User talk: Diannaa

There are currently 63 open reports at CopyPatrol. Purge

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

User:2.9.234.195 and copyvios

I am concerned that the id editor that added copyright material at Palpal bulb, which you removed, has used the same source and approach elsewhere. See Special:Contributions/2.9.234.195. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The sources are in French. I am not seeing anything in spot checks. I doubt this would be a reliable source though. The bibliography shows it is all self-sourced. Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree about the acceptability of the source, which anyway the editor doesn't properly reference. I think the edits could all legitimately be reverted. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

1 Feb

Hi, Diannaa, how are you? – well, I hope? Not sure, but I think you may have misplaced an 'article cleaned' note here – it looks as if you've cleaned this, while this still needs to be processed – or, at this point, perhaps deleted? I've taken the liberty of returning that day to the listings page. Regards, thanks for all the endless good stuff you do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, Jlan. I cleaned Shaun Allen's farm, not the listing below, and actually did not notice there were two listings on the page for some reason.

P.S. Thanks for the wellness check, we are all a little frozen here due to a final and extreme cold snap (it better be final). So I blame Environment Canada. Rick Mercer weather report Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Quotefarm?

I'm on the fence regarding Draft:S.A. Rauf, as edited by experienced editor @Soman:.

I'm bringing this up because these edits have triggered five reports to CopyPatrol.

In favor of treating these edits is acceptable:

• All of the copyrighted text appears to be enclosed in quotation marks and many (possibly all, too many to check) are attributed

I've written a number of articles, far fewer than this editor, but my general approach bears some resemblance to the approach by this editor (I go out to a number of relevant sources, and collect relevant excerpts to help organize my thoughts) with one important distinction — I do that work in an off-line editor, not in Wikipedia space. However, my personal preference for how to start an article hardly constitutes a rationale for disagreeing with this editor's approach.

That said, it is generally accepted Wikipedia protocol to allow exact copies of copyrighted text when the passages are:

• Reasonably brief
• Identified as quotations with quotation marks or block quotes
• Passages that are better delivered as quotations rather than as paraphrase

The first two of these items are also required by copyright law while the third is more of a Wikipedia guideline.

We would not accept a final article with a Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM. Does that make it okay in draft space?

I realize draft space is not supposed to be searchable by the outside world. I don't really think the copyright holders are going to bring an action against Wikipedia for this usage but I'm not convinced we would prevail if such an action were taken which leaves me very uneasy.

Your thoughts? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The number and length of quotations in this draft is pretty extreme. I suggust you recommend to this person that they do this preliminary work offline. It's a violation of our non-free content guideline to paste all these quotes onto our website where there's other alternatives. The guideline does not make an exception for draftspace or sandboxes. Diannaa (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)