Open main menu

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is 10:50 PM where this user lives in Alberta. (Purge)


Revdel please on Ninthwave Records?Edit

Greetings. I notice that on Ninthwave Records, an account connected with the subject introduced copyvio content here, which is copied from the subject's own web site here. I assume a revdel is in order here, and would appreciate your assistance in doing so. I'll be putting the article up for AfD shortly. Thank you. --Finngall talk 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on College of Emmanuel and St. ChadEdit


I realize that Wikipedia has copyright concerns, and I don't intend to break the policy. However, I didn't copy the text from an external source. I copied it from the Wikipedia entry for the U of Saskatchewan GSA.

Thanks for letting me know. I will have to remove the content from that page as well :/ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


Hello D. I hope you are well. I bumped into this article tonight Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to CLOS. It is pretty bare bones. I am curious if there are any copy vio problems since it is basically a repeat of the chapters of the book. If everything is okay then no problem I just hadn't seen anything quite like it before. MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD. Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article says not to include a list of contents. So I am removing it. I don't think it's a problem from a copyright point of view though, since it's obviously a quotation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and have a pleasant week D. MarnetteD|Talk 04:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Copy within issue with a twistEdit

@Kingsif:I ran into a situation I'm surprised I haven't run into before.

This draft: Draft:Aura Rivas

showed up in copy patrol, indicating a 66% match to

this page.

(As an aside, this is an example of one of my pet peeves, namely that the copypatrol tool, as good as it is, fails to identify if material matches an existing Wikipedia article. Instead it picks up what is probably mirrired content or content taken from Wikipedia, sometimes with but, often without attribution.)

I determined that the match was sufficiently closed and proposed it for G1, and it has been deleted.

The editor involved explained that it is a Spanish Wikipedia page which was copied into draft space "like a translated into English when I had more time".

As is so often the case, the editor may have presumed that because the Wikipedia content has a free license, that it can be used. That's technically correct, but the license requires attribution, and we set forth best practices at: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia

When an editor follows the best practices, it avoids the technical violation of failing to provide proper attribution, as well as making it clear to editors who review copypatrol entries to accpet it.

However, while I've dealt with hundreds of these issues, and typically point out the best practices and either ask them to make the appropriate dummy edit, or do it for them (as you often do). However, every situation I've dealt with in the past includes copying from an English Wikipedia article into another main space Wikipedia article. I've never dealt with a situation where someone is bringing material from another language into drafts based for the intention of translation at a later time. I see that the linked guideline indicates that cross wiki project copies are acceptable, but I think that's in the context of copying into a main space article.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether my usual advice is sufficient. Can I restore the deleted draft and simply add the attribution as required, or does the fact that this is going to reside in draft space for an indeterminate amount of time suggest different handling is appropriate? I have dealt with issues where someone has done a translation but in most of the situations I've been involved in, the translation was done off-line.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the attribution issue may focus on the fact that translation and inter-wiki copying attribution templates go on a talk page, which draftspace articles don't have. Kingsif (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif, adding an attribution template to the talk page is optional; providing attribution via an edit summary is not optional. And draft pages can and sometimes do have talk pages. Sphilbrick, I don't see why you couldn't restore the draft and provide the needed attribution. Drafts that have not been edited for 6 months are eligible for G13 speedy deletion, so they won't be there indefinitely. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Madness in the MethodEdit

Hi, Diannaa. Sorry to bother you again, but it seems that the "plot" section in the article Madness in the Method contains COPYVIO [1]. Could you, please, check it out? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1948 United States Senate election in TexasEdit

Could you take a look at this article, please? I get this earwig report, but two of the three sources I can't get a carbon date on, while the third, truthseeker], does give me a date in 2017, clearly predating this article. But I am not sure if the Quora answer isn't a mirror of different WP articles. Thanks in advance.Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It was copied from Lyndon B. Johnson, where some of it has been present for 10 years or more. I will add the required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. As always I appreciate your expertise. Onel5969 TT me 13:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Uptown drug scandalEdit

Hello, I'm sorry that you feel there was no value in the addition of information from one of very few (English-language) published sources available regarding the Uptown drug scandal and the group's false accusations being the only real basis for a case against Tiger JK, one of the most famous Korean rap artists, leading to his conviction, and, further, that you felt this addition to have been tantamount to reducing the article to the status of "tabloid"; nevertheless, given the prominence of this event in the career of this group- and in as much as it served as an impetus for the development of the career of former Uptown member Yoon Mi-rae, again one of the most famous Korean rap artists- its preservation on the talk page for the reference of any party in search of these facts is not unjustified. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Posting on the article talk page was the correct thing to do. Now we wait and see if anyone supports the addition of the material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on content removed from Digitiser pageEdit

Hi, the text was not a straight copy and paste - it was edited by me. Please check again. If you think the content needs editing further, then of course I will do so. (It would need to be reinstated for me to do that). —Flicky1984 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright linksEdit

Noted, thank you for guidance. (Ereckkarja (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

UnS contentEdit

Hey. Although this article [2] is detailed and well backed by a lot of references, I think it still has some unsourced content. ( (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.DH85868993 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Enquiry about semi-protection status.Edit

Thank You Diannaa for the clean up on Sangeetha Sringeri wiki page. However, the edit access level is changed to only established users. The user DeltaQuad has reported it as sock puppetry. However, the effort was only to remove copyright material and clean up the article as directed but the edits were reverted back for no concrete reasons. Would request the edit access level be moved to registered users. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexterBud (talkcontribs) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am not understanding your question? The article is already semi-protected. This means people without accounts and people with brand new accounts cannot edit it. Is that what you want, or are you asking for protection to be removed? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.DH85868993 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright infringement at West Coast Main Line?Edit

I've noticed that you have been patrolling for copyright infringements. There has been bit of a revert war with an anon IP at West Coast Main Line (see attempts to engage at talk:West Coast Main Line#Bottlenecks). I wonder if I should be concerned that the material that the anon added is still in the history although others have reverted, does it need to be expunged? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on polygenic scoreEdit

Hi Diannaa, my apologies for the problem on Polygenic score. None of what I added was copied identically from that paper, but rather my intention was to reword it without losing any of the important phrasing and brevity from the original. I do understand that the problem was in keeping some phrases from the original too intact (largely because there are specific ways these topics are referred to). My understanding was that this is usually acceptable, but I’ve rewritten the paragraph under consideration to be more substantially different from the original. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's difficult to paraphrase technical material. Your new version looks okay. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Si Se Puede! (album)Edit

Thanks for your message. I've tried to paraphrase the removed section differently. I hope it is better now.OttoJohn (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Better now. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Attribution - Draft:Mary Anne CarterEdit

Hi Diannaa -- You are correct, this content was repurposed from a federal agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, and is in the public domain. It appears the attribution was fixed here Draft:Mary Anne Carter. I was not intending to plagiarize and appreciate the flag (and fix.) Please let me know if there are any other issues. Thank you! Stacymannpearson (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Usage of a promotional imageEdit

Hi, can you please help me understand which image licence I should be using for a band's promo pic? I have permission to use the image. Thanks! Sampson20 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sampson20. The copyright holder might have given you permission to use the image, but that's not going to be sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. What is needed is for the copyright holder to give their WP:CONSENT for the file to uploaded to Wikipedia under a license which basically gives anyone anywhere in the world permission to use the image at anytime for any purpose (including commercial uses and derivative uses). There are a couple of ways for this to be done, but the most common is for the copyright holder to email Wikimedia OTRS their consent to release the file under a free license that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts. You can find out more about the types of free licensing the Wikimedia Foundation accepts at c:Commons:Licensing.
For reference, the copyright holder of a photo is considered to be the photographer who took the photo, not the subjects of the photo. The copyright holder of a photo of a band (e.g. a PR photo) would be the photographer who took the photo, not the band, unless the photo was taken as part of a work-for-hire type of arrangement in which the copyright ownership as well as the physical photo itself were officially transferred from the photographer to another party; in other words, a transfer of copyright is not always automatic even in cases of PR photos and only the copyright holder can release the photo for Wikimedia Foundation licensing purposes. In addition, if the copyright holder agrees to do this, then they need to understand the following: although that they aren't transferring their copyright ownership to the Wikimedia Foundation, they are making a version of the photo available under a free license and this license is non-revocable; so, as long as someone downloading the file from the Wikimedia Foundation's servers abides by the terms of the free license accepted by the copyright holder, there's not much the copyright holder can do to stop them or anyone else from using the photo pretty much as they please even if at some future date the copyright holder changes their mind and requests the file be deleted from the servers.
Finally, one last thing. All of you editing since you're account has been created has been pretty much to The Honeycutters. Although there's nothing explicitly wrong with this per se, single-purpose accounts often are somehow connected to subjects they are editing about or at least give other editors the impression they are; so, if you have any connection at all to the band, please take a close look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference. Wikipedia does expressly prohibit editors with a conflict of interest from editing article, but it does expect that they follow certain guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for all the info! Sampson20 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Broken tableEdit

Hi Diannaa, I'm sorry to bother you but, while looking at Powerage Tour, I saw your ES fix broken table here and hoped that it might mean that you have some expertise in the field, which I sadly do not. Since you fixed it back then it has gone wrong again, I'm sad to say. If you felt so inclined, could you please have a quick look at Talk:Powerage Tour for my harrowing, tragic, heartbreaking account of what seems to be wrong and, even worse, how I'm too useless to fix it! If you can't or don't want to have a look then please please don't worry – maybe someone else reading this will, or I guess I can try to track down Wikiproject Table Fixing Or Whatevs – either way no-one will die and it will get fixed sooner or later. Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I hope Diannaa doesn't mind me jumping in. The table was missing the final |} characters to close it at the end. I have fixed the HTML syntax. GermanJoe (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, GermanJoe, that's absolutely great. I'm going to have to read up on this – I had previously got closeish, but sabotaged myself with an extra hyphen! Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Brettmcfarland (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Brettmcfarland (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Brett McFarland

Von der Leyen CommissionEdit

I would like you to return the parts that you deleted but were not coppied, and parts that cannot but to be coppied (for example names of legislative acts, names of integrations). Sredina (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't remove any material like that. The only thing I removed was the section titled "Political priorities of the commission"— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and that section had such material, announced legislative proposal and similar things, so I expect it to be returned ASAP. Sredina (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I have double checked and triple checked and the material I removed does not contain that. Everything I removed was copied from Headers and bolded material in particular were copied. I can send you a copy of the removed material via email if you like, but you'll have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, things were coppied, and I dont argue about deleting that, but you cannot do anything else with names of legislative proposals than to copy them. So I ask you to return those, those were included, maybe you should check it for the fourth time. I was removing and rewriting other things but you deleted it before it could be done completely.Sredina (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to prepare a list of legislation she intends to propose, there's no reason why you can't do that yourself. I am not going to do it. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The source webpage has been deleted since I last looked at it. There's an archived copy here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Brettmcfarland (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Brettmcfarland (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Brett McFarland

María Isabella of SpainEdit

Good morning and greetings. can you please provide a link where the supposed copyright violation was taken place and can be verified the similarities. I am confused since the head of the article is just a summary of her life. I wrote my self so I don't see how it was supposedly copied from somewhere else. Thanks --Miguelemejia (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Miguelemejia. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can see what I removed. Identical material appears in this pdf on page 15. You can view the overlap by visiting this copyvio report; overlapping sections are highlighted in pink. "She was good natured and pliable" ? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted approved contentEdit

Dianna (so?) - you deleted content for which I already have a letter of copyright release approval from Wikipedia. What? Why now? Peter Pcapell (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pcapell. I removed it because adding a 9,123-word eulogy to a 186-word stub is inappropriate, regardless of the copyright status of the source document. It gives far too much weight to one point of view. You wouldn't find such content in a paper encyclopedia, and we don't want it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights in JapanEdit

Sock has returned as Ip on this page, is self explanatory based on the edits. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be a static IP; blocked for a month. Please let me know if you spot any further ones. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thanks! I'm new and still learning. Fullrabb (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb

Tech News: 2019-34Edit

15:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


I think you should read and compare the two versions and judge for yourself. The other version seems to have an agenda to simply damn India, its society, its family culture, and above all, its religion. It is a page of apologetics for a bandit who murdered many people and looted many others. Poverty is pervasive in India and we all live in the same "dirty" country; how many of us become bandits? It surely cannot be right to blame all and sundry for crimes committed by one very damaged personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the article talk page, and suggest improvements to the existing article rather than discarding several years' worth of other peoples' work. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi! Thank you for your guidance on the copyright rules for Wikipedia. As a new editor to Wikipedia, this is helpful info. Cheers! FJ329 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

re: Copyright i-1639, government sourceEdit

Hello. Thank you for the information about the copyright rules for Wikipedia. The information I had added was from the official government release about the bill giving an overview of the provisions. I believe that does not infringe on copyright. Please correct me if I am wrong, I would like to know. Otherwise, would you revert the change you made removing the information? Is there a way to put it in as a quote citing the government site? If not, please let me know and I'll paraphrase it in my own words. IrreverentSquid (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)IrreverentSquid 13:21, 19 August 2019 (PST)

Material published by the US Federal Government is in the public domain, but that's not true of the individual states (except California and Florida). Regardless of the copyright issue, it's better to summarize the legislation rather than copypaste all of it to the site. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Instrument in Support of Trade ExchangesEdit

Hi Diannnaa!

Writing your name like this feels like I am screaming at you :) In any case, thank you for the information about the copyright rules. It is a very complex article and I needed a lot of time and help to understand and strive to communicate in a short content. I have read the notes you send me a few times and took notice. I will improve as I go I guess. Again! Appreciated! Any future feedback is welcome!

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbubblegum (talkcontribs) 14:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

About Basra Specialized Spherical SchoolEdit

Hello Diannaa

I did not steal the subject, but I benefited from the way to raise the subject, and the rest of the details are different.

I was hoping that you would modify his words instead of deleting a lot of them.

I think the Wikipedia project is a collaborative project, not a project to destroy efforts.

Thanks anyway

ميناء (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but there's too many such cases each day for me to re-write them all. I have to do removals instead, to keep us in copyright compliance. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, deleting a subject is easy and requires no effort. What a strange thought !! ميناء (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Today's work to clearing copyright issues: 80 edits and 6 hours of work. If you think this requires no effort, you are mistaken. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleting is easy, it is difficult to edit articles, and your metrics are wrong, see for yourself before offending others. ميناء (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
How many hours would it have taken me to re-write all 68 copyvio reports I cleared today? At least double or triple: 12 hours? 18 hours? 24 hours? It's not physically possible; I have to go to work and go to the gym and sleep and perhaps read a book for an hour in the evening. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The right person should be chosen in the right place, If you don't have time to fix articles, but you can just delete them, you should leave the room for someone else. Wikipedia developed for development and not to destroy efforts. The subject should be taken seriously ميناء (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Netherland-America FoundationEdit

Hi Diannaa,

You removed some sections from a new text I wrote for the article Netherland-America Foundation, aka NAF, due to copy right issues.

Some parts of the text may indeed have been copied from the NAF website, which happens to be our own website.

I have asked the Executive Director of the NAF to formally release/license our web content to Wikipedia following your standard procedure/request format.

Because I no longer have access to my updates, including the ones you seem to have accepted, it is very difficult for me to determine exactly which copyrighted texts we need to release.

It would help if you could reinstate the edits that do not involve copyright issues.

President Boston Chapter of the NAF

Dutch-Bostonian (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dutch-Bostonian. I didn't remove any material that didn't involve copyright issues, so there's nothing I can reinstate. The material I removed was from as well as some of the material at If you would like to activate your Wikipedia email I will send you a copy of the removed material via email.
A second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation 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 about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted way too many edits on schizoid personality disorderEdit

I think you made a fairly critical mistake. You deleted about 20 of my edits on schizoid personality disorder, collaterally taking out numerous ones that had nothing to do with copyright or followed the copyright rules. Please either restore them or send me them privately if you did actually somehow delete all of them on purpose. SUM1 (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple edits were hidden under the WP:revision deletion policy (from the point you first added it to the point of removal) but I only removed the copyright violation (629 bytes of content; 96 words). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I eventually gathered that, thanks for clarifying. SUM1 (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Diannaa".