User talk:Diannaa: Difference between revisions

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Hi @Diannaa, I see you have given final warning to user TeenX808. But he has done copy right violations for many articles. I will list down those now Draft:Uposathaghara, Draft:Osariya, Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya, Draft:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136) , Invasion of Anuradhapura by Rastrakuta empire . Can you check those in his talk page and also could you block or temporary block him from editing as he is doing violation in wikipedia? 106.51.26.28 (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These have all been checked and cleaned where appropriate. The user has not edited since his last warning, so a block is not appropriate at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings dear Dianna
I kindly request an explanation to as why my recent edits on Bid’ah were removed. The reason in the edit summary was: “https://islamqa.info/en/answers/160876/bidah-(innovation)-and-maslahah-mursalah-(consideration-of-public-interest)-and-the-similarities-and-differences-between-them or elsewhere” However, I cannot recall using that source. I would not use it as it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR. However, as my edits are crossed out, I cannot check what was done wrong. I am pretty confident at that I added just one source, and it was not IslamQA. The rest of edits removed primary research. Maybe there was a mistake or you confused something? Or is there something I overlooked. Thank you in advance! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the source that was cited for the content I removed, The content was not identical to the source, but was similar enough to be a copyright violation. The prose was in the sectionn titled “Difference with maslaha”, and was six bullet points.The content was not added by yourself but by an IP. In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. Your edits were not removed though. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, wondering if you want to look at this edit by a user (Prosnu) whom you just gave a third warning about copyvios earlier today ([1]). The first part of this edit is a word-for-word translation from the cited French source (via Google Translate). Here is the text in question from the edit:

It may have been repaired by Nur al-Din, after the earthquake of 1158, which wreaked great havoc in Baalbek, and then under the Ayyubids and the Mamluks, according to some inscriptions engraved on its walls. Most of these texts are administrative decrees, unrelated to the history of the building; they at least prove that the great Mosque remained prosperous until the end of the Mamluk dynasty. In 1318, it was seriously compromised by a flood.

And here is the text from the French source (here; see p.336, footnote 2):

Il a peut-être été réparé par Nur al-din, après le sisme de 1158, qui fit de grands ravages à Baalbek, puis sous les Ayyoubides et les Mamlouks, suivant quelques inscriptions gravées sur ses murs. La plupart de ces textes sont des décrets administratifs, sans rapport avec l’histoire de l’édifice; ils prouvent du moins que la grande Mosquée est restée prospère jusqu’à la fine de la dynastie des Mamlouks. En 1318, elle fut gravement compromise par une inondation;

I don’t know how severe that is, but they’ve had multiple warnings from multiple editors (including myself here in addition to talk page warnings) and have not responded to any of them so far. R Prazeres (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source book was published in 1913, and is therefore in the public domain. I will add the required attribution template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thankfully. I forgot about checking the date for PD. Thank you for checking and clarifying. R Prazeres (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa,
Does this mean I now can finally resubmit my draft? The subject is actually simple, so there’s not much more to say or restructure the sentences, and given the simple subject, I’given enough independant references, and I don’t know what more I can do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ΨΨΨ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to ask the three people who have declined the draft whether or not it is ready now. Or just resubmit and see what happens. Sorry I don’t assess drafts so I have no comment on what the result might be. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Most of its content was removed due to copyright edit, I hope the current version can satisfy you, if there’s any changes required please let me know thanks TeenX808 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrym, I don’t assess drafts. Please submit your draft using the link on the tempalte at the top of the draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: here you go Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya#History TeenX808 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to assess the draft. Look at the top of the draft. There’s a link that says “Submit this draft for review!” Click on that link to get your draft in the queue for review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: oh no I’m not asking you to publish the draft, most of its content was removed by you previously due to copyright edit I’m just asking you to check so I can keep on editing the article. TeenX808 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, now I understand. The current version looks ok from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: thank you so much also in the future will it be okay if i ask you to review my drafts. TeenX808 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: i have finally completed the draft can you please check the article for any violations so i can paraphrase it further. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is okay from a copyright point of view. There’s a lot of quotations though. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: yes I was trying to cap on the quotations but they are quite important and thank you so much for all the help, also can I ask help in future. Again thank you so much. TeenX808 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can help with copyright related questions. Due to health issues I am tryting to limit my time online, so please visit the WP:Teahouse with general questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: sure and is there anyway for me to reset the copy right violation,thank you for all the help and I hope you have speedy recoveryTeenX808 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don’t know what you mean. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I’m on my last warning and I’m quite paranoid about, is there a way for me to reset the violations or am I stuck.TeenX808 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the copyvio has been cleaned up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: so if I make a mistake will I be timed out or do I get warnings again, thanks TeenX808 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already had four warnings, so a block would be next. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) According to Earwig, Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya is 68.8% copyright violation. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The overlappingcontent is from books published in 1895 and 1905. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: permanent ? TeenX808 (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even after receiving final approval, the user TeenX808 has once again committed a copyright violation in the article “Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya,” specifically in the newly added “Vandalizing of the Viharaya” section. Despite User has told you to review the copyright violation for the article after you gave approval user has done the violation by copying the entire content of this section from the Amazing Lanka website. This behavior has occurred repeatedly, and the user has continued to violate copyright laws after being warned.
Given the ongoing nature of these violations, I request that this user be banned from further edits to prevent further disruptions to the article. 2409:40F4:2:B079:C0D6:2FF:FEED:3492 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya. I see some quotations in that section, but no copyvio. It’s okay to use short quotations. Also, both of the sources quoted are in the public domain, with one being published in 1895 and the other in 1905. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: how am I supposed to edit without any copyright violations also the web amazing Lanka directly sourced from the book, so the text is gonna look similar, is there a tool which I could use.Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is 68.8% quotation! Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already know that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: if you free please feel free to check this Draft:Vega Innovations, I hope the paraphrasing is strong. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased from where? You haven’t any citations, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: used google from random websites, tomorrow I will add the citations and remind you. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I have completed, you can check now TeenX808 (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found no issues using Earwig’s tool.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]