence." (https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c) Th document from which I quoted is freely available on the site (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/practice5/Copy_of_1stpractice#prelim) (although the reference I used actually refers to a consolidated version of the document available on another site) and the website owner is the original copyright owner.

Would that mean that the quote it is ok to use, from the perspective of copyright? (I'll admit the quote isn't brilliant from other perspectives - but for the purposes of legal requirements?). Erskine8 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Erskine8. That's a good question. Actually, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence is not a compatible license, because it doesn't allow derivative works or commerical use, and our license allows both those things. It was not a quotation, because the passage did not have quotation marks. — Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)