User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Alexander Tetelbaum

Hi Dianna,

I think that page "Alexander Tetelbaum" was deleted by mistake. This page exists for more than 20 years and has true info and supporting links.

I made minor changes around 4/24, when I added a newly published book "Executive Director". Until 10/29 it was no issues with this addition.

I think I accidentally triggered some issues when on 10/29, I tried to add a new page " 'Executive Director' Book". On this page, I had 2 references: 1--to "Alexander Tetelbaum" page and 2--to the book "Executive Director" (at Amazon).

I would highly appreciate it if you restored the deleted page. Sorry if I cause any trouble.

Best regards, Natalie Heroux. 2601:644:8181:930:B061:CD45:30FE:2343 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I checked carefully and found that all the content was copied from their biography at Amazon, right back to the creation of the article in 2007. If you want to try again please consider starting the article in draftspace, as there were notability issues as well (though I did not delete it for that reason). See Wikipedia:Drafts for details on how to create a draft. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In 2007, Dr. Alexander Tetelbaum did not publish anything on Amazon and the page had no links to Amazon.

There is no Amazon infrigenmrnt rights on the page. The book ("executive director was published and the linked added about 6 months ago).

The page has no images and text from Amazon. The content could not be copied from Amazon--it was created meny years before any content on Amazon. Almost 20 years it was no issues with notability!

Please check and restore the page. Nheroux (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but since the content is a match for material present at Amazon, I have to err on the side of caution and remove it from Wikipedia as a likely violation of our copyright policy. Since you've checked with me and I have twice refused to restore the page (as well as had another admin refuse to restore it when you asked on your talk page), your next option is to post at WP:Deletion review.--Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dianna,

I clicked WP:Deltion review, but the page is very complecated--I had no clue where I could provide my complaint. I would appreciate if you pass my letter to the review:

I ask you to consider restoring the page "Alexander Tetelbaum" as being deleted without fair justification by Diannaa.

Initially, the reason for deletion was that the page had infringed Amazon copyrights. Namely, had an image and text about the book "Executive Director". The page never had this staff--only a reference to the book.

Later, Diannaa changed the reason and stated the similarities between the page and Amazon's Author BIO. Yes, the two BIO's are similar and it must be expected--if they had been different it would mean that one of them or both are incorrect. Also, this BIO is not the property of Amazon and got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia.

Also, Dianna questioned notability. Alexander Tetelbaum was the founding President of the first Jewish University in Ukraine, the author of 20 books, and dozens more achievements.

It took 5 seconds to delete the page and now Dianna suggested resubmitting the page--and this is 40-50 hours of work. There is also a difference in that the original page was created in 2007 vs. a possible new one.

This does not look right when one person can make such decisions and constantly change the reason for deletion. In case of resubmission, it can be also rejected taking into account that we are not happy with how Dianna handled this issue and we are afraid of retaliation.

I honestly do not see any serious arguments to remove the page with 17 history, fully true, and all facts are supported by multiple references. I do not want to speculate, but the page was deleted soon after Dr. Tetelbaum published his book "Executive Director" which had some criticism of Wikipedia. Also, he recently published a joke on X and Truth websites where Wikipedia was mentioned among other organizations.

To conclude, I ask you to restore the page and if you see any issues, we will fix them. Thanks for your consideration.

Respectfully, Natalie Heroux (nheroux) Nheroux (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have posted it as requested. Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You can read the results here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 13. Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

fair use, or PD unmet threshold of originality

I see you marked it as fair use. I've seen bland logos like this often marked as PD of below threshold of originality. Care to comment on this? File:Ctglogo.jpg Graywalls (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Which logo are you talking about? A link would be great. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ctglogo.jpg Seems like just lettering and a partial circle around it wouldn't pass "threshold of originality", so shouldn't this be PD? Graywalls (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks okay. The original 2007 upload will have to remain hidden though, as it is a different, more elaborate logo. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Help needed at CopyPatrol (3)

Hello everybody. We currently have about 105 items in the queue at CopyPatrol. I need some helpers please. Pinging some recent participants: The4lines, GreenLipstickLesbian, Compassionate727, DanCherek, Ymblanter, L3X1, and Asilvering. Any interested talk page watchers could do a few cases as well! Please stop by and help, even if you only have time to clear a few cases. Thank you very much! — Diannaa (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Pings may not have worked. Re-sending:The4lines, GreenLipstickLesbian, Compassionate727, DanCherek, Ymblanter, L3X1, and Asilvering-- -- Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to those who helped clear the backlog. It allowed me time to do wacky things like taking a 7-hour break from Wikipedia lol. Right now there's a free showing of Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 11/9 on You Tube-- -- Diannaa (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism.

Greetings. I see you tagged the article for long quotations. Guilty as charged. I just want to point out that such a controversial subject may require long quotations. For example, when I read the titles of the articles about Madeleine Albright's book, I though she had plainly said Trump is no fascist, but the reviewers disagreed with her. It took reading all the articles to realize that is not exactly the case, and that some of the events she said would make her to declare Trump a fascist have come to pass - but not exactly as she expected (Covid, Ukraine, inflation?). Could I convey the subtlety of a diplomat's words better than Ms. Albright herself? In the other cases, are bare titles enough to make the content understandable and their value appreciable? Specially when the main argument of the editors who want to delete the article is that the sources are mere attacks or opinions? Maykiwi (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Quotations don't make for engaging prose. Our readers are not going to read material hidden in the citations. Your article should be prepared with our readers in mind, not to protect it from deletion at AFD. You could remove the quotations from material readily available online. For example, you've copied the abstract from a journal article. Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ned Lamont

Ned Lamont has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Great Seal of the State of Kansas Colored.svg

Hi, I suspect copyvio here, but am not really a specialist in this area, so I'd appreciate highly if you could have a look at this. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to make a version of a seal or crest using the original blazon. If you look at the seals in the "other versions" section, they are all pretty much the same.--Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyright

Copyright Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I definitely don’t want to steal copyright from the North Sydney Bears. I was a bit surprised about copyright, I just want evidence it was copyright please Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Song lyrics are always copyright, and we're not allowed to include them. Sorry, Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Article improvement suggestion

Hello @Diannaa. Your article is a great start! To make it even better, consider adding more references to reliable sources. This helps verify the information and improves the article's quality. Check out this Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for more details. Wyatt playz 32 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Pentathlon (film)

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Pentathlon (film)? IP accounts show up every now and that to re-add about of stuff that might be a copyvio because it always has a copyright notice added at the very end. The latest IP showed up not earlier today and re-added the same content. Reverting it is no problem per se, but that just moves it to the page history which still might be a problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly and thanks for the report. I was unable to locate the source document online but I agree it's likely copyvio so I have removed it and semi'd the article for a while. I will watch-list it as well so that if the problem resumes when the protection wears off I will see it right away. Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for checking out this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Bihar School of Yoga

Hi @Diannaa, I noticed that on July 21st you reverted changes made to Bihar School of Yoga page citing "remove copyright content copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20201030171539/https://sites.google.com/site/yogaposeunli/kundaliniyoga". The page you cited is dated October 2020. However the text that you said had a copyright violation, was actually added to the Swami Satyananda Saraswati page on 8 Dec 2019 as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satyananda_Saraswati&oldid=929851837. So the site you referenced is not the original source of the text and seems like they copied the text from the page Swami Satyananda Saraswati. Given the text originates on Wikipedia, it seems it would be ok from a copyright perspective to have it on the Bihar School of Yoga page given that it is directly related to Swami Satyananda. What do you think? SourabhJ (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SourabhJ and thank you for discovering this. I have fixed it. Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

CopyPatrol has stopped

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T380140
Resolved

I have filed a Phab ticket.--Diannaa (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Resolved--Diannaa (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about Copyright

Hi @Diannaa I noticed your edit on the 1657 Ottoman campaign in Palestine recently. I had some question regarding this. I see all my edits on the 16th of November is slashed copyright. Saying the following;

content copied from https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft896nb5pc;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print

What was the copyright violation specifically in this case so i can be more aware of it in the future? I remember quoting a specific historian his comment and using it as a direct source. And in the few instances of usage of this source I tried to reword its contents to avoid a situation of copyright.

Was the issue here my usage of this above book as a source itself? Or was it that my article text was considerd not differenciating enough from the original ?

I'd appreciate it and thank you in advance ! Imteghren (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I have temporarily undone the reveision deletion so you can assess via Earwig's tool. There was one passage marked as a quotation, but most of it was not. I didn't removed the "Legacy" section but I paraphrased and removed some so that it would better comply with our copyright policy. Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

• News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases

• In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names

• Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024

• Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding Wikizilla text on Wikipedia. The thread is Wikizilla. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, commented Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio Toronto Downtown Dingos

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of potential copyright content in the 'History' section that was added August 7, 2024. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thanks for the report. Diannaa (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 source 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)