User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Probable copyvio

Hi Diannaa, I am seeking your advice on a specific copyright infridgement issue. I have just delisted Crusading movement (a GA nominated by Norfolkbigfish) for several reasons, including repeated copyright violations. Close paraphrasing and plagiarism were detected in almost every version of the article. As far as I can remember, first time I indicated close paraphrasing two years ago ([1]). AirshipJungleman29 also detected such issues: [2]. During the FAC review AirshipJungleman29 specifically raised copyright issues, and Norfolkbigfish said that he was "expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue" [3]. Unfortunatelly, Norfolkbigfish proved wrong as during the FAC review I found several examples of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, and an other reviewer Jens Lallensack confirmed some of my finds [4]. The FAC was closed, I opened a GAR, and during the process I realised that even texts revised by Norfolkbigfish contain close paraphrasing ([5]). I turned to you because I do not know what to do. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a fairly common piece of WP bullying from @Borsoka. His standard MO for articles he doesn't like is to bombard them with comments/changes/tags until all other editors lose the will to live. While he has commendable engagement and energy he seems unable or unwilling to work in a consensual way if anyone disagrees. I was working through the article amending any violations that were identified, as he knows well. But because he and I disagreed on some content he nominated at GAR solely and then failed it himself.

Any violations identified will be rectified immediately It was obvious how this would end so I raised at WP:ANI, now closed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I will not comment on Norfolkbigfish ad personam remarks here. They know they may be in big trouble for persistent plagiarism. I also suggested them that they should also review "their" other articles, such as House of Plantagenet and House of Lancaster from copyright perspective. Borsoka (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Borsoka. My suggestion is to list the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems where the article would be examined and further copyright cleanup can take place if necessary.

Hey @Norfolkbigfish, please don't come to my talk page to diss people. I ignore such remarks and form my own opinions based on my own observations. — Diannaa (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies @Diannaa, won't happen again Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Islamic views on sin

Is this version ok?[6]. I will be taking this editor to ANI at some point, still doesn't understand the need to source their text despite multiple warnings. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been lightly paraphrased, but still shows the same content in the same order. So my opinion is that it's still copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. I've been reviewing their edits and find it hard to find any good ones. And they seem to be doing a lot of editing. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

CopyPatrol has stopped, but..

CopyPatrol has stopped, because Turnitin is down for maintenance. Check https://turnitin.statuspage.io/ for updates. — Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Service has resumed — Diannaa (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism vs Antisemitism

Hi there. It is now more accepted to use Antisemitism instead of the outdated 'Anti-semitism'. The latter was a term created as a pseudo-scientific explanation for the hatred of Jews, often associated with the Nazi ideology of racial classification (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/spelling-antisemitism / https://www.adl.org/spelling-antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism). Additionally, due to antisemitic vandalism, it is often locked pages (such as the Hitler page) in which this correction is needed. Thanks. 81.108.69.245 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Many of our WWII articles use British spelling and words (petrol, lorry for example). The British spelling variant is anti-Semitism. Preferences like this are impossible to enforce site-wide, so please consider opening a talk page discussion on any page you would like to see changed and try to gain consensus for that individual page. — Diannaa (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Whilst i appreciate the sentiment, this is incorrect. The accepted spelling in the UK is now antisemitism. It is not a preference, it is correcting the historic practice of justifying jew hatred as a scientific practice. Please see an article in the Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-the-way-we-spell-antisemitism-is-as-important-as-how-we-define-it-0j3txpc02) and from a UK Jewish charity (https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2021/04/22/antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism-why-we-dont-include-a-hyphen). I understand its not possible to enforce sitewide but I update it whenever i come across it, but obviously cant do that for the Hitler page. 81.108.69.245 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Please consider opening a talk page discussion on any page you would like to see changed and try to gain consensus for that individual page. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Next time please ask

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

You could have asked me, and I could have simply removed the verbiage. I was trying to save a work by someone else. Again ... you should have asked first. It would have been easier. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical. There's still 50 reports remaining to assess from yesterday (April 20) and there's no time or policy based reason to ask permission before removal of copyright takes place. — Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, the good thing about Wikipedia is that we can revert mistakes. The article has been restored. I now have an "In use" notice at the top, and am working on a revision in my personal space. I'm determined to get this article into decent shape. And on we march ... — Maile (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised to see that at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship that you say I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either; there's no such thing as "personal space" on Wikipedia; it's all public, available to be viewed by anyone anywhere in the world, and our copyright policy applies there, just like it does in mainspace. I am surprised that you, an administrator since 2016, do not seem to be aware of these facts. — Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't know why you say the article has been restored; it was never deleted. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Links to some existing articles and drafts are red at CopyPatrol

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T363089
Resolved

Patrollers please be aware that some drafts and articles are redlinked at CopyPatrol even though they exist. Please don't automatically mark as "No action needed"; check them in the usual way. This problem is likely due to replication lag, whatever that means! Tracked at Phab report T363089. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Replication lag is a delay in replicating changes in the wiki's database to Wikimedia Cloud Services, where we host CopyPatrol. It is usually due to database maintenance. You can use toolforge:replag to check how much lag there is. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

OK cool JJMC89. Always happy to learn new things :) — Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Irish in Britain Representation Group

Please reinstate our page forthwith. As we made clear on the page ALL the material on the page is our copyright and taken from our archives, most of which are in paper form; minutes, reports, etc , and have been deposited in archives eg Working Class Movement Library. . The page on the Anarchist Federation blog was copied from IBRG articles.. https://www.anarchistfederation.net/40th-anniversary-of-radical-irish-community-organisation-the-irish-in-britain-representation-group/ These are the originals posted by Bernadette Hyland - IBRG member- on her blog Lipstick Socialist. https://lipsticksocialist.com/history-of-the-irish-in-britain-representation-group/ She also wrote the Wikipedia page. We hope that that this makes the position on this page clear. BFCHyland (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Nobody was paid for writing the page. 2. If we don't write about our organsation , who else is going to? Are we supposed to wait for 20 or 30 years until some academic deigns to notice us? We think not... 3. The whole point of the page is to share knowledge, which we thought was the point of Wikipedia 4. How we can contravene copyright by publishing our own material. This makes no sense whatsover. 5. Please reinstate our page today. 6 If not please escalate our complaint to whatever is the next level..

BFCHyland (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.

While Wikipedia's purpose is indeed to share knowledge, we have guidelines and policies in place that determine what we publish. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which will help you determine whether or not the organization qualifies for a Wikipedia article. — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Tools you use....

Hi thank you for warning me about a copyright issue and removing my narrative. You provided me with some direction of Wiki policies on the copyright issue, but I can not find a couple important items; Can you please provide the link to the tool online you are using to determine plagiarism; and please provide how you verify something is copyright protected? These two items are a little vague and I am sure some sources which claim to be copyright protected actually have no copyright at all. Is this determined subjectively by yourself or is there an actually cross reference to a copyright granted made by the source? Thank you for your help and good work on wiki! Geraldine Aino (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, all 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. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Works of the UK Government and the Australian government are often but not always released under license. There's no subjective determination; if it's not explicitly released under a compatible license or the public domain, or in the public domain due to being really old, we have to assume that it's copyright and that we can't copy it to Wikipedia.

This article is also available here. If you scroll down to the bottom of that page you will see the licensing information: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License. That's not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use or derivative works, and our license does. There's a list of compatible licenses at WP:Compatible license.

The CopyPatrol system checks all edits over a certain size using a plagiarism detection service called Turnitin. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is a popular comparison tool developed by Wikipedian Ben Kurtovic. We use it to compare Wikipedia articles with material found online. It works on many but not all types of web content. When in doubt (or if the source document is inaccessible to me or invisible to Earwig's tool) I use the reports generated by Turnitin. — Diannaa (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Geraldine Aino (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Julie Ragbeer

Hi! My name is Avery, and I want to ask you about the process for reinstating a Wikipedia page that has been deleted. My friend Julie Ragbeer was recently covered by several entertainment news outlets including Yahoo and Interview Magazine when a promoted Tweet / “X” post about her music went viral. Fans made a Wikipedia page, but we believe some people mass-reported it, and the page was reviewed and deleted. Julie is notable and has a large following now, and is deserving of having a page that people can learn about her career and music. Could you please reinstate it? Thank you in advance for any help you can provide! Averyjoanfaust (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The page was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Ragbeer. I am the third administrator you have asked. Please stop asking random admins to reinstate the page. We are all very familiar with the deletion process and will all give you the same answer: she's not notable enough as defined by Wikipedia for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time. If you disagree with the consensus reached as a result of that discussion, the place to go is Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yoda copyright

Hi, I noticed you removed content from the Yoda page due to copyright issues. Here's my question: in the page's edit history, why are all my edits crossed out instead of treated like edits that are reverted? I was hoping to go back to those edits and harvest some content that didn't violate copyright, but I can't access those earlier revisions. Also, some edits that didn't violate copyright are also crossed out, but haven't been reverted. I'm confused. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Edits that are crossed out have been redacted and "Revision deleted" removed from the public gaze. This is done to all revisions where copyright items appear. It is done to limit the damage done to Wikipedia's reputation by those who add copyright material which is unlicensed for use here by editors. Please refer to Wikipedia:Revision deletion for fullest information. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflewombat I failed to alert you of this reply. Now I have done so 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Why did you reply, instead of Diannaa? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I was at the gym. — Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Could you explain why you removed some content that didn't violate copyright, and why you redacted at least one edit that didn't violate copyright? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the part that you already restored? It's too closely paraphrased from the source. Source says:

Yoda was a legendary Jedi Master and stronger than most in his connection with the Force. Small in size but wise and powerful, he trained Jedi for over 800 years, playing integral roles in the Clone Wars, the instruction of Luke Skywalker, and unlocking the path to immortality.

Your version:

Yoda was a Jedi Master who was stronger than most with the Force. Standing 0.66 meters (2.2 ft) tall, Yoda trained Jedi for over 800 years and played an integral role in the Clone Wars. His last apprentice was Luke Skywalker. Yoda's species and homeworld have never been named in any official Star Wars media.

Overlapping material is shown in Bold.

To answer your question about revision deletion: 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. — Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll fix the part I restored so there is less or no overlap (and I will provide citations). There were other portions that I didn't think were violations, but since they've been redacted I can't show them to you. It's okay though, we can forget about it. But I'm wondering, why didn't you flag the page and then send me a quick note about the copyright issues? I would have been happy to remove/fix the copyrighted content, but now I have to rebuild the section from scratch. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but since there's only a handful of people working on copyright cleanup and a high volume of cases to be assessed each day, discussion of each individual violation is not practical. Right now, there's currently 108 potential violations at CopyPatrol to assess, and I am hoping to get through the 34 remaining from yesterday before the hockey game starts at 8:30 MDT. — Diannaa (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Of course it's perfectly okay to say "Yoda was a Jedi master" or "Ryan Gosling is an actor" or similar. That said, stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from. — Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and advice. I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into Wikipedia 🙂 Wafflewombat (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal

@Diannaa Hi! I was wondering why my revisions on the Ghaznavid campaigns in India were deleted? I only added sources (where it said citations needed), and wondering how it would be a copyright vio? Noorullah (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a paragraph of text copied inside your citation. Was it intended as a quotation? It was not marked as such. — Diannaa (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa Really? I can't recall adding anything outside of citations or for a quote. If so, completely my mistake. Noorullah (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The added prose was inside the citation. — Diannaa (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Inside the citation? As in for a quote parameter? Sorry, I still haven't wrapped my head around what you mean. Noorullah (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa I see now that you have unhidden the revision. Honestly I can't say I ever remember adding that in, so I can't say it was even intended as a quote. Noorullah (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is what I removed. Was this intended as a quote? or was it an accidental copypaste? Why was it not in the |quote= field of your citation template if it was intended as a quote? — Diannaa (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was just an accidental copypaste in this regard, sorry. Noorullah (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice please

(If you're busy, just let me know and I can go and bother somebody else)

I came across this article Acapulco Chair, that seemed to be a copyvio. I tagged it for deletion, and then I saw the user who had made it and, given their extensive editing history, was surprised and went to look further. Turns out it was just an unattributed translation from esWiki that somebody had already machine translated. However, when I was looking into that, I checked their editing history and a few articles they've made, and after glancing at the Spanish-language sources, it seems like there's a few cases of way-too-close paraphrasing/copyvios on both of them. (Draft:Tortitas de papa/the duplicateTortita (Mexican food) from here and Pescado a la talla from here)

Now I'm wondering if maybe I've missed something, or if I'm seeing something that's not there. I'd really like a second opinion GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @GreenLipstickLesbian and thank you for your interest in copyright cleanup. I have cleaned the copyright material from both pancake pages and warned the user. Deleted the Pescado a la talla. Thank you for the report. Hopefully it stops here — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No, thank you for doing all the cleaning-up on those pages! Hopefully it does actually stop here; I'll go back and check their other contributions just to be on the safe side. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific 3

Hi I ran across this draft and was going to develop it, but realized it seemed lifted from a book or another source. It failed my copyright tester. Can you please check it? Thank you! Geraldine Aino (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a copy of the deleted article Canadian Pacific 3, which was deleted on April 17, 2024 as copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ben_Sorensen

Hi Diannaa this article also failed copyright, and also seems to be put on the mainspace by a new user. I also seems to be an article whos draft was deleted previously. How do we deal with these issues so I don't bother you? Geraldine Aino (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The deleted version was about an Augstralian broadcaster, so that article is unrelated to the one that was recently created. Regarding "failed copyright", I assume that you found substantial overlap with material elsewhere online? Could you please be more specific? I am not seeing it.

For general advice on what to do when you discover copyright issues, see Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101. — Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa but we can disregard. Another admin apparently found the deleted draft and removed (or moved) the article out of the mainspace. Thanks again for your assistance! Geraldine Aino (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Help needed at CopyPatrol

Hello copyright patrollers, we currently have 73 reports at CopyPatrol that need to be assessed. Assistance would be much appreciated! Pinging some recent contributors as shown on the Leaderboard: DanCherek, GreenLipstickLesbian, Ymblanter, Isochrone, L3X1, and JJMC89. 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) 00:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

thumbsup: ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A big thank you to those who have stepped up to help clear the cases! You are awesome. — Diannaa (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you clean, please?

Hi Diannaa I started off dealing with this user as a COI on the Mark Leonard Winter article, doing a quick morning review of notifications on my tablet, before seeing that they had added similar waffly prose to Lotta Crabtree. I reverted both changes and put a note on the talk page, but then realised that the changes probably need hiding, as there's a fair bit of copyvio in them. Can you please do what needs to be done? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I found the copyvio on Lotta Crabtree but Mark Leonard Winter does not seem to be copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. What about this? (source) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for the helpful link. — Diannaa (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for that. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi, you were listed as someone who knows about copyright. If you have some spare time, would you please help us over at Talk:Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant. I am having the weirdest conversation ever. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The first example (the cadet's anecdote): Grant was born in 1822 and would have been 17 in 1839, the year that he and is fellow cadets were at West Point. So the fellow who made the remark would be long dead in 1956, the year the article appeared in Sports Illustrated. So where did the author of the article get the quote? I think it needs to come out, regardless of the copyright issue, unless it can be confirmed in some way that the fellow actually made these remarks. It should definitely not be in the article as though it was verifiable fact; at this point it's just an anecdote from Sports Illustrated, written 117 years after the fact.

Examples 2 and 3 are sourced to web pages of the US National Park Service, US Dept of the Interior, and are therefore are public domain, so that prose is okay to use, as long as attribution is given. This is typically done by including the template {{source-attribution}} as part of the citation. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Copy vio and predatory

Hi Diannaa, This article section appears to be a copy violation, copied directly from this predatory source. Regards CV9933 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

Hi Diannaa. I don't believe we've crossed paths before, but I have a couple questions. You indefinitely semi-protected this article 12 years ago with no prior history of protection. The reason given says persistent vandalism. Okay, that's a valid protection reason, but indefinitely? I'm not an administrator so I only have so much input here, but isn't an immediate indef, you know, not protocol? Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right? Isn't indefinite protection as the log's first entry a little overkill? I'm sorry if I smack of accusation, I don't mean to attack your actions, but I'm just trying to make things add up. mftp dan ^oops 23:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am removing the protection. It was a long time ago and is likely no longer needed. Please visit RFPP if/when protection needs to be reinstated. — Diannaa (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)