User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Andreas Papandreou

You removed much more than supposed/alleged copyrighted material and effectively derailed the effort to bring reliability to WP. Andreas Papandreou was a very polarizing figure, with fierce loyalists and critics. Before my changes, there was a misuse of references to the point of creation. Even now, there is still a lot of material that needs to be rewritten in order to bring it in alignment with printed sources. My effort was to organize any possible bibliography and be as faithful to the sources as possible to avoid biased interpretations (just check the changes made since [1]) If this faithfulness caused copyright concerns, please allow me to focus on these troubled sentences. I know that copyright is really bad, but having WP spreading untruths is just as bad, if not worse. Again, I apologize for the trouble, but I think this can be saved by concentrating on rewriting rather than deleting significant effort altogether.A.Cython (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.Cython (talk page watcher) seriously?

As long as you do not introduce any copyright errors and as long as you provide references, just sort it out. Please don;t hector other editors. No-one "effectively derailed the effort to bring reliability to WP" except those who put material that was inappropriate into the article the first place. Your tone is bordering on WP:INCIVIL and requires amelioration. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, I apologize; I am only trying to understand the action so that it is not repeated. Removing two whole sections (one of which had three subsections) based on numerous reliable sources for a few sentences of one source that I am still trying to pinpoint seemed excessive, especially in this controversial topic; strangely/coincidentally enough, the removed sections were also the most negative connotation of Andreas. I suspect that the administrators see this problem repeatedly, and at some point, you just apply the rules irrespectively to the situation; if this is the case, I understand this course of action. All I am asking is how to fix this issue and save the amount of work done, as I have never been accused of copyright violation. For example, do I reintroduce the (updated) text back to the main article, or do I need to do this on the talk page until I get the ok from the administrator? Is there a tool that I can use to spot the troubled material? How much can I change a sentence till it is not considered a copyright violation? I will not talk on this page here again; my intention was to get some feedback on how to resolve this situation. Again, I apologize. I meant no disrespect. A.Cython (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) This statement from you How much can I change a sentence till it is not considered a copyright violation? means you are trying to paste in copyrighted text and then adjust wording. This path is fraught with problems. This is considered a derivative work of a copyrighted source and result in close paraphrasing which is a copyright violation. I understand your desire to be faithful to what the source material states, but the best course of action is to write the material in your own words. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @A.Cython. I didn't actually remove any content at all; it's hidden behind the {{copyvio}} template. You can view the overlapping content using Earwig's tool. The case has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, which gives you at a minimum one week to undertake a rewrite of the copied content. Sometimes I do the rewrite myself, but I don't have time right now to tackle such an extensive and complicated one, so sorry. Please carefully read the instructions already in place on your talk page and let me know when you're ready for me to review your work. Diannaa (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and I apologize again if I was out of line, it was not my intention. I do not want to cause a copyright violation or write something that is derivative from a source. If I did, it was because I wanted to stick to the events as closely as possible. Given that it involves events, there are not many ways that one can describe them, which is why I rely on multiple sources. Also, note that I am not a native speaker, which further limits my ability to rewrite the description of these events in my own words. Given the collaborative effort of WP, I would have expected that, in the short or long run, others would slowly and steadily overwrite what I have done. I have to admit that I take pride in my contribution, not in what I write, but in searching and collecting all the reliable sources that I can find because, in the long run, it helps other editors who are far more experienced than me to improve an article further. At least this was my experience when I started editing in WP 15 years ago with the article of Eleftherios Venizelos (at that time, it did not even have sources [2]). Obviously, I misstepped somewhere, or the times changed since it has been years since I was heavily involved in WP. Anyhow, I have already created a temporary page where I am working on rewriting the material in question. The copyright tool is of great help in spotting the issues; thank you. That is what I needed to understand the problem! Of course, any help is welcomed.A.Cython (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.Cython {{two}} Be aware that you absolutely may not place copyright material anywhere on Wikipedia in order to work on it. If you have done so that is a grave error. I am not suggesting that you have done so. However, even in a transient manner it may not exist here. Everything must be in your own words at all ties unless material you use is onwardly licenced for you to use here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent, There's a special temporary page where items listed at WP:CP can be worked on, and it's not unusual for there to be copyright material in place there temporarily while the corrections are underway. That's what A.Cython is doing. The temporary page gets deleted as soon as the reworked material is moved into mainspace. Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.Cython It's been my experience that many articles, even popular ones that are edited frequently, may contain material unchanged for years on end. So please don't assume that someone will intentionally or unintentionally repair your copyright violations. Everything you add to Wikipedia should be copyright compliant right from the start (except in your temp page for the purpose of copyright cleanup like you are doing now). Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa I have been working (incrementally) on the troubled text for the past few days; see here for the latest version: [3]. Please let me know if what has been done is enough or, at the very least, whether I am on the right track. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am unable to check it at the moment as our main helper tool https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ is not working right now. Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I was able to perform a check after all, and I see that there's a few overlapping phrases that are okay to leave in. I am going to go ahead and move the new version into mainspace now. Thank you for you hard work getting this matter resolved. Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response. I will improve the article further with the tool you mentioned, it is very powerful/useful. I greatly appreciate this experience, even though I panicked when I first saw the template.A.Cython (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Quick question. In the article of Andreas Papandreou in the Political career, there are two templates of "more citations needed". Since I have made significant progress, is it ok for me to remove them? I include the version [4] of the article before my changes/additions. A.Cython (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Each paragraph should have at least one citation, and you've achieved that, so I think it's okay to remove the tags. Diannaa (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.A.Cython (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Counterpoint (Radio National) - Mass-deletion of ALL quotations (AND more) from individual citations (but not from article text?) - ??

Firstly, thank you for your extraordinary work on this project; it is just remarkable & exemplary. Meanwhile, re your edit of 11/July/2024 here, I hope you will accept my good-faith edit to restore the mass-deleted supporting quotations (and other supporting content) from the citations in this article. I originally included the quotations for the important dual purpose of simultaneously evidencing (I'm dubious about this neologism :-0) the legitimacy of the citation (& consequent article text), as well as providing a primary bulwark against link-rot, which I see as an appalling cancer attacking this project that must be tackled at every level. Unfortunately, the mass-deletion robs the article of all this. In addition, the mass-deletion also picked up some 'Editors notes' that I had written myself to further explain the relevance of the citations. So, since there is no edit summary to give a reason for the mass-deletion, am I correct in assuming that you see this as a copyright issue? Re this, if all these quotes were from the same source, it would be legitimate to view it as a possible copyright violation. However, all these quotes are from different sources and all are brief (& can be made briefer if absolutely necessary) so they are legitimate for inclusion in Wikipedia given the provisions for scholarly and study purposes that are allowed by both copyright law & Wikipedia policy. I note you left the quotation in the 5th section of the displayed article text, so there is general agreement here that quotations are legitimate & allowed. I hope we can continue to extend this to the important quotations and other content in the citations. Cheers! Bluevista99 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Counterpoint (Radio National)

Hello, I don't recall why the edit summary is missing from the edit. Sorry for not having added it. Typically the edit summary for such an edit would read "remove excessive non-free content, per Wikipedia:Non-free content". Basically, short quotations are okay, but only when necessary; adding excessive quotations is not a copyright violation but rather a violation of our non-free content guideline. In my opinion providing quotations from your citations is not necessary unless the material has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. A better way of protecting from link-rot is to include an archive link for your citations. See Wikipedia:Link rot.

I don't recall my reasoning removing your "editor's notes" but a good reason for doing so would be because you've in essence added unsourced content/original research in these notes. Editor's notes are not something we typically do. It would be a lot more appropriate to integrate the content into the article, assuming the material can be sourced. Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If you do want to add sourced content as an explanatory note, please don't include it in the |quote field of your citation. Instead, you could use the formatting available for explanatory notes. There's details on how to do it at Help:Explanatory notes. Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply as well as the suggestions, and I see that User:Wizardman has deleted all the quotations and editor's notes, so the status-quo you established has been restored. I can't say that I'm convinced that this is the best outcome for the article (or others), or the best policy prescription for Wikipedia to nail its colours to. Just on the issue of illustrating articles, when I see (& I can't be alone in this) all the articles with 2nd rate photos, or no photo at all (which is frighteningly common), because of the choking restriction that an overly rigid regime of insisting on "free content" leads to, I'm inclined to believe that the Wikipedia's policies should be relaxed to be more in line with the more liberating 'fair use' exemptions that are part of the Copyright regime. Something like that, which would also allow the embedding of quotations that provide immediate evidence for citations & provide and extra layer of defense against link-rot; these sort of things would genuinely help build an encyclopedia that is demonstrably better & more resilient. External archives are not perfect or impervious, as proven by the hacks of the Internet Archive as well as its court defeat re copyright.
No matter, at least this project will be purged of its multitude of sins when I gather my legions of minions to march upon the citadel of Wikipedia, breach the walls, smash down the last defenses of the castle keep, and storm the bed chamber of God Emperor Jimbo so that my lackeys may finally bind his bloated & pustulent carcass in irons and haul him to the precipice to hurl him from the battlements that he may meet his well-deserved fate below.
Yes! Yes! Glorious Revolution & Unfettered Anarchy; may they reign forever! DEUS VULT!! Mmwahahahahahahahahaha!!!
(Oops... maybe I got a bit carried away there). Meanwhile, have a delightful day :-). Cheers! Bluevista99 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Album track image fair use?

Hi, a file was recently added to Selected Ambient Works Volume II. It's not from the front cover, but the album liner. It's used because on the record the tracklisting uses images instead of words for track titles. Does it comply with fair use? Cambial — foliar❧ 15:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Since there are three paragraphs of discussion in the article about the various images used, I think it's okay. If you wish to (hopefully) generate more opinions you could ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I listened to part of the first track but had to shut it off, not my kind of thing lol. Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Where do I get the data box when creating an article for Wikipedia? Thanks. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 2008 Wiki X (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean the infobox! We have lots to choose from. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Since you are very new, I've added a collection of links to information for beginners to your user talk page. Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

About the article "Aghiyak Island (Alaska)"

I created an article on Wikipedia called "Aghiyak Island (Alaska)". For some reason, it seems that this article has been deleted. Please check if this article has been deleted or not! Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 2008 Wiki X (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't have an article by that title, and we have never had one at that title. I also checked Aghiyak Island and there's nothing there either. Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Excessive quotation by new user

Hi Diannaa, I hope all is well with you. I'm not sure how to deal with edits (12,230 bytes' worth) a new user has made to his talk page that appear to contain a good deal of copyvio in the form of excessive quotations. You, with your vast experience in such matters, are eminently qualified to assess them and act accordingly, so I'm pointing you to that page. This editor has also made good-faith edits to the ergine page that contain a lot of quotation from sources. They look okay to me, but you would be a better judge. Carlstak (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Carlstak. I have removed the non-free content from the editor's talk page and left them some info to help them get started. The quotes they've included in their citations on ergine are a lot but I see a lot worse, every day, so I left that part alone. Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. Carlstak (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Problems with "LilAhok"

I am having problems on Hirohito with an editor whom you are already familiar with, LilAhok. He/she stubbornly clings to their vision of how the page should look and fights me tooth-and-nail on nearly every single change to their preferred version (even when the result is grammatically inferior or suggestive of bias). With regards to the latter issue, said editor seems hell-bent on having the page represent that Hirohito was the mastermind behind Japanese wartime actions while casting arguments against said view as the byproduct of a whitewashing campaign by Japanese right-wingers and American occupation forces. In light of your interest in keeping such articles to an objective and professional standard, I thought you should know. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my edits. We brought our disagreement to the talk page, where two other editors joined the discussion. There was a thorough discussion, and I was not the one who made the edits to the article after the discussion. I never claimed he was the mastermind behind Japan's wartime actions. I've explicitly mentioned that the issue is still a subject of debate, as indicated in the introduction. LilAhok (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to settle content disputes. Please discuss on the talk page, and if you can't settle it there, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for what to do next. --Diannaa (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to Employment of autistic people has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia

thank you for your note. Could you please help me to find the "copyrighted material", that you found? As far as I know I paraphrase everything and added references. But I do not have the exact material, that you deleted.

Also, I believe we discussed this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use earlier. You told me, that Wikipedia follows the US Copyright Laws, which are actually more generous than the laws of any other country, when it comes to Fair Use or its equivalents. 1) "The single most important element of fair use" is whether the quotation would increase of decrease the sales of the original source. There is a good section about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use => 4. Effect upon work's value 2) The small quotations, that I always use, are more likely to prompt the reader to go read the original source to get a better understanding - i.e. to increase the sales of the cited work. 3) Also, I want to let you know, that the government documents in the USA (like the text of the US Constitution, the Acts of the Congress, patent documents, court decisions, and all work produced by government employees as a part of their job) can never been copyrighted. 4) Even in cases, when a copyright is violated in the US, the copyright holder cannot bring a lawsuit or claim damages without first demanding the copyrighted content is removed. Considering the last statement, can you explain the value of wiki's copy-patrol?

I also noticed, that you use the term plagiarism too broadly, even in the cases when the original source is acknowledged. Here is an good explanation of the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fair_use&action=edit&section=7

I am all for respecting the Law, but I do not want to decrease the quality of wiki-articles, when it is not necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs)

The passage you added cannot be considered to be a quotation, as there were no quotation marks. We don't base our copyright decisions on whether or not we are likely to get sued. When you add copyright material to Wikipedia, you are not only in violation of our copyright policy, but one of our foundational principles, the third one, which states "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute." Your last point, regarding plagiarism. The edit goes beyond plagiarism and is straight copying, as it is almost identical to the source. Source says:

These findings, applied to students with ASD in the realm of social competence, suggest that students with high-functioning ASD, including average to above average language and academic skills, may be a risk for having their social competence deficits attributed to lack of effort rather than lack of ability. Students with ASD who are lower functioning, with deficits in language and/or cognitive ability, may be more likely to have their social deficits attributed to lack of ability and their social successes attributed to effort.

Your addition:

Studies showed that students with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including average to above average language and academic skills, may be at risk for having their social competence deficits attributed to lack of effort rather than lack of ability. On the other hand, students with ASD who are lower functioning, with deficits in language and/or cognitive ability, may be more likely to have their social deficits attributed to lack of ability and their social successes attributed to effort.

Overlapping content is shown in Bold. You now have received seven warnings for violation of our copyright policy. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. --Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Office of the Special Prosecutor

I respect the Laws of wikipedia and work for this organisation and I am responsible for majority of edits on this page. This is a Security institution and the information placed on the page is owned by the Office . Majority of the content placed on the page was picked from our official website which was in effect referenced for readers to see the source. I humbly request that this information be reverted As soon as possible so as to no misinform the public. Vigilante eye 1 (talk) 13:54, 2 December 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 or have their permission, unless special documentation is 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. Please read the information about conflict of interest and paid editing on your user talk page.--Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Episode Synopses for "Hotel Portofino"

Wow, Diannaa, I just thought I was being helpful! I saw that there were no episode synopses beyond the third show of Season 1, so I merely copied what appears on PBS's web site. I didn't think they could have a problem with that but you are the expert, of course, so I am glad to see that you have removed them all. (Incidentally, I only thought of doing this after I finished the final season; what I should have done, I suppose, was to write my own synopses — that would be okay, no? — but I was too lazy to go back and replay the 15 missing episodes in order to do so.) This has been an eye-opener in a good way: I am impressed and reassured more than ever about the accuracy of Wikipedia information as a result of this experience. Thanks. Bru888 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. A lot of people don't know that Wikipedia doesn't accept copyright material, including plot summaries that are from official sources or places like IMDb. I hope you continue to edit and enjoy Wikipedia and hope to see you around in the future. Diannaa (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good work Rushabh.dev (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)