User talk:Diannaa: Difference between revisions

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Hi Diannaa, you complain to me about a copyright issue, and say you have removed edits, but I cannot see what particular edits or bits of text you are referring to. Generally I do quote only short pieces and note the source; a few quotes are a bit longer because this is necessary to explain something. If you can point me to what has gone wrong in your opinion, I would be grateful. DJJB621 (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The material was not in quotation marks, so there was no indication that you intended it to be a quotation. It was contained within ref tags. The part I remvoed was a match for material in this document, which is copyright. I will send you the removed material via email.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your message, thank you very much, I saw what you had done, I have corrected things. I tried to write it too fast and got frustrated by the language used in the source. Sometimes I do not get the text exactly right, and when I go over it again afresh, I correct things and clean up mistakes. But it’s better not to “draft” something which is a quotation or a paraphrase without referencing the source, I agree (there could in principle be legal implications). In general, there is not much of a copyright problem with quoting official statistics publications, but it is usually a requirement that you acknowledge the source properly, if you quote or use bits of information, yes.(talk), 23:48 23 September 2025 (UTC)

hello, recently I have removed copyvio material from the article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Purandar&action=history

But apparently some editor doesnt agree wyh me despite i already provided evidences Simple non combat (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a copyright violation. Short properly attributed quotations are allowed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa,

I know you are a long-time administrator and experienced member of the Guild of Copy Editors,
and I truly appreciate the dedication and care you have given to improving Wikipedia articles over the years.

I would be very grateful if you could spare a moment to help with a copyedit of Draft:Kratošija.
The draft was recently moved to draftspace with the explanation “language/grammar problems”. ( not clear what)
All statements are supported by reliable references, so I kindly ask that the references not be altered —
please leave them as they are. I only need help with grammar,language and encyclopedic tone, maybe…

Thank you very much for your time and support! VitisArchivum (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don’t have tome to help with this project.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You made a recent edit on the 1954 Geneva Conference page that kept a lot of changes that were made by a user that was ignoring policy. Two specifics here: the statement “The CIA’s efforts played a minimal role, as Catholic migrants were driven primarily by their own convictions and circumstances rather than external propaganda.” has been removed, and is sourced to a peer reviewed, academic journal that I have personally verified. (I gave the page number in one of my edit summaries.) I can add more if necessary. Also, the statement “North Vietnam violated the Geneva Accords by failing to withdraw all Viet Minh troops from South Vietnam, stifling the movement of North Vietnamese refugees,….” has also been removed, and also appears to be well sourced. Is there a reason for this? Thanks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, these statements were in there as of this edit [1]. I don’t think there is a copyright violation with either one of them. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t make those changes with my edit. That material was removed/changed by the other user. My edit removed copyright content copied from here, which read ” These, coupled with the Final Declaration on Restoring Peace in Indochina, affirmed the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, prevented the deployment of military officers and personnel to Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and determined the temporary nature of military borders as well as the need for an eventual free general election, among others.” — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Do you take any issue with me restoring what I discuss above? Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not, but if the other party objects you should discuss it on the talk page first to gain consensus. Please don’t try to communicate with them via edit summaries, as this typically results in edit warring. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]