Open main menu

User talk: Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is 4:48 PM where this user lives in Alberta. (Purge)


Which copyright content?Edit

Hi Diannaa, can you please show me which content was used from ""? I got this message last time, and i made sure never to use that webpage for Wikipedia again, both sources I used come from different webpages. Thanks again. Ramsin93 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay thank you, unfortunately your bot is attributing the article to, when the article is actually taken from Presbyterian Record, and posted on, they don't own the copyrights Ramsin93 (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant sorry Ramsin93 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, no, I believe Presbyterian Record owns the copyright, but it's been attributed to because they have reposted the article on their website. Presbyterian Record is no longer in operation as of a couple years ago so I'm not sure where this stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talkcontribs) 16:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't copy that material to Wikipedia, because it's still protected by copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that, the issue is your bot is attributing the copyright based on it's presumption of the copyright being owned by, did you even visit the webpage to see what the website looks like?

It clearly states that the article is taken from Presbyterian Record, right on the webpage your bot is attributing it to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the job of an administrator is to investigate false positives like this, claiming that owns the copyrights by confirming what your bot concluded based on an algorithm is incorrect. Consider further investigation before incorrectly attributing the copyright to a website based on what a computer program has presumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talkcontribs) 03:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The content also appears in, which is the source you cited for the content I removed. That page is marked as "© Copyright 2019 Glacier Community Media". I think perhaps you are not clear on which material I re-worded. The section I re-worded was "Reverend Dr. Isaac Adams organized two resettlement projects of Assyrians from Urmia, one in 1903 and 1906 of which, unlike many other ethnic groups at the time, composed of families and not just men. The Assyrians, led by their minister, were the first Presbyterians in the region", which I re-worded to say "Reverend Dr. Isaac Adams organized two groups of Assyrian immigrants from Urmia, one in 1903 and 1906. Unlike many other immigrant groups at the time, the settlers were composed of families and not just men. They were the first Presbyterians in the region." That's all I did. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The material has been reproduced in several places online, and that's why I listed an incorrect source. Sorry about that. The source you cited was the News-Optimist, which is © Copyright 2019 Glacier Community Media, and that's apparently where you actually copied it from. Source says:
Their stalwart leader, the Reverend Dr. Isaac Adams, organized two resettlement projects in Canada, one in 1903 near Battleford, and one in 1906 about eight miles northeast of the first settlement. Importantly, unlike many other ethnic groups, these settlements were composed of families, not men only.
Your edit (overlapping content is highlighted in bold):
Reverend Dr. Isaac Adams organized two resettlement projects of Assyrians from Urmia, one in 1903 and 1906 of which, unlike many other ethnic groups at the time, composed of families and not just men.
Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Great thanks

Ramsin93 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the message you left at my talk page regarding Wikipedia and copyright Taha Wasiq 18:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on C. Bruce Littlejohn PageEdit

Afternoon Diannaa -

The wording for the C. Bruce Littlejohn article came from the finding aid for his collection at South Carolina Political Collections at the University of South Carolina, where I work. The finding aid is not copyrighted and is free and open for public use at any time. I have no vested interest in Littlejohn looking good on a Wikipedia page, but I did want to add in information that would link him to other pages that would help discovery. I can reword if necessary.


Annieca2016 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but you are incorrect; the material enjoys copyright protection. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. You are welcome to re-write the content using your own words.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Seeing a connectionEdit

You might check the edits of:

Both have used, both edit in Assyrian articles, and both have plagiarized from

The Editor Interaction Analyser shows 14 similar articles edited, excluding your talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: wrong country. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Except further investigation would show you that is actually the one plagiarizing copyright content on their site, that's why the bots are alerting you to copyright infringements. In some cases you aren't looking far enough to see that is using content from a seperate source that, when used in Wikipedia, is assuming is the copyright holder due to the program you guys are running to come to these conclusions, and not doing the proper investigation. Ramsin93 (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I've never actually used directly as a source, your program is assuming that is the copyright holder of the content and you aren't doing the proper investigation required, very unprofessional! Ramsin93 (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Julian Assange GuardianEdit

Thank you for your comments. You can check that I report citations between "".

So if you have solutions to report citations without "", I will apply them. I would like report exactly the comments of these academics and campaigners to drop confusions. Again, thank you Rebecca jones (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In the article, the journalist reports their comments between ""

“Many of the allegations fall absolutely within the first amendment’s protections of journalistic activity. That’s very troubling to us.” Among the phrases contained in the indictment that have provoked an uproar are:

   “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States.” It is a basic function of journalism to encourage sources to provide information in the public interest on the activities of government.
   “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks.” Protecting the anonymity of sources is the foundation stone of much investigative and national security reporting – without it sources would not be willing to divulge information, and the press would be unable to fulfill its role of holding power to account.
   “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the ‘Jabber’ online chat service to collaborate on the acquisition and dissemination of the classified records.” The indictment similarly refers to a dropbox. Both Jabber and Dropbox are communication tools routinely used by journalists working with whistleblowers.
The material was directly copied from this article in The Guardian. That's a violation of our copyright policy. Please don't re-add it, even as a quotation, because that would be too much non-free content and thus a violation of our non-free content guideline.
P.S. The part the original author included in quotation marks is actually copied from this document prepared by the US Federal Court, and would be okay to include with proper attribution. When copying from public domain sources, please include the template {{PD-notice}} as part of your citation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Elephant Research FoundationEdit

Thanks Diannaa, for removing some text, which may have gone under the copy radar. Took it from the uni, and maybe I should have rewritten better. Anyhow, I guess noone will ever ask for more info on the subject, so good you removed the text. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You are of course free to update the article, using your own words, with citations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Revdel requestEdit

Hi, you previously removed and revdel'd copyright content from R.U.N. (Cirque du Soleil); could you do so again? (talk · contribs) has twice added promotional material as content to the article; it is a word-for-word copy of text that is here. Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Article content templates by EphertEdit

Hi, I've been working on reviewing the templates from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#Article content templates by Ephert and have dealt with all the ones I'm confident about the copyright status, however I'm unsure how to handle very close copies of tables from copyright protected works. I've done some searching and found some things that discussions that says it's not a copyright violation such as Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/October#Reproduce a graph from a book and discussions that indicate it isn't such as User talk:Ephert#Data table. There's also the following quote from Wikipedia:Image use policy: Technical data is uncopyrightable, lacking creativity, but the presentation of data in a graph or chart can be copyrighted, so a user-made version should be sufficiently different in presentation from the original to remain free. The question then is whether this conversion to a MediaWiki table is "sufficiently different in presentation" to be free. Any help or pointers where to go would be appreciated! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • The first one I checked is Template:He2012Table2; according to the terms of use on this page, it's available to use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is a compatible license, so it's okay to keep, as long as proper attribution is added.
  • That being said, I think I would delete any tables that are identical to the source documents and are not simple lists of alphabetical or numerical data; for example, the second one on the list (template:Lee1965Table12) in my opinion contains enough copyright content to enjoy copyright protection. The table is pasted at the bottom of the article without any commentary or analysis, so I would delete that one. It's a judgement call obviously— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, I will take another look at them considering your advice. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Trialpears, thank you for dealing with these; I should have been the one doing it but I've been busy lately. However, was the deletion of Template:He2012Table2 justified? Its source was under a CC license as far as I can remember. Nardog (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Nardog, I deleted it after merging it with the parent article in this edit. That was the consensus at TfD. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Trialpears: Ah, right. That's of course entirely justified. Thanks again for taking care of it. Nardog (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks from me too Trialpears for taking on this big task. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I've done most of them now, but am a bit uncertain about the last few. Could you or Nardog take a look at them? If possible I would also appreciate an explanation of your reasoning so I can learn. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Remaining templates

These first seven are copied unaltered from the cited sources; these are scientific study results which are pretty esoteric measurements that the general reader will not care about or understand, so it's not worth our while to try to convert the data to prose.

@Trialpears: My opinions are within the collapsed section. Sorry for the delay in replying. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Little help (if possible)Edit

Hey, Diannaa. First all, I'm terribly sorry to disturb you, but I need help from an experienced admin. On July 27, 2019, I came across an article without a poster. As I always do in these cases, I upload one in low resolution to comply with the fair-use policy. On November 1, 2019, another user uploaded another version of the same poster and edited it into the article. He removed "my poster" from the infobox and put it into the "cast" section. An admin came across the article and he saw both images, realizing that this is against the fair-use policy he nominated "my poster" to deletion. It is my understanding that the older image should be kept and the newer one should be deleted, since (in my view) the newer image should not even have been uploaded. Since the article already had one poster uploaded under the fair use policy. I tried to contact the admin without success. Now, the same user who uploaded the newer version of the poster came to the image I uploaded in July and uploaded a new version of the image (the same version he uploaded on Nov. 1) with a high quality, which in my view, don't comply with the fair-use policy. It seems a mess right now. I don't know if I was clear, but I need someone to look into it (if you can, obviously). Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no rule that the older image must be kept. There is however a rule about size, and the most recent upload does not meet that requirement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see User talk:DavideVeloria88#Size restriction on non-free film posters for a summary of what I did to resolve this issue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The image File:Romulus & Remus, The First King (2019) Film Poster.jpeg don't have the size because this user uploaded a new version to replace the original version. I revert to the original version which I uploaded on July 27, 2019. My point this user should not have uploaded a new poster, since it was unnecessary.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
...for being the Finger of Fate pointing at the evil of WP:COPYVIO.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I think :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Anant Parekh's page was not a copright violoationEdit

Hello @Diannaa:, you recently removed content from Anant Parekh because of a perceived copyvio. However, the text copied is available under CC license as per:

“All text published under the heading 'Biography' on Fellow profile pages is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.” --Royal Society Terms, conditions and policies at the Wayback Machine (archived 2016-11-11)

Although this copyright notice does not appear on the page at it is available under a creative commons license if you read the text at under the heading "Intellectual Property Rights" Duncan.Hull (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Duncan.Hull. Even in cases where the content has been released under a free license, it's not generally a good idea to simply copy-and-paste or even too closely paraphrase large blocks of it into related Wikipedia articles simply because most content found on external websites tends to be written in a style that might not be really suited for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV or WP:TONE; it's fine for the external website, but not really what Wikipedia is striving for. Perhaps the best thing to do would be summarize the content as neutrally as you can in your own words and then cite the page as a source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Marchjuly: the text was not just copy-pasted, it was modified to meet wikipedia standards Duncan.Hull (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I have re-added the prose. Sorry for the mistake; when the page states "Copyright © 2019 The Royal Society. All rights reserved" there's really not much impetus for me to look further but I guess I should have in this case. By the way, the material was not modified to meet Wikipedia standards, as you can see via Earwig's tool. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

South Australia Act 1834Edit

Thanks for your note about South Australia Act 1834. I'll have another go at it, but if you look at the highlighted text, you will see that what Earwig has picked up consists in many instances of the same text used repeatedly, in particular the long name of the Act "An Act to empower His Majesty to erect South Australia into a British Province or Provinces..." (which actually I now see that I should have used the Z version of the spelling of colonisation there, which will make it match even more closely!) and repetition of "Province of South Australia" (unavoidable). There's a bit of factual reproduction such as "South Australia thus became the only Colony authorised by an Act of Parliament" (repeated on many other sites too) - but not a lot of actual paraphrasing. Anyway, I'll attempt to reduce the matching word count by having another go later... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violationsEdit

Requesting revdelete at Dominican War of Independence and Parsley massacre due to massive copyvios. (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the IP is a sock of serial nuisance Krajoyn. His latest MO is to remove large chunks of text from articles heavily edited by his previous socks, claiming copyvio. It may or may not be correct, but I would not count his word as a reliable source for the wetness of water. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Favonian. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


"If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license."

The text I imported at The Assyrian Tragedy is in the public domain, therefore permissible under Wikipedia's rules. Ramsin93 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, the source webpage is marked as being in the public domain. Sorry for the mistake. In the future, when copying from public domain material, please add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that patrollers as well as our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talkcontribs) 23:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg ArticleEdit

I very carefully paraphrased and did NOT copy the sentences from Vox Media and The New York Times. I avoided WP:Synthesis, since I know that's important. Previously you showed logs of bots calling information possibly guilty of copyright infringement. Please show those logs for the additions I made. A good wikipedia is of life or death importance to me, so I do not want to see worthwhile information deleted. DouggCousins (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I detected the issue manually by watch-listing the article and comparing the source material to your edit. Regardless of the copyright issue, you have not yet visited the article's talk page to make a case for why general crime statistics are appropriate in an article about the mayor; two people object to the addition of this content, and it has been repeatedly removed for reasons other than copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I read that edit. There was no copyright issue. Paraphrasing is an effective way to avoid synthesis issues. And there's consensus now that the crime stats should be added, especially given no reasonable counterargument to the fact that hundreds of homeless families who lost their homes led to the spike in crime. Given no copyright issue, your decision to repress the edit is an abuse of admin power. (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DouggCousins (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@DouggCousins: It's okay to edit while logged out, but to do so in order to pretend to be someone else is not allowed. You've done it both here and at Talk:Pete Buttigieg#Crime Stats. Don't do it any more, or you risk being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ASM copyright and plagiarismEdit

Hi Diannaa, thank you for leaving the detailed message on my page. I actually work for ASM, so copyright and plagiarism is not an issue. What type of documentation can I provide to prove that I have permission post this content so that it won't be deleted again? Also, I can't remember exactly what was deleted at this point since we made so many changes. Is there a way for me to access the version that I created before it was deleted? Here's the URL to the page: Thank you! Tyniahcm (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. That said, content copied from the corporate website is seldom suitable for inclusion, regardless of whether or not it is compatibly licensed. I can email you an old revision of the page, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Faith school ArticleEdit

The part of the Faith school article that you removed for copyright I actually copied from the Wikipedia page on Catholic Education Service, I didn't realise it was directly from their website. I'm wondering if it's not allowed in the faith school article, why is it allowed in the CES article or should it not be there either. FormularSumo (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I will have to remove it from the other article as well. It's been there quite a while. Thanks for letting me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Pluralone SingleEdit

I have never gone on that website in my entire life. The only websites I used for that Wiki page was the Pluralone official website. When I was reading that you said I copied off of it, I was like "What the hell?". That's kinda like just assuming I copied info off of it, instead of going to the source where I got it from and confirming what I said on the wiki page was true. Also, if it does seem like it is copied off of that website, it was 100% accidental and again, I got the sources from the official Pluralone website detailing the single release, which is here: Midcey —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the misidentification. But you can't copy off either, because that page also enjoys copyright protection. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


Hi Dianna. Maybe you can help sort this out? It looks like a WP:MIRROR but I can't be for sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

done— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

is this okEdit

this is the source cc by 4.0 (you have to scroll to the bottom)[1] and this is the edit giving attribution for the screenshot[2], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is okay — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Good luck to be admin, do not use your count up to misuse subjective "flawed tools"Edit

May be a good hearted editor trying to get some counts up. Stop User_talk: here. Not tagging you with bad stuff. If filter or tool is flawed, not an excuse for any editor to BLINDLY use it, you arfe guilty for using it as misuse if you blindly used it. (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding what the problem is. On your talk page you indicate that I removed some content, and I did not actually do that; all I did was add the attribution as required by the terms of our license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


Hello Diannaa, this could be a bigger mess - could you check the edits of this user please? It seems like most/all of them are copypastes or plagiarizing their source papers (just searching random keywords and unique phrases reveals numerous clear hits). I looked through the listings of 3-4 of the sources and none of them seem to have any CC license or something similar, but I am not entirely sure. The speed of some of these edits also indicate a copypaste job. I have left the user a copyright notice for now as first information about this possible issue. GermanJoe (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 WorkingDiannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the report and the clean-up assist. Great to catch it early like this— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for the quick help with this. I hope the user notices the talkpage messages, but will keep an eye on it. GermanJoe (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Stelios Ioannou Learning Resource CenterEdit

Hi, I have removed text added on 27 February 2019 which appears to have been copied from and Please can you see if I have missed anything and revision delete. I have posted a message to the user. TSventon (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Current version looks okay. Revision deletion is done. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright guidelinesEdit

Re NY Times and portland mercury deletions. The large guidelines left on my talk page are not very helpful. I already thought I only quoted a small amount of the sources, and properly quoted them. I'll try to use even smaller quotes, but without specific definition of "small" this is obviously a guessing game. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The material I removed included a short quotation, but the whole paragraph was copied from here. You need to write the content in your own words, while citing your sources. The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeat of copyright issues at BhaiseenaEdit

Heads up that the edits you revdel’ed for copyright issues have been re-introduced by the same user, Sandeep Kr Jangid. The same looks to be true at Bhusawar. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Done— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Earwig's NYT-reading toolEdit

Hi again, Diannaa. You mentioned that Earwig has a tool for reading New York Times articles without reaching the newspaper's article limit. Since that would be handy for checking sources, would you mind giving me the link? Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 03:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Just use the usual Earwig's Copyvio Detector. We appear to have unlimited views this way.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Jesse110121Edit

Hi Diannaa, can you please address the history of this page which has significant copying without attribution. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Diannaa".