User talk: Diannaa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is 1:38 PM where this user lives in Alberta. (Purge)



Not all the content you deleted was blatantly copied.[edit]

I've reworded most content and was busy changing the table below, it wasn't just copying as you claimed. (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Korean mun. I carefully removed prose that was identical or almost identical to the source webpage, Some prose was left in place and some was parahrased. The tables are okay to keep. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
What you removed was mostly numbering, and I've carefully reworded most of the numbering, changed the style of dates for WP:MOS, Hardly copying copyrighted material. (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Literally only the numbering was identical, the rest was all reworded. (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Though the content you removed makes it seem like these coins were being produced continuously from the time of Sejong the Great which could confuse the readers, though I'm a bit more careful in phrasing the content I'll add back to the article for minimum overlap, and I'll add more references to quote for, even for content already referenced, if needed. 🔍 (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Attribution for content for hurricane preparedness from tropical cyclone tracking chart[edit]

Didn't I specifically note this in the 19:06 edit from yesterday? Or is there another hurdle/step for attribution? It was content I added to one article and then to the other. I was the editor in both cases. Forgive my confusion -- even though I've been editing here for 11 years, I haven't much during the past 2-3 years. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. I am not seeing any edits at 19:06 UTC yesterday by you on that or any other article. What am I missing? Note what we need is an edit summary on the destination article along the lines of "Attribution: content in this section was copied from Tropical cyclone on June 5, 2017. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comptroller of the Navy (Navy Board)[edit]

Hi Diannaa hope your well? I need some feedback I created this article Comptroller of the Navy (Navy Board) and have attributed copied content under the OGL V3 compatible licencee and provided the source however another editor has tagged the article and stated his reasons on my talk page here User_talk:Navops47#Ways_to_improve_Comptroller_of_the_Navy_.28Navy_Board.29 I have replied to them outlining my reasons for creating it and have improved the lead at the top to indicate its an article about a British naval role but does the tag need to stay in place any feedback would appreciated. --Navops47 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your feedback.--Navops47 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Gerry McKenna[edit]

Hi. Please re-review page to see if it passes muster now. I trimmed and rewrote as best I can at the moment. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to clean it up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bishop article[edit]

As to the copyright infringement in the Maurice Bishop article, if I change the wording and still include the notions would this violate the copyright; and if I am allowed to rephrase it would should I include the reference? Thanks for your help with this. Jzsj (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The material I removed appeared to be copied from the news article at , which actually was not cited as a reference. What you need to do is re-write the material in your own words and include the reference. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Double checking my work[edit]

Hello D. When I saw material being split off from the Akira Kurosawa article I made this edit and its summary and added this template to the talk page of the new article. I based those on the edits that you made after my post User talk:Diannaa/Archive 52#Move of material. Would you please double check that I have done things correctly and fix anything that needs it. I have also pinged you at the talk page of the editor that started the new page but I want to leave the details here as well. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD. The way you did it was perfect. Face-smile.svgDiannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Good to know and thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD|Talk 15:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

California Bureau of Investigation[edit]

Can you review this for copyright status. The text content was copied from here. It has a copyright symbol on the site but also claims public domain status. I've removed the rev del template but thought a review would be useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Outside observer. While the text may be public domain by that statement, it's still inappropriate for Wikipedia as it's non-NPOV primary source material. And I am also concerned about the images. They were uploaded to Commons instead of as local fair use, with a tag claiming "own work", when they are clearly not. I reverted them out of the article, leaving only the locally uploaded, tagged as fair use version of the logo. I don't know if they never essarily need to to be revdeled, but it's pretty clear that the user is not paying proper attention to copyright. oknazevad (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed on the text having no place on Wikipedia: copied text rarely does regardless of copyright status. The question is if we should revision delete it. Thanks for your assistance on the images. I'm much more familiar with text than I am image copyright. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The source web page is marked at the bottom as © 2017 DOJ so we have to assume that they mean it: The web page is copyright, and its contents cannot be imported to this wiki. The four images will be dealt with separately at the Commons; please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BI-Logo.png. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Was unsure what our policy was when there was conflicting data on the website. Taking the more conservative approach makes sense. Thanks for the second pair of eyes as always. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice on copyright problem on talk page[edit]

Hi Diannaa, thank you for bringing to my notice the copyright violation on my edit to the page Motilal Nehru College. I did not know expanding an article by copying information directly from the official website of the article in question is a violation of Wikipedia's content policy. I will be more careful anyway, and I hope I am not barred from anything, yet :) KakhoSimpson (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi KakhoSimpson. Thank you for your message. You are not banned or barred from anything at this point! The notice was informational and a warning. Many people are not aware when they first begin contributing here how strict we are about copyright! Happy editing, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


The other editor doesn't really seem to get the hint.★Trekker (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

So is there actually anything I can do about this or should I just leave them to make trash edits on a bunch of franchise articles?★Trekker (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. I only visited the pages to clean up the copyvio issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Copy right issue on Tali Shiva Temple[edit]

Hai Diannaa, thanks for bringing the issue of copy right on my edits in Tali Shiva Temple, will make necessary changes to answer the copy right issue. But please do not delete the article. Anilcalicut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilcalicut (talkcontribs) 07:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright on Onion[edit]

Diannaa - Yes, I had inadvertently pasted some notes from my scratch file on my external editor rather than my copy that was on another page. It was corrected within two minutes, but I understand why that shouldn't happen. I think that may be the first time it's happened in ten years. Theclevertwit (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)theclevertwit

Lurish dances problem[edit]

Dear diannaa,

Thanks for your attention to my edits in the page: Lurish dances. I did some edits and corrections on the added topics and I hope to be useful. BestSHADEGAN (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Khuzami BLP[edit]

Hello Diannaa,

Thank you for your message. Which part of the the article did you identify as being a copyright violation? I quoted a section of it, which I included in "quote" marks but not using blockquote Wiki markup. I can change that of course. I am more concerned if what I thought was rephrasing of the New York Times article was detected as being copy-paste. Please let me know what passage you were specifically referring to, and I will remediate the issue.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see now, from the difference logs on the article revision history! Okay, I will work on that now. Thank you!--FeralOink (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I am back. I don't know what was deleted because the deletion history was removed from public view. I don't remember what I wrote on those sections, since I spent most of the day learning and writing about Khuzami. That's okay, as the article flow still seems fine. I will just leave everything as is.--FeralOink (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem Hilton Schilder[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the copyright problem on the Hilton Schilder article. It goes to show how good google translate is. I used google translate to translate the German de:Hilton Schilder article. Clearly the German author of that article used Google translate to go from the english [] to German. I didn't even know that article existed. Wayne Jayes (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Site C dam[edit]

Hi, thanks for your info on my talk page User talk:VicGuy#Copyright problem on Site C dam. I appreciate your efforts and changes, but I don't think my own edits copied any copyrighted material - I take great pains to avoid that. The article looks good now, although I can't compare my edits to previous versions because the last year or so of changes are struck through. Thanks and cheers, VicGuy (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi VicGuy. It was the prose from the opening paragraph of this article, which was added by yourself to the article unaltered on June 7. I found it when an edit by a different user was reported at and I ended up checking the entire article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Group of Representative Bodies[edit]

Hi, Diana. The page you deleted was not from the page of this ERFA website you mentioned. Only a partial description as they are also a member of the association was taken by them from a 3rd source. It was a skeleton for a more thorough article and I wanted to add the different sources. At least it would have been nice to talk to me before asking for the deletion of the article. Thanks. molui (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Molui. I nominated the page for deletion and another admin checked it and found it was enough of a match to warrant deletion. The same material appears at the GRB's own website, but that does not make it okay to copy it here. While you were advised of the impending deletion, we are under no obligation to discuss it with you first, as copyright violations are against the policy of this website and against copyright law. We can't host copyright material here, not even temporarily as a framework for future editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Good evening. I do hope you are well. Apologies. I had no idea about the copyright information. I thought that it can be used with information of the page as reference. I'll be more careful in the future. Many thanks ! Captain Nikitakis (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Site C Dam history[edit]

Hi Diannaa, could you take a look at the Site C Dam dam Revision history, the diffs are not available prior to your edit ??? Dougmcdonell (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I now see that you've hidden the last year worth of history, why so much? Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Revision deletion was done under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy. Some of the copyright violations were added quite a while ago. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't realize that! Dougmcdonell (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Curious to why you are deleting my submissions?[edit]

I work for an organization and you deleted significant parts of our Wikipedia page Chuckchaney (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Which organization? Which article? Jonathunder (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

For FC Wichita. I put out a very thorough history section and about our crest. It was deleted, not even flagged.

  • It was copied from, which is copyrighted. If you are the copyright holder, and wish to release that content under a free license, which also allows anyone else to use it for any purpose, even commercially, you can follow the steps at WP:DCM. CrowCaw 06:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your deletions in "Fyling Hall railway station"[edit]

First of all, I fully understand that apparent copyright issues may come up on occasion, and more power to those that fix them. However, changes to the content should remain traceable. As you have simply deleted some edits in the article Fyling Hall railway station instead of editing normally, you have made it impossible for me to see what exactly was wrong with my contribution, and to retrace your changes. Instead, it would have been much better if you had edited the article normally. It is well possible that some of the formulations were very close to those on the website which I cited, but I believe the text was properly attributed by the citation. As it is, I shall never know what the real problem was because of your deletions. If you had fixed this issue in a traceable way, I would even have thanked you for doing so, but so, I cannot, because now I have to go back and see what information might have been lost in the process. It is not much work in this case, but it could have been done more efficiently. Next time, just flag the issue and give the original contributors time to fix it themselves. --Schlosser67 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason the material was removed was because it was a copyright violation, with some of the content you added being identical to the source web page Copyright violations are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 50 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical, and for clear-cut violations it is not necessary. The revisions containing the copyright violation were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. The new version you wrote is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand that cleaning up copyright problems is a major and demanding task, and have duly noted that quotations or near quotations need to be dealt with more strictly in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I still think that the conflict could have been resolved in a different manner without temporary loss of content, but that's water under the bridge. You did a splendid job in paraphrasing some of the text, but left out some content in doing so. This was the main problem for me, even though it was only a sentence or two, but I consider the case closed.
On a related note: Have administrators still got access to "hidden" past versions of articles? Can the latter be made available on request for the purpose of editing, in particular if more than a few hundred bytes worth of content has been hidden, and the perceived source is not accessible to an author? Loss of content can amount to a long-term problem, while copyright problems are usually quickly resolved thanks to your work and that of your colleagues. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violations on this website are a serious problem, with potential legal ramifications for the person who adds them as well as for the website as a whole. This is a far more serious problem than the loss of content that results from removal of copyright violations. The simplest way for you to avoid such loss is to make sure everything you add to this wiki is written in your own words. Revision deletion is done so as to completely remove copyright violations from this website. Therefore to post the copyright material on-wiki is counterproductive. What I normally do is offer to send the removed material via email. Content that has been revision-deleted is visible to administrators. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio on Plum, TX[edit]

Hey, Diannaa! Thank you very much for the information on copyright violation. I was unaware at the time of how strict Wiki was on potential copyright violations and I hope I haven't been banned from editing. I completely understand that I likely made an error in overusing the phrasing of the Fayette County website. Is there a way I can get the article back so as to rewrite it for you? So sorry to have caused any potential legal issues for Wikipedia or any trouble for you in having to fix my mistake. I'm sure you have a lot of mistakes to fix. I certainly won't let it happen again.

I hope I haven't been too much extra work for you.

Thank you again, Ellagracecastro (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ellagracecastro. I am sending you a copy of the deleted version via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your tireless, never-ending work against vandalism. Keira1996 02:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright AAA 400[edit]

Good afternoon. I do hope you are well. Apologies. I had no idea about the copyright information. I thought that it can be used with information of the page as reference. I'll be more careful in the future. Many thanks! Robbie2448 (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: Copyright AAA 400[edit]

Good evening. I do hope you are well. Apologies. I had no idea about the copyright information. I'll be more careful in the future. Many thanks! Robbie2448 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Louisiana Creole people[edit]

The IPs are at it again. Maybe it's time for semi-protection. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week; also added to my watch-list. Thank you for the report, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

Hi Diannaa. I came across Timothy Steele while doing some non-free image checking for possile WP:NFCC#1 problems. I'm almost positive that the image needs to go, but I am also concerned about Timothy Steele#Selected work. Would this be considered a copyright violation even though it is supported by a citation? It seems to be something which is not allowed per WP:COPYQUOTE and WP:POETRY#Quoting from poems and copyright issues, but I'm not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a grey area; quotations are permitted under the policy, but they are not supposed to be extensive ("brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media"). What is extensive? that's the point that's not made clear anywhere. The two pages you link to are not policy pages; one is an essay and one is a wikiproject guideline. Nevertheless I agree with you that quoting one of his poems (presumably in its entirety) is excessive and I am removing it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)I certainly wish we had some clear policy on this. There's a bit more more guidance at WP:NPS, which I've sometimes cited with success (and sometimes with none). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this Diannaa. I think the closest we can come to policy is WP:NFCCP (more specifically WP:NFCC#3b) in that quoting part of the poem may be acceptable, but the enitre poem is excessive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree a short excerpt would be acceptable — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "Cantdecideifimgonnacollidewithhopeormakemybridetheropeorjusthideinthedope"[edit]

Information.svg A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Cantdecideifimgonnacollidewithhopeormakemybridetheropeorjusthideinthedope (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Linguisttalk|contribs 13:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Alien Costume Saga[edit]

Hi Diannaa! I'm here because I think you've made a mistake of deleting my information on "Alien Costume Saga" because I didn't copy it from any website. You see I recently got a book called "The Amazing Spider-Man: The Saga of the Alien Costume" and I was just using the information of what I know. I just didn't have enough information about "Alien Costume Saga" because the book only contains stories from The Amazing Spider-Man #252-259. It didn't even have the story from "Web of Spider-Man #1" where Spider-Man have his final confrontation with the symbiote in the church. I'm telling you the truth. I didn't get that information from any website. But I do need help writing "Alien Costume Saga" on Wikipedia. How can you help me? talk 10:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. If you need general help the best place to start is the Teahouse, where there's people standing by who are experienced in helping new users get started. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Some copyvio was readded. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Lord Taylor of Warwick[edit]

You deleted a link to a BBC news page for "copyright" reasons? I don't understand this. Wikipedia is full of references to websites which might be said to be the subject of copyright. Is there something special about this one? I genuinely don't understand. Regards Ironman1104 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I now realise what you might be on about. What about fair dealing? Source fully acknowledged. Ironman1104 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand the concept of fair use, but that's not what you did. The source was acknowledged, but the material was not in quotation marks or acknowledged to have been copied directly from their article. The way you presented it was a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I forgot the required attribution[edit]

Sorry Diannaa, I will add CC-by-SA Vorpzn (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with copyright questions[edit]

Hi, Diannaa. I'm a fan of women's soccer and I've been creating and improving articles related to the theme. I also follows some pages about women's soccer. Recently, I saw some pictures of some players which articles lacks a picture. I did contact the copyright owners and they are very willing to upload the pictures on Wikipedia, since they are also enthusiasts of the sport. However, they are asking me several question and I'm not an expert on the theme. I would like to know if there's some way they can contact you or some other admin, who can answer their questions. So, they can find out, if they want or not upload the pictures under Wikipedia License. Because, I don't want to give them any wrong information.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds to me like they want legal advice as to the consequences of releasing their images under license. If that's the case, the are going to have to discuss with their lawyer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Dianaa, they want to know how it's work on Wikipedia. That's not a legal matter.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps the information at WP:Donating copyrighted materialsis what you are looking for? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

copyright issue[edit]

Hi Dianna thanks for your message, but I am the admin of the, would it solve the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrsanS (talkcontribs) 09:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Help on blocked content for GC page[edit]

Hello Diannaa, I am in the process of making the Wikipedia page for Galapagos Conservancy more robust, and received your message that my recent edits were in violation of copyright. As the President and founder of the organization, it was not on my radar that I would be in violation of any of Wikipedia's policies, since much of the text I am including is content that I have written at one point in time. But if I am understanding the policy correctly, I still need to provide citations (from our website, for example?) on text that I am citing -- is that correct? Can you please provide more guidance as to how we can best align with Wikipedia's policies and restore our page, or let me know specifically what you found to be in violation of Wikipedia’s copyright policy? Thank you in advance for your help.

Johannah Barry (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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.
Another 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 on conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Liliana Rojas-Suarez[edit]

Dear Diannaa,

Thank you very much for your responses here:

I've modified Rojas-Suarez's bio according to the Wiki policies you pointed out. I hope everything conforms now. Regards,

Bfujiy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfujiy (talkcontribs) 18:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


Can you please advise on this GA review, Talk:G_(New_York_City_Subway_service)/GA1 there is a possible copyright issue and I don't want to act without guidance, thank you. Seraphim System (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

this is the photo on flickr linked to in the article. It now says public domain, but the archived version says All Rights Reserved and the source for our file is an ebay listing — none of our editors have claimed credit for it, and it hasn't been verified through the usual Flickr upload process.

[1] this is our file

Kew Gardens 613 Has posted links for the ebay source to the GA review page. I don't want to pass the review until one of our admins has approved the file, thanks Seraphim System (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can keep either of those images and I have nominated them both for deletion at the Commons. I have responded at the GA review page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Seraphim System (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Timecop (franchise)[edit]

Hi, I've noticed you've cleaned up some copyvios by MSENDER007. This article was created by that user. I've attributed in edit summary the parts of the page that were copied from other Wikipedia articles and rewritten pretty much everything else, and I think it may be prudent to revdelete old versions, as the article was rife with 1-2 sentence copyvios and close paraphrases (see here). DaßWölf 01:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have revision deleted that particular addition to the point you removed it. If you see any other diffs you think need to be hidden please let me know. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Local Churches statement of faith[edit]

Hello, thanks for sending me a message about your concerns. The text is an official statement of faith from not the campus website (they copied it as all statements of faiths by religious organizations are copied because of the precise wording). How to you propose representing the Local Church statement of faith without copying it? I believe it is a key piece of information to the article, as there have been questions on these very issues about the group. Thanks!

Content you add to this wiki should be written for the most part in your own words. Short properly attributed quotations are okay, but this was not short; it was 725 words. It needs to be shortened and properly indicated as being a quotation, or re-written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and Copyright information[edit]

Hello Diannaa, This was very helpful. How can I retrieve the work I did up to this date? Is it cached somewhere or did we lose it entirely. Johannah Barry (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted because all of it was copyvio, with all the prose being copied from the organization's website. There's no usable prose whatsoever. It has to be started over from scratch. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

  • New and expanded research accounts
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking, lesson learned and a sincere talking[edit]

Hello Dianna

It's me Martimc123.

I need to unbur, to talk with you, because this whole thing started when I made my first article and it felt good, but at the time I didn't know about the policies and at the time because I want to let the readers know about puroresu, but the time I didn't saw and care, because I tought that it was all editing.

Then, I when they started to put the speedy deletion notices, I started to delete it as you know, then you blocked me.

Then I started to create many accounts because I wanted to get my articles recognized but instead I did it the wrong way.

I started to repost them without contacting any admin, and they started to get speedy delete and I tought you admins were trying to get my articles deleted and enimes when you were trying to help.

One day, I was so furious that I tried to get into Ribbon Salminen's account only at the time, but then he told me to wait only six months and do the WP:SO and I started to wait, then in December I returned and I did some of the old basics, but then I got blocked, I tried to ask for an unblcok and it was told me again and I waited, but the thing is in mid Mrach, April of this year, I return editing, and I wanted to make WhatCultutre Pro Wrestling but it was deleted all because they tought that I was a sockpuppet of some guy called "Dwdpuma". Then I wanted to make that goal possible and I pretended to be this "Dwdpuma@ and I asked an unblock on his account without knowing anything about him but I failed.

And it can be hard to belive in me, but I'm telling the truth and I'm being sincere and honest with you.

Although I did sockpuppetry, although I did copyright, although I removed notices, altough I pretended to be someone that I don't know but only with propose of wanting of contribute, to get my articles recognized and be the gratest contributor ever, that's my goal.

That's why I need to ask you one last chance, I waited 6 months, I know that the things that I did were not the way to show my good faith but please I don't want to wait anymore, I just want to contribute, it is hard to belive in me but you have to belive in me, I learned my lesson, and the block is no longer needed, I really want want to contribute.

So please give me one last chance.

I promise if you give you give, you will not regret it and I will make my goal happening and make useful and big contributions, but if don't give it, I understand, probably I wasn't made to this, and you are in your right if you don't want to unblock me, I failed with you and that's what I deserve.

Sorry for what I did, I hope you understand. :(

Thanks for your time (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but if you wish to resume editing you will have to stop using IPs to avoid your block. I see repeated attempts to get unblocked using the UTRS request service have been declined. Pretty much all of your attempts to add content to this encyclopedia have been reverted. I don't think Wikipedia is a good fit for you and suggest you find something else to do with your leisure time. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry my first response was pretty harsh. I'm sure that had your post to my talk page been the first and only edit from this IP my response would have been quite different. But you've been avoiding your block from this IP since the beginning of June. That's not the way to earn people's trust and get yourself unblocked. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The company authorized me to edit their Wikipedia page[edit]

Dear Diannaa,

The company asked me to draft a Wikipedia page for them, but it was speedily deleted from Wikipedia, saying that the page was a direct copy from their company website. The photos uploaded are also come from their website, but Wikipedia does not allow me to upload. What can I do to let Wikipedia knows that I am authorized and appointed by the company? I have sent an email to Thank you!

Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiecpy (talkcontribs)

Hi Katiecpy. Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several 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. I see you have submitted an email showing you have permission to copy the material to this wiki so that's a good first step.
The second problem is notability. I am not sure the organisation is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. We require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newpapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organisations that are not notable are typically speedily deleted. All of the sourcing for your draft was from the corporate website. If there's no coverage of the company in secondary sources such as newspapers or magazines the article will probably not be accepted for publication.
The third 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 (and material copied from the corporate website is seldom worded neutrally and is typically not appropriate for Wikipedia). 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 see you have already got some information on conflict of interest available on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Hello Diannaa, Thank you for the update on the profile of Godwin Obaseki i edited earlier. I would like to know if you have taken time to review the content. This is the correct and complete profile of the man. Also i probably will stop editing as it seems like editing on Wikipedia would be a waste of time writing and rewriting. It cost me time to do the voluntary writing and it may be better that i submit to my personal blog than the reverts i am getting writing for Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debravura (talkcontribs) 07:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. I removed the content, because it appeared to have been copied from elsewhere online in violation of copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. Sorry to hear you are going to stop editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Some questions left[edit]

Hello Diannaa

It's me Martimc123 again

I need to talk with you, I still have some questions, how can I get unblocked?

How can I gain your thrust back and proove you wrong?

Also, how can I contact you further without using the IP thing?

P.s: Please don't block this IP, because it is from a café, also the IP that I'm using is not avoid, simply I changed my home network, that's why I am using that IP since June.

Thanks for your time (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop logging into various IPs to evade your block. You did this not only to contact me, but to edit Wikipedia during the entire month of June, or more if there were other IPs. Your account is globally locked because of copyright violations and abuse of multiple accounts. Please don't post here any more. If you have something to say please log in to your account and post on your user talk page or use the UTRS ticket system. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As to how to return to Wikipedia editing, please read Wikipedia:Standard offerDiannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ilka Gedő[edit]

You say:

Hello Bíró Dávid, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Ilka Gedő have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

This is not true. I have not used any copyrighted material without permission.

Please highlight the cases where I use passages written by someone (including me somewhere else).

I even rewrote the timeline making it much shorter and using different language from the timeline that is available at the end of my memoir. I added a considerable number of references indicating, for example, that the two Glasgow exhibitions did take place. Bíró Dávid (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The content had still had a very significant overlap with the material already available at I know you have already sent a permission email to the OTRS team back in March. Please don't re-add the material until the OTRS team gives the okay. Regardless of the copyright issue, adding unsourced material from your own blog is inadequate sourcing for our purposes. We require independent sourcing in reputable newspapers, websites, or books. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Grindlays Bank - Removal of material[edit]

Hi Dianna,

I am new to Wikipedia and so may well have got some things wrong but are you able to add the material you delete from the Grindlays Bank page to my sandbox. This way I can make the necessary edits rather than having to start from scratch?

Andrew Fletcher 21/06/17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewFletcher (talkcontribs) 14:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do that, as we can't include copyright material anywhere on this website, including sandboxes and drafts. I can send it to you via email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ilka Gedo[edit]

You say:

The content had still had a very significant overlap with the material already available at

This is not true, as I highlighted all the parts that I have taken from my own work. Then I deleted all these parts a rewrote the article.

You say:

Regardless of the copyright issue, adding unsourced material from your own blog is inadequate sourcing for our purposes.

I have not added any unsourced material. I rewrote the article in Hungarian, then with the help of a native speaker, we rewrote the article.

I don't have a blog. So I could not have taken any materials therefrom. As regards sourcing I substantially increased sourcing. I quote five British newspaper articles on Ilka Gedő's exhibition. Plus I backed up the fact that there was the second exhibition at Glasgow's Third Eye Centre with direct reference to Third E+ye Centre's website plus I quite the poster of this exhibition from Wikipedia Commons.

When I used, even more, sourcing referring to published studies by art historian, then you deleted these quotes saying that the length of quotes must not exceed a certain percentage of the total length of the article.

You say: We require independent sourcing in reputable newspapers, websites, or books.

This is just what I do, or did in the past. Bíró Dávid (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. The source document is not a blog and it's not unsourced. However it is a self-published work, and not necessarily a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it. Regarding the copyright issue, you can see for yourself the huge overlap with the source webpage by viewing this report. In addition, large swathes of content you added had no citations, so I removed your addition in its entirety. That's why I said earlier that even with the release of the source webpage under a compatible license that this material is not very suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia in its present form. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You basically have three choices:
  1. Wait for your OTRS permission to get processed and then we can re-add any material that you copied from
  2. Add a release under a compatible license to the webpage using the instructions at Wikipedia:DONATETEXT
  3. Write some totally new prose, with no overlap with the material already online, using the original sources that are acceptable under WP:RS. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible to Get Back Deleted Revisions?[edit]

Hello, again (from a long time ago). I've learned a lot since the last discussions about using Wikipedia, etc. But I now noticed the revisions I had made (that were since deleted) are now also deleted from the revision history. Do you know if there's any way I could get at least one of those (the most complete one) back for my own records of that text? Thank you for any and all help. This is regarding this page and the revisions from May 2016: Best, Adam

Hi Adam. I could send it to you by email but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Behcet's Disease modifications[edit]

Dear Diannaa,

I thank you for your warning, as you can see it's the first time I try to contribute to Wikipedia so I was not aware of all the rules to follow. This notwithstanding, the article I linked and quoted on the page regarding Behcet's Disease is an Open Access pubblication of which I am author. Does this make any difference or do I still have to reword/rephrase the paragraph? Thanks for the advices

Lorenzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorenzoM88 (talkcontribs) 05:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Open access" means the prose is available online and we are able to read the article without having to pay a fee. However, this is not the same thing as being released under a compatible license. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Rauvolfia serpentina[edit]

Hi there Diannaa, Yes - the content was lifted from a third party. However, the current article contains nothing of the risks that can be associated with rauvolfia serpentina, and whilst appearing neutral, appears to offer positive support to using it in medication. This is not my field, but I suggest that you or another editor do something quickly to remedy the lack of substantive medical information that we have about the rauvolfia serpentina. (20040302 (talk))

Please don't add copyright material to this wiki no matter how urgent you believe it to be to get the info out there. I suggest you contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and suggest the article needs work as I am not a medical person either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I have requested permission from the copyright holder. They may well be happy to give it to WP. Yes, and I deserve a slapped wrist. I've been an editor for 13 years, and I know better. (20040302 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC))

Copy-pasting of large chunk of text[edit]

Hello again Diannaa. When you have time, could you take a quick look at this edit and give me your view on whether a quote that long violates copyright rules? Thanks in advance! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. I think it was too much, and it wasn't made clear where the quotation ended, and no citation was provided. I have shortened it a great deal and added a proper citation. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Diannaa. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Careful with the G8 deletions[edit]

You just deleted the talk page redirect from my bot's page to my talk page with your recent G8 deletion blitz. I might suggest going back through those deletions you just made to make sure they all fit G8 policy. You made nearly 30 deletions in 60 seconds. 2 seconds per deletion is a bit fast. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

copyright on Battle of Emmendingen[edit]

Battle of Emmendingen has been static for a while, until I tweaked some of the text about the battle and put it into GA consideration. I've tweaked it more (bringing it down to 59%), but I suspect it is more likely the copyright vio goes the other way. auntieruth (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: The edit that triggered the bot report was this addition. Does that material appear in older revisions somewhere? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no idea. The material is in my lecture notes, though, and that section has now been substantially reworded. auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • and when I compared this version 644295036 in earwig, I still get 43 percent or so. The bot is telling me that the consistencies are in directions, dates, people involved, etc . I don't know how to change that. auntieruth (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The content in the terrain section does appear in an old revision, added by you in this diff, where you cite the web page in question as your source (it's been on the source webpage since 2009, at which point our article did not exist yet). It's got to be fixed. The rest is now adequately paraphrased. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School re-copyvio[edit]

Thanks for nuking the prior installment of copy-pasting from this school's website. An IP came along today and reintroduced content from here: [2]. I reverted solely based on the meaninglessness of the promotional content, perhaps thinking someone would have learned a lesson about copyright. It appears to me that all edits postdating your revdel are now tainted by copyvio yet again. Thanks as ever for your assistance! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)