User talk:Diannaa/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Question

First of all, I want to thank you for the support you've given me, as well as the assistance you've offered in the past. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA. I would be honoured to be included on such a list. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. I know I still have much to learn, but I'm glad that I have editors like you who can make the right call. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014 Wikification drive awards.

		The Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar
		For scoring 3rd place on the leaderboard during the February 2014 Wikification drive, Diannaa, you are hereby awarded the Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar. Congratulations! :)

		The Iron Wikification Barnstar
		For wikifying 10 articles during the drive, you are also awarded the Iron Wikification Barnstar. Keep up the good work! :)

Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks! -- Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hyderabad

There were more vandalism before PC time extended. Perhaps make semi a little longer? --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please just keep an eye out and report at RFPP if the problem resumes when the protection wears off. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sven70

He's back at 202.175.26.0/24. Sigh. Doc talk 09:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked this range for two weeks, no one else seems to be using it. I have added it to my calendar and will help you monitor. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

TY :) Doc talk 01:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

New Orleans map

Diannaa, It seems like at least some of the issue here may lie with a misunderstanding of map-making and the sources of data that are freely available to cartographers. There are several outlets for aerial imagery now available free of use for almost any map-making purpose. One of the most widely-used is from the ESRI basemap service. That is what I used; the aerial imagery is freely available for any non-for-profit purpose. When loading this layer, the specific license information states "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 United States License." Two main sources of aerial imagery in the United States are NASA and the USGS, and because they are are U.S. government entities, that data is considered public domain. On a related note, many of the layers (roads, elevation data, political boundaries) used to create the original map could have similar licenses and usage restrictions, which makes it seem odd that the level of scrutiny was not the same.

What suggestions would you have so that I can re-upload the image and not run into this issue? If the background imagery was no longer included but no other changes were made, would you no longer take issue? W Scott Lincoln 19:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your post really made a mess of my talk page, but I have repaired it. There was no need to pull 42,000 kb of stuff out of my archives; in the future just start a new thread please. What you need to do is provide a source for the underlying map image to prove its copyright status. If you could provide me with a link to the web page where you found the image I will assess it and fix things up for you. Remember the source web page needs to specify the copyright status of the image. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (ec) A non-commercial licence like CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 is not considered “free“ on Wikipedia or Commons, where content must be reusable for any purpose. Same for educational-only and all similar conditions. The public-domain material is fine, though.—Odysseus1479 19:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"There was no need to pull 42,000 kb of stuff out of my archives; in the future just start a new thread please."

I guess I am not sure what you are referring to. I went to the contributions, found where I had made the original post in the list, and then just edited the section. After I posted my reply, it looked fine to me, just how I normally see replies on other talk pages. I guess elaborate if I am missing something. In regards to the elevation map, I think there is still a misunderstanding. It's not from a web page with a download-able image but instead from a basemap service which ties into the ESRI ArcGIS software. It is a matter of turning on a layer in the software and it retrieves the basemap imagery. I believe this is the terms of use summary available online for the World Imagery basemap service that ArcGIS uses: http://downloads2.esri.com/ArcGISOnline/docs/tou_summary.pdf I didn't find mention of the license I mentioned above, although like I said that is what the software tells me when I click on the metadata for that service. I also was not aware that "non-commercial share alike" was not an allowable license for wikipedia; I think I've even picked it a few times for other images I've uploaded. If the background imagery was no longer included but no other changes were made, would you no longer take issue? W Scott Lincoln 18:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Images: a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 United States License is not a free enough license for Wikipedia or the Commons, as it does not allow commercial use of the image. Since we require all images to be freely re-useable by anyone for any purpose, including commercial uses, the underlying image is not acceptable for use on this site. The PDF http://downloads2.esri.com/ArcGISOnline/docs/tou_summary.pdf states that the only permitted uses of screen captures are:

• Personal use, internal business use, or include in a presentation or a report for a client
• In brochures and marketing collateral, or on a company web site to promote your own products and services and display your store locations
• In academic publications (research journals, textbooks, etc)

Re-making the image while omitting the underlying map is a good alternative.

I will re-create the image and omit the aerial imagery background. The interesting situation that is about to arise, however, is that the image with the background in question is about to appear in a technical report by a U.S. government entity, which would then seem put it in the public domain. Once the image is re-created, should I just re-upload it under a new name? 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)W Scott Lincoln

Your image File:Jacobs Creek Flood Aug 2003 COMET.jpg on the Commons is not properly licensed for use on this site, as it specifies non-commercial and educational uses only, so I have nominated it for deletion. Your other uploads are okay.

Was this a recent rule change on wikipedia? I seem to recall that being an actual option from a drop-down menu when I uploaded it.14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)W Scott Lincoln

Pulling stuff out of the archive: Our conversation had already been archived. in other words, I had taken old conversations from this page and moved them to another location for permanent storage. What you must have done was go into the page history and located an old version of the page and edited that. What happened when you did this was you re-added all those old conversations back onto the page, and also deleted five new conversations. In the future, if you arrive at a talk page and don't see the material you are looking for, please assume it has been archived, and start a new thread.-- Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how I would have done that. Like I said, I didn't go to your talk page first, I went to my contributions, clicked the link it provided, and edited below your reply to me. I'm not sure how to edit an archived version of a page, I'm only familiar with editing the version that exists, or using 'revert' to fix a page after vandalism.14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)W Scott Lincoln

Regarding my talk page, you must have gotten a warning at the top of the page stating "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed."

Regarding licensing, I don't think we have ever allowed commercial-use-only images on this website or on the Commons. On the Commons, there is no such choice on the drop-down menu. On this wiki, any images tagged this way are automatically listed for speedy deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this specific image, once you create a compliant image you can upload it under a new file name. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa... I am about to upload a new version of the map that includes a slightly different dataset for aerial imagery. I found Landsat data served up through the United State Geological Survey. The USGS indicates that all of their high resolution Landsat data for Louisiana is in the public domain (http://cumulus.cr.usgs.gov/listofortho.php) W Scott Lincoln 18:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

New image is here: commons:File:New Orleans elevation relative to Lake Pontchartrain.jpg Thank you for putting up with me while I get it figured out. W Scott Lincoln 19:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a license template for the underlying image to the file description page. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again friend

I recently made an article regarding Johann Kielmansegg, however I created the arcticle under the name "Johann Kielmansegg" and not "Johann von Kielmansegg". Could you maybe add the "von" into the article? I would be very grateful, friend.

- Jonas Vinther

I can move it for you if you like. But wait, should it be "Johann Adolf Graf von Kielmansegg"? See this obituary in the Guardian, and this article on the German Wikipedia. Please let me know, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it should just be "Johann von Kielmansegg". Thank you so much friend.

- Jonas Vinther

Wales

You protected the page just after the editor causing all the problems took a one week holiday to avoid a ban. Not really necessary now that has happened ----Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

More templates!

Hello! I was stalking some talk pages and found User:Diannaa/Copyright. I like the WP:AGF wording and WP:CRY-like philosophy, and how detailed you were in your explaining what to do in those situations. Inspired, I made two templates, Template:Uw-copyright-org and Template:Uw-copyright-img. I modified the messages some and added a few options. So that now makes three templates I have created by shamelessly stealing your work. Again, I hope you don't mind, and obviously feel free to add to the templates as you see fit :) Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! -- Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Narvekar ameya

I see you warned Narvekar ameya (talk · contribs) last year. I've just reverted more copyvio from him at [1]. User:Narvekar ameya/sandbox has copyvio. And if you look at his contributions for Feb 12th, he seems to have rapidly reviewed a number of articles, at least one of which has been deleted. I'm inclined to indef him, but maybe he's redeemable? Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone whose first language is likely not English shouldn't be reviewing new articles at the rate of over 50 per hour. Some instances they did four per minute; it would not have been possible for them to have read the articles in that short time, much less check them out for sourcing, copyright issues, NPOV, notability, etc. The recent addition of copyright material is bad news as well; they don't seem to understand copyright law. The person really wants to contribute but I'm not sure they have the language skills or knowledge to do so. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked him and removed some more copyvio. I made it clear he had to demonstrate his ability to abide by our copyvio policy and to refrain from involvement in the review process. I agree he probably doesn't have the language skills in any case, I haven't seen anything he has actually written himself. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabro Korsvejskolen

I'm tired of you keep trying to get the "Sabro Korsvejskolen Logo" picture deleted. Stop doing that, I made that picture myself, so please stop!

- Jonas Vinther

Sorry, you have misunderstood. I am not trying to get it deleted; I am trying to prevent if from being deleted, and have said so at the deletion discussion, which is here. If you remove the fair use templates by blanking the page, the image is actually more likely to get deleted, as it does not have a license template any more. Regardless, you should not remove the deletion tag; that should only be done by the closing administrator.

The logo is a modified version of the logo available on the school's website. You should not say it is your own work unless you are the original creator of the artwork that is incorporated into the logo. If you are in fact the creator and copyright holder of the artwork and wish to release the image under a fair use license, please follow the instructions at WP:consent to get an OTRS ticket in place on the file. If you are not the creator of the artwork, or you do not wish to release the image under license, please reverse your edit, as this will result in the image being kept. Sorry, this misunderstanding is my fault. I thought you would understand what I was doing and why, and therefore I did not explain it to you. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)(UTC)

Ohh I see. Well, sorry about that then.

- Jonas Vinther

File:Cavallaro.jpg

I would like to to restore the deleted File:Cavallaro.jpg. I was unaware that it had been tagged for a lack of documentation. — Eurodog (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eurodog. The problem is that the image is a depiction of a mural, and we don't have any information on the copyright status of that mural. The mural is "Man in Space," 1965, PS 9, Manhattan, NYC by Vincent Cavallaro (1912 - 1985), glass mosaic. In the United States, there is no freedom of panorama for artworks, even if installed in a public place. However, any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978). The copyright notice would have to be visible and incorporated into the piece and/or registered with the US copyright office, which has a searchable database. For public artwork installed between 1923 and 1977 inclusive that was not copyrighted at the time of installation, use {{PD-US-no notice}}. If it was copyright, but the copyright was never renewed, use {{PD-US-not renewed}}. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The is no copyright notice on or near the mural. Would it be possible for you to restore the image with the following tag —> {{PD-US-no notice}}? — Eurodog (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Getty Images Announcement

[2], [3], etc. What are the implications? Is this a good thing... or a really good thing? I am intrigued by this, and am curious what the stance of the WMF will be. Any thoughts? Doc talk 06:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The images still won't be free enough to use on Wikipedia, because our terms require that the content be free to re-use and modify by anyone. They are allowing non-commercial use only. It's scary to think that Getty has the capability to locate any non-licensed copies of their images, and presumably force removal or even lay charges (see the Tech Crunch article). -- Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the purpose is to attract users who would otherwise not use Getty's images and therefore not contribute any money to Getty anyway. By making some of those people advertise Getty in image taglines, instead of advertising repositories of freely licensed images such as Commons and Flickr, people who pay Getty for using images (either by paying for a licence or by being fined for violating copyright) may become less aware of freely licensed images and choose to use Getty's images instead. I've frequently seen Commons photos in newspapers recently, and more Commons photos in newspapers means less money for Getty, which Getty probably doesn't like. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Naturally I did not think the Getty images would ever be "free" (i.e. Public Domain). But "usable" with attribution? We do theoretically allow FU images here, though it's an area I try to no longer delve into. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think even usable with attribution would require some policy changes, since the site is supposed to have all (or almost all) the content freely re-usable by anyone. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The best place to start would be at WP:NFC. We've got a bare link in the intro there right now. Yikes. Doc talk 06:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Can You Close a Photo-Deletion Discussion ?

I see that you are an Admin who sometimes advises photo processor User:Stefan2. Could you please look at this discussion concurring a photo deletion request of his, and determine if we can now close that discussion (link of discussion is below)? It has been about 7 days since his request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_March_1#Terrific_Street

Do we have enough of a consensus to close that discussion and remove the Delete Tags from those 2 photos and change their status to Keep? If so, would you be willing to close that discussion and fix the tags?James Carroll (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am going to decline. I am not really working with files much any more, and assessing consensus is not one of my strong points. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please list some admins who could make such a determination? Thanks. James Carroll (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You could list it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, and an uninvolved admin will take it on. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Battle of Berlin

Hey, can you replace this sentence "These claims are criticized by Russian historians like Oleg Rzheshevsky, who stated that such descriptions of the Red Army are similar to the images instilled by Nazi propaganda" with "Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread"? Or add the second one as one of two options?
Looking at it again, I think the second sentence is better.
Also, can you link this section[4], so that it is clear that there is enough support for the Russian view in sources and it is not just based on one historian. -YMB29 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think it should be mentioned that the issue is NPOV and WP:ASF in particular. -YMB29 (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi YMB29. My questions were carefully worded this way to be as neutral as possible, without giving guidance to the respondents as to how they are expected to respond. Please don't alter other people's talk page posts, especially something as important as this. Any critique of the wording of my RFC or other commentary or should be placed in the threaded discussion section. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you make the changes I asked for?

Based on your response and what the other user posted, the users who will potentially comment are missing key information that needs to be made clear. -YMB29 (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Usually when RfCs are worded input from both sides is taken into account, and everyone has to agree on the wording.

This is the sentence I would rather have in the RfC (for the second question): Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread. -YMB29 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not be changing my questions, and I already explained why: RFC questions have to be worded as neutrally as possible without guiding the other participants as to how to respond. Adding your requested changes would be telling people what to think, and I don't want to do that. By the way, there's no requirement that both sides have to agree on the wording; the requirement is that the question(s) have to be framed as neutrally as possible, and I think I've done that. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well it was not neutrally formulated by you.

Key issues and information are missing from the RfC.

Users have to know on what to base their decisions. -YMB29 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is like asking people on the street random questions when they don't know the background information. -YMB29 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See here[5]. -YMB29 (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the opinion you gave for the RfC[6], if your intention really was to help resolve the dispute, it seems that you missed the points I was making about wiki policies.
A well sourced statement still has to be attributed, unless it is an undisputed fact (see WP:ASF).
For the other part, it does not matter that you think that "Russian historians who try to minimize the scope of the problem are trying to cover it up". The issue is representing all significant views (WP:NPOV), not what you or others think the truth is (see WP:TRUTH). -YMB29 (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please post any further comments on this article on the article talk page, not here. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wannsee Conference

Hi Diannaa, this is true, he was not that involved. I have removed the category.Hoops gza (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work, by the way. You have been lighting up my watch-list lately with helpful and useful edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

CCI update

--MER-C 03:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ~! — Diannaa (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article

Notifying you, as you were the GA Reviewer for the article:

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Hi Diannaa, I uploaded this file of fair use cover art to go in Richard Cobb. I thought this was appropriate because of WP:NFC#UUI ("if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary") but it's been flagged because the file rationale states that it will "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". Should I remove the image, or can it be fixed? Thanks in advance for your help. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The image fails our non-free content criteria, because book covers should only be used in an article about that book, not about the author. The file qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion F7. Please see WP:NFC#UUI for more information on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,, but why doesn't it serve as "the subject of sourced discussion in the article"? SteveStrummer (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The cover itself would have to be discussed in the article. You discuss the book, not its cover. And there's nothing here that cannot be described using words alone, so the image fails NFCC #1 and #8. WP:NFCC -- Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you :( Can you delete it, or should I mark it up? SteveStrummer (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged it for you. Sorry the reply could not have been more favourable :/. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

g12s

Sorry for all the spammed g12s, but they were clear copyvio. Im sure its going to piss that guy off, even pure copy and paste thats a lot of work. Soorry to create all the work for you too :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gaijin42. Thanks for your alertness in detecting this problem. Could I suggest that in cases like this, rather than having Twinkle post the standard message for each article, it's better to post just one standard Twinkle message and then list the additional files or articles underneath. You can still nominate using Twinkle; just tick the box to not notify the creator (except for the first nom), and then add a list of the remaining nominated material below the first message. This avoids posting a huge wall of text on the user's talk page that they are unlikely to read or understand. An example of how to do this is here. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of that feature, but you are right, that would be a better option. I will do that in the future. (Although hopefully I don't have to mass nominate often) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well now we've got a mess on our hands, because it looks like (according to his post at Talk:Kyiv Drawing School) the ultimate source of the material is not http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/, but http://www.history.org.ua/, which is available under a Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. I am going to have to undelete all these pages and apologise to the editor. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not be so sure. The text is EXACTLY from the encyclopediaofukraine.com if it was translated by them, the translation would still by copyright, and according to http://encyclopediaofukraine.com/info.asp they seem to be compiling their content based on a printed encyclopedia (Encyclopedia of Ukraine (University of Toronto Press, 1984-93)) which itself would be copyrighted. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure now (regardless of the status of the original prose in Ukranian) that these translations are copyright, and I will not be able to undelete these articles after all. Thanks for your good advice and help., -- Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Leonardo Ferrulli

Hello, I got from Associazione4stormo the picture of Leonardo Ferrulli and - as I was not able to uploaded it - I asked Bzuk to upload it for me. The Association told me it can be quoted as a public domain picture, and so I uploaded it in the List of WW2 flying aces... is it ok? Could you help me to upload other pictures from the associazione4stormo, in the next future, as Bzuk seems to be too busy at the moment?

Thanks

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no indication on the source website that any of these pictures are public domain. Please don't upload any more of them unless you are familiar with our fair use rules and copyright law and know what license templates to use. I only did the one image to keep it from getting deleted and have my own projects to pursue, so I am not interested in helping any further. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User:Diannaa

 – —Soham (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Overlord, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Caisson and Dungeness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Mr and Mrs film poster.jpg

Thanks filling out the ommitted information in my absence :)--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE drive question

Hi Diannaa :-) I joined the March GOCE drive, my first ever, glad to be part of it! and thought i found a good and virtuous target - Sociological_theory_of_diffusion from Dec 2012. I made a little start but am feeling I bit off more than I can chew, as in in feels like a more significant research job is needed not just copy-editing. I could just abandon the effort, but I'd love to know if am I judging right or have I got the wrong sense? And actually, now I've found Diffusion_of_innovation and wonder if they need to be merged (way beyond my experience level!!) - Could you advise? Many thanks! Depthdiver (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Depthdiver. Might I suggest that if you feel that what the article needs is beyond the scope of copy editing and requires input from an expert in the field, you can remove the copy edit tag and add {{Expert-subject}} instead. On the talk page, you can add {{GOCEreviewed}} to show that you assessed the article and determined that the issues with the article go beyond what copy editing alone can resolve. The issue of merging the two articles is probably best left to the experts. But you can add {{merge}} templates to the two articles if you like, and even try to get a discussion going if you have the time. If you put a lot of effort into the page and wish to get credit for the drive, please use the word count only for the section that you worked on and make a note of what you did on your tally sheet. Thank you for your interest in helping out with copy edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ah, great, thanks and for your quick response - though I feel a little insecure about my judgement cause I'm just getting into copyediting - can I get someone else to check the call I'm making - or is just ok and I should be bold, since the expert tag will hopefully bring someone along who can help? Depthdiver (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, the subject matter is not my strong point, I cannot say. If you'd like a second opinion on what to do, please feel free to ask another coordinator. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Sincere apologies for removing your edit, entirely accidental! All good wishes.Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

CCI update

Another one down. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Like -- Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 03:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Rinse The Blood Off My Toga!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR_5h8CzRcI

Heydrich

Heydrich had a Jewish grandparent and there was no "investigation." He used his raw power to "direct" a finding he had no Jewish ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ArdenHathaway. I will reply on the article talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Again

I can't get the range contributions calculator to work, but he is back on the 163.32.124.0/24. [7] Doc talk 16:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've re-blocked the range, though like you I was unable to check for collateral damage, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

TY :) Doc talk 22:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: go to Preferences→Gadgets→Advanced and check "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms (uses API), as well as wildcard prefix searches, e.g., "Splark*"." Works great. Actually I had to change the "From year (and earlier)" field to 2015 or it missed the more recent edits, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Josef Mengele

What I thought it was going to be the timeconsuming GAN from hell considering the subject, which was why I delayed it until I find the time to fully review it, turned out to be a pleasant read with hardly any errors preventing it for GA status. Sorry for the delay. Secret ^account 18:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have been such a nag – I just thought you may have forgotten. – Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Josef Mengele

The article Josef Mengele you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Josef Mengele for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection request - List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Golden Globe, SAG, and Critic's Choice Award for a single performance

Hi,

I am engaged in an edit war with another user on this page. I am hoping for an admin with some knowledge of cinema to protect the page and settle the debate (I emphatically believe I am in the right), or failing that, just someone to protect the page and end the edit war whilst I attempt to persuade the other user. I have contacted two others about this, so I am sorry if the issue has been taken care of before you receive this.

Best Wishes

MasonBanks (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi MasonBanks. Admins can't both help you settle the content issue plus use admin-tools on the same article. It's one or the other, not both. The other user has not edited for around 12 hours so I see no urgent reason to protect the article. Requests for page protection are usually posted at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have good reason to believe that that user is simply busy and will revert when they wake/next visit. If I had to choose I would choose admin powers. I will move my request to the relevant area. MasonBanks (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Josef Mengele (estimated annual readership: 1,366,149) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well deserved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Half Million Award

		The Half Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Death of Adolf Hitler (estimated annual readership: 896,555) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC) -- ~~~~

Thanks everyone! --Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Operation Overlord

Good morning, Bonjour,

My name is Marc DANIEL, 52, I live in LOYAT, MORBIHAN, BRITTANY, FRANCE.

The Free French SAS are forgotten in operation Overlord. 900 Free French SAS in England, 3rd and 4th SAS battalions in the British SAS brigade. Operation Fortitude in the North of France, operation Overlord in Normandy and operations Dingson, Samwest, Cooney in Brittany. About The French SAS, you can see the film : bataillon du ciel (sky's battalion) 1947 from the Joseph Kessel's novel. Remember the film, the longest day : 2 Free French SAS with 1 woman by night on the railroad, from operation Cooney.

I put pages in operation Overlord from the Henry Corta's book, "les bérets rouges" (1952). I will see pages in his other book "Qui ose gagne" (who dares wins), 1997. Henry Corta was my father's friend during summer 1944 in Brittany. 90.84.144.198 (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am working to get the article up to Good Article standards so that's why everything has to be in really good shape. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK I see. It is a very good article. Thank you.15:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.84.145.76 (talk)

FYI

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Debian --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

RevDelete required for edit summaries

After you blocked Bokopongvandaal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the last six edits in the user's contributions have offensive edit summaries. RevDelete is needed to remove these edit summaries that threatened me. Eyesnore (pc) 01:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eyesnore. These edit summaries are not offensive enough in my opinion to warrant revision deletion, just the typical rants you will often get while fighting vandalism. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Jenna Jameson improvements

Thanks for your extensive copy editing of the Jenna Jameson article. It's appreciated! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)}

Livetecs.com creation.

Hi Diannaa, i've been working on the Livetecs.com article, but it seems that it was blocked because the quality of the content that was uploaded severeal times didn't met Wikipedia's guidelines, so I re-did it. Please take a look at it in my Sandbox so we can discuss it's creation. Thanks a lot. Hercsung (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hercsung. While this version is not overtly promotional, it does not explain how the company meets our notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) calls for multiple instances of in-depth coverage (not just mentions) in third-party sources. All you have right now for third-party sources is a review of one of the company's products, so as it stands right now you haven't established notability as defined by Wikipedia. The article, if published into mainspace, would qualify for speedy deletion under criterion WP:A7. Sorry, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

TIMUN

Yhy did you delete the "TIMUN" page on december 2, 2013? It was our school's MUN conference's page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.155.120.76 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The page TIMUN was a redirect to Turkish International Model United Nations, which was deleted on November 25, 2013 as WP:A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. A similar article at the title TIMUN was deleted for similar reasons in 2006 and 2009. As a general rule, student organisations of this type are not considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Diannaa, just to let you know, I have reset and extended your block of Igorro 989. They used a sock, Igor Jakub 6754, to evade their block and continue their genre warring. Best. Acalamari 09:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you -- Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Umberto Bottura

Hi, I was directed to you by GiantSnowman with regard to a potential range block. The user in question is Umberto Bottura (talk · contribs), who has used multiple IPs to avoid their block. Do you think a range block is possible in this case? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

These are all in a fairly tight range: 186.225.12.0/24 (up to 256 users would be blocked). Lots of edits are coming from this range, all seem to be regarding football. I have no idea why this user needs to be blocked though, as there's little information on the sockpuppet case page and the user's talk page is a red link. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I was "brought" here by Matty, who asked me to further comment on this case: this "user", also known as User:Bruno corinthiano, was (has been) warned long and hard in both English and his mothertongue Portuguese, responds(ed) to no one, and what does he do(did)? Removes pic captions in infobox, which led to a three-year ban (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/177.0.204.119), removes the dash in the player position wikilink (example, turning the correct Defender (association football)#Centre-back into Defender (association football)#Centre back, for example check out Juan Bernat where he does it with what, 10, 20 IPs? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Bernat&diff=601139258&oldid=601118762), all that without one measly summary.

Hopefully i was of help, keep up the good work --AL (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• (some)Apologies maybe in order to you and Matty, i don't think it was ever proven that that IP starting with 177 is Corinthiano/Bottura, all his IPs start with 186 (maybe i'm making a mess with all these reports and all these vandals after eight years, both hail from the SANTA CATARINA state but from different cities). But we have A LOT, THOUSANDS of the latter, so it's no excuse and it's disruption, vandalism or whatever you call it no? --AL (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There's also plenty of good edits such as this and this and this and this and this. There's as you say no proof he's the sock of someone that was blocked. There's been thousands of valid good edits coming from this range since August and insufficient evidence of disruption or stuff that's intentionally wrong that needs to be reverted. Please feel free to post at WP:AIV if you wish to get another opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This source, dated Today, says that Juan Bernat is playing left back, which is the edit the IP was trying to make. Vandalism? I think not. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand you are not accustomed to football, but Mr.Bernat plays BOTH left winger and left back. The Brazilian "user", in the diff i showed you, removed the former position and removed the dash (please see again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Bernat&diff=601139258&oldid=601118762, notice as he does the former in the very last word, "left-back" turns to "left back", i can show you THOUSANDS of diffs if you request them). But he is a vandal or blatantly incompetent, one of the two.

Thank you for your time (and i'm not being sarcastic, in any way), happy work --AL (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

Hello Diana, Could you please come to Talk:Water fluoridation controversy#Addition to Statements against water fluoridation, and give your NPOV take on things. This article is "protected" by zealous water fluoridation promoters, and it's impossible to have legitimate discussion and addition to the article, they keep twisting wikipedia guidelines to suit their POV. Thank you109.64.50.177 (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What makes the opinion of this group important enough to add to the article? I'm not seeing it. I don't think this should go in the article unless it's reported in reliable third party sources such as the New York Times. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. i've added plenty of reliable third party sources in the talk page. The group is very notable.(different IP same person)79.179.128.177 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabro Korsvejskolen

File:Sabro, Korsvejskolen, logo.jpg Hi friend. I'm the creator and uploader of the picture used in the article and I can assure you it's free.

- Jonas Vinther

Since the same image appears on their website, we cannot take your word for it; an OTRS ticket is required. Please have the copyright holder of the image send an email to the OTRS team using the instructions at WP:Consent. Alternatively, the file can remain here as fair use. Please stop removing the deletion template; only an administrator should be removing that template. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

But I am the copyright holder of the image!

- Jonas Vinther

The copyright for a school logo is normally held by the school as a corporate entity. That's why I worded my remarks the way that I did. If you represent the school in this capacity, please send an email to the OTRS team, preferably using an email address that shows that you are linked to the school, and explain it to them. You will find the instructions at WP:Consent. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Aight... I will!

- Jonas Vinther

WINC (AM)

Remember

Hey Dianna, the PDF links on the WINC (AM) page are actually links to a book, in PDF form. That's what I had the references listed in the {{cite book}} template. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the PDFs are available online, cite web is better, because then you can keep the access date. The cite book template doesn't have an access date parameter. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So, even if it is a PDF of a book, I can use cite web? Another question, can you help do a bibliography source section on the page? Wehwalt was trying to explain it to me, but I just wasn't getting it. I gave it a shot in the sandbox and I'm not sure what I did wrong. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have combined all the sources that use the book History of WINC. There's no advantage to doing anything further in a sources section, as the remainder of the citations are all unique. RE: using cite web versus cite book: I would use the one that best suits the purpose in the particular article. Technically your source is a book, but I don't think anyone will complain about them being formatted as cite web, even if you took the article to FA. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Redrose64 created a combination list references and shortened footnotes in his sandbox. I personally think it looks quite awesome and was what I was trying to do in my sandbox. Do you think it is overdoing it or looks good? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think making a sources section for one-time sources is redundant. I prefer the other version -- Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, I wanted to get your opinion. I looked at Redrose's version and the one currently on the page, rattled them around in my head for awhile I think I perfer the one we currently have. But I wanted to see what you thought first before making my final decision. Thanks for your input. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Always a pleasure. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I came here via User talk:RexxS and I'd like to point out that access dates are not limited to {{cite web}} - the |accessdate= parameter is provided on all of the citation templates which have a |url= parameter, which includes {{cite book}}; in fact, it's only displayed if you fill in |url=. Regarding {{cite web}} vs {{cite book}} - it's stated or implied on several pages that {{cite web}} is not intended for books; for example, at the top of the documentation for {{cite web}}, it states "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template."; and WP:CS1#General use has a table, the bottom row of which states "{{Cite web}} web sources not characterized by another template". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nazis and Islamists

Nazi germany articles are good --i hope you edit islamic terrorism,persecution of Hindus pages. islamic genocides throughout history in the past 1400 years is more bloodier and horrific then that of nazis. Rim sim (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Files Guanacaste Waldorf School

Dear Diannaa,
recently you deleted the three following files:

• 
• 
• 

The reason was "F4: Lack of source and licensing information".
Now I got an e-mail from the director of the Guanacaste Waldorf School, where she allows to publish the pictures under the licence of cc-by-sa-4.0
Can you reactivate the pictures please or should I sent the e-mail to somebody?
Thank you! --Gwscr (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gwscr. The email needs to be sent to the OTRS team using the instructions found at WP:Consent. The copyright holder needs to list the file names and specify what license they are releasing the files under. A list of compatible licenses can be found at Wikipedia:Licenses#For image creators. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This is for all of the hard work you do, especially deleting files here lately! Your work is much appreciated! Corkythehornetfan(talk) 00:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Diannaa (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20140210 is closed (finally)

Whack! MER-C 04:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Double whammy! Thanks to User:Wizardman for setting up for round two. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Schindler's List

Hi, Diannaa. I think that the recent IP who edited the page was referring to the portion in color at the end. I don't know if this suffices for Wikipedia's policies, however.Hoops gza (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hoops gza. Perhaps that's what they meant. Regardless, DeLuxe Color is a specific finishing process for colour film, so we would need a citation to support that category imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-grammar

I'm confused? I thought all German or non-English words/titles should be written like this?

Here's what I mean:

Correct: Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Incorrect: Oberkommando der Wehrmacht

Did I get it wrong? Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have reverted that part of your edit. Foreign words should be in italics, unless they're in common use (Panzer, Fuhrer, Wehrmacht). -- Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I re-edited that part Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would add to the common English used list: Luftwaffe and Third Reich. Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there an actual list of common-used foreign words for Wikipedia? Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

MOS:FOREIGN says not to italicise any foreign words that appear unitalicised in a good English-language dictionary. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

File names

Why are you fucking with filenames? [8] [9] [10], etc. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Uniform tiling 83-t012.png is tagged for F8 speedy deletion, and is under a different file name at the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So rename to the shorter name. Why is a shitty inconsistent name under speedy delete?! Tom Ruen (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That name already exists on the Commons. The files are not identical, either. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the differences, they have the same meaning, same origin, so the short names should be used. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my belligerent. I don't know who came up with the (#) prefix solution to duplicate file names is an idiot, fixing problem by creating new confusion. It would be better to "merge" the local copy into the commons image, and then revert, so both copies are under the same name on Commons, AND if there was a reason for two copies, someone could intentionally branch it to an intelligent new name. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cabra, Spain

Hi Diannaa, I'm a newbie who helped copyedit the article Cabra, Spain. To 'claim' the article I removed the tag as per Miniapolis's suggestion, and then marked it as complete on my section of the drive page. After that, someone else added more facts and research, as well as many mistakes. Should I remove the article from my 'completed' list, edit it again, or leave it as it is? If I'm asking in the wrong place I apologize. Thanks, BiryaniRanchero (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi BiryaniRanchero. I would be happy to answer your question. You're not expected to return to the article and maintain it indefinitely to get credit for the drive. If the article was in good shape when you removed the tag, that's adequate for our drive. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikification drive notification.

Greetings! Just letting you know, the April 2014 backlog drive has commenced! It's the 1st! May Day! May Day - ain't for another month. (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an interview for the upcoming edition of the Bugle

Hi Diannaa, Ian Rose and I, the two editors of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle are hoping to run a group interview with editors who work on German military history topics in next month's edition. Based on your work in this field, we'd like to invite you to participate. If you have time, it would be great if you could post responses to some or all of the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Interview. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I would be honoured to participate. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Livetecs article

Hi again! I've bee nadding a little more references to the article, please let me know what you think. Thanks again! : ) User:Hercsung/sandbox Hercsung (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This might be enough, as you've got several independent reviews/sources. If you submit the article via the Articles for Creation process, another person will review and accept or decline the article. To submit the article, use the big green link on your draft that says "Submit your draft for review!" Good luck. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for judging the GOCE March 2014 copy edit drive! :) Newyorkadam (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

...and another one!

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting 15 articles with a total of 2,542 words during the March GOCE drive (and for your help with the barnstars)! All the best, Miniapolis 20:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Primus1x

I don't know what he wants out of his argument. He admits to copying and pasting info from Gundam.info, but refuses to acknowledge his actions as plagiarism and insists that I have falsely accused him. - Areaseven (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Plagiarism" and "copyright violation" are not interchangeable terms. Regardless, I will watch the user and if he adds any more copyright violations to the encyclopedia he will be indef blocked. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi I just realised this user page User:Siddharth Malhotra (Indian Model) which has been existed on wikipedia where the user page is a clear duplicate of real article Sidharth Malhotra. pls help me to clarify if this goes under WP:IMPERSONATE. and if so, to get it removed. Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The user has not edited since 2011. I have blanked the user page as an interim solution. If you feel the page needs to be deleted, it will have to be listed at WP:MFD since it does not qualify for speedy deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ok i will keep an eye on the account and if anything continues i will report there. Daan0001 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrewbf IP

Hello Diannaa, Andrewbf is still genre warring on the IP address 187.211.26.6. Just thought you would be interested in that. STATic message me! 03:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP and named account for two more weeks. Please review the edits and see if there's anything worth keeping. Thanks for reporting this problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Diannaa, I hope the warning you left is enough to stop the whole genre warring. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the photo on my talk page! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like it! I'm never sure whether to mess around with other people's home page or not! -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Callan McAuliffe

Hi Diannaa. When you get a chance, would you mind grabbing your mop and taking a look at this? I'm not going to edit war, but it's unsourced and makes no sense (the pronoun, I mean: "she" instead of "he") and the IP has added it in for the third time while ignoring my warning. Rivertorch (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced addition and protected the page for three days. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! While we're at it, I wonder if you're aware of the situation at Zyklon B. There's an edit war brewing, and the discussion (such that it is) has spilled over onto my talk page. I know I'm not exactly being the poster boy for AGF, but honestly I just don't have the patience for that sort of bs today. Anyway, I'll be offline for the rest of the afternoon, so I leave it to others to extend as much rope as they like to the IP. Rivertorch (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't use tools on that event, as I've edited the article, but User:Dougweller has reported the IP to AIV. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Whack-A-Mole

163.32.125.0/24, editing articles again.[11] Le (sigh). Requesting rangeblock. Doc talk 06:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again, one month. He has not used the other range since March, so I am leaving it unblocked for now. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! He's obviously been watching my talk page. Yay. "Go apply for admin, (you) waste-of-air-(that)-you-breathe disabled-hater!"[12] I can't fully decipher the rest. "And go to [unintelligible], fuckhead!" Charming. Cheers :)

Semi-Protection Request

Dianna, if you have a moment, would you please indef semi-protect User:Neutralhomer/Sandbox6? Same reason as before, chronic vandalism. Thanks in advance...Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done ~! -- Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank ya, kindly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Overlord

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Overlord you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

support and questions
Thank you for living your goals of non-attachment, logic and class, treating editors as real people! I am attached and not logical, supporting the same ;) - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 November 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I send you no flowers: two years ago, you were the 93rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, now with inserted <br />. (Amazing that "Who decides what readers read" is it still in place. We do. It wasn't a question.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! -- Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Normandy landings

Thank you for all the hard work you've done on this article. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Today's task: American airborne landings, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy

Thank you for the courtesy of posting to my User talk page before removal of the "Orphaned non-free image File:Puerto Rico flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg". It is one of twelve. I have been able to answer every objection raised, but placing a USPS image in a topical philately article is dismissed. I am threatened with being banned for lack of understanding were I to try to upload USPS images again. Perhaps you could recast the argument for me, or I could just get back to work making other contributions...

• My general understanding after a week of discussion, at WP:Media copyright questions and WP:Non-free content review titled "USPS template", is that there are editors in good faith who believe that use of a USPS stamp after 1978 is not generally allowed as fair use. However it may be appropriate (see WP:NFC#UUI) if the stamp itself is described in a passage (#8), alongside (#9), including sourced commentary (#7). The stamp must have been issued to the public (#5) or become controversial (#4), and it cannot also be used at the same time in its own article (#6), — unless the artwork reproduced on the stamp is already in the public domain, as in Currier and Ives prints used in Civil War battles commemoratives, for instance which an adversarial editor helped me out with (4 of the 12 images) -- the best of Wikipedia is collegial. Where images are successfully challenged, an image link from an online source such as Arago: people, postage & the post, can be used, which I do comply with --- lacking a change in policy.

Additional hurdles can be added requiring each stamp to be artistically significant according to journalistic notability in its own right sufficient to merit a separate article before it is included in a topical philately article, and that only tertiary critical commentary can be allowed, without recourse to either government sources or the Smithsonian Institute with a USPS partnership, my two primary sources. I place this objection as something to be ignored along with that to a stamp commemorating Julia de Burgos as being of a living person, as she is dead, or that she is not relevant to Puerto Rico on stamps although she is Puerto Rican born.

• All twelve of my uploaded images had description of the non-free USPS licensed upload images in conformance with WP:NFCI (non-free content, images) 3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it. That seems to be backed up at WP:NFC#UUI 8. A baseball card (visual information) is not fair use to illustrate the article on a player unless "to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article." -- with descriptive narrative only, without critical commentary. That is, it seems to me that use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp has a passage describing the stamp itself alongside.

• At WP:NFCC WP:NFC the concerns relate to #1, #3 and #8. However in answer, to #1, There is no free equivalent of a USPS stamp for a USPS stamp after 1978, #3. Minimal usage. By limiting Wikipedia’s use of each USPS image to one page, either an article on the stamp alone, or to topical philately articles, #8. Contextual significance. Non-free content of visual information found on the entire stamp image "significantly increases reader’s understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Showing USPS stamps of people from Puerto Rico increases understanding of Puerto Rico on stamps, omission of that visual information would take away from understanding how the USG has honored Puerto Ricans by Congressional Joint Resolution initiating the stamp commemorations.

Simply denigrating visual information as “pretty”, is reductio ad absurdum, without force or logic. Editors have suggested that if I do not like the implementation of the policy, I should write the Foundation. That just seems like so much "I can't hear you." I can't believe you've read this far if you've read this far. Thanks in advance for any explanation or guidance, even if it is unfavorable. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Virginia Historian. I have skimmed Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 49#USPS template and don't really have anything to add to that discussion. The way the non-free content guidelines are being interpreted on this wiki is such that multiple non-free images are for the most part not allowed in the same article. Gallery-type presentations of non-free images are not permitted, even with accompanying sourced commentary. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the look-see anyway. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

IP edit

Hi, Diannaa. I have noticed that an IP edit from 12:40, 18 February 2014‎ on the page Nazi Germany should be hidden. Could you please hide this when you have the chance?Hoops gza (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your alertness. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Somebody That I Used To Know

For the complete list, see User:Diannaa/Soundtrack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVNT4wvIGY&feature=kp

Mi Burrito

Hi Diannaa. I do not believe that there is are any copyright or presumptive paraphrasing issues, as you have posted. Eurodog (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Rosetta Stone.png

Hello, Diannaa

I reviewed your edit in File:Rosetta Stone.png and I am afraid I find it running afoul of both copyright and WP:NFCC. First, as a non-free image, you need to supply a source. True, I had earlier downsized the image and it didn't have a good source, but it was not an original upload. (One human can only fix so many problem as a time.) But yours was an original upload and the burden of the source lies with the contributor.

Second, WP:NFCC#3 requires images not to be uploaded any bigger than they are actually needed, so that high-resolution image (500 × 212) was overkill. 64 × 64 is enough.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa. I am kinda confused here, as I did give a source, as can be seen in this diff. The file was oversize, so I tagged it for reduction. Normally the bot comes along and does this within the next day or so. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am confused too because you are totally right! You have supplied an acceptable source and this edit did not show up on my scope when I reverted! (I'd add a direct link in front of it too because I am not seeing 500px immediately. I see a 147px × 63px.) I guess an ISP cache froze midway the same second that I came to it.

I guess I was fortunate that I dropped you a note. Still, never trust a bot to do the downsizing. I just come from a WebMatrix image and Leo's Little Bot had made the image an indistinguishable jumble. Also, I wouldn't go replacing logos without wordmarks with logos bearing wordmarks, per MOS:STABILITY, not to mention the net result has little worth.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Lisa. The only reason I added the wordmark is because someone had orphaned the image and replaced it with a version from the Commons that included it. I won't do this again now that I know. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry twice, Diannaa. Sorry for the misunderstanding and sorry for forgetting to say sorry in the first place. Hope we're okay. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, all is chill. Thank you for the apologies. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation

File:An angel presenting Mohammed with a town.jpg Thanks for your information about copyright violation on talk:Islam. The following image is licensed under 'X' i.e., its authur is unknown. The image has severe copyright problems. This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies only to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. But it does not applies to countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus more then 70 years. Some of these countries are:

• Ivory coast
• Columbia
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• Mexico

Interestingly, the image is copied from a site www.zombietimes.com. Hence, we can't afford such an image whose copyright is disputed on this extremely important and vital article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs)

The website of Beltate University says that the image is early 14th century. I have added some information to the file description page and corrected the license. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The point that this image is from topkapi place is ridiculous. Ottomans were Sunnis Muslims and they strictly rejected iconoclasm. This may be from shia Iran(safavid empire) but it is obviously not from sunni ottoman empire. Someone may have easily misinformed us because as far as I know, no one of us is able to go to topkapi palace, turkey and confirm that this image is really from there. The name of the website from where this image has been copied is www.zombietimes.com, and its name clearly shows that it is not reliable. My suggestion would be to remove it from the article because we have a lot of other neutral copyrighted images available. Please pay attention.thanks.Septate (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The website does not say that the image is "from the Tokapi palace" but rather that it is now housed there in their library. The source from which the uploader got the image is not relevant, as we are able to confirm the copyright status of the image using the website of Beltate University here, which says that the image is from the 14th century. If you are concerned that the image is a copyright violation, please feel free to nominate it for deletion on the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for the Deletion of Orphaned revisions in Freely licensed files

Hello Dianna,

How are you ?

My humble request to you is :

Please delete the following file's OR's : File:Raghusri image.jpg, File:Raghusri image.jpg

Thank you in advance

Regards,

Raghusri (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Raghusri! I can't do the one on the commons, as I am not an admin on that wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much Diannaa. I'll ask an Admin on Wikimedia Commons :D Raghusri (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

প্রত্যয় ^{(শুভ নববর্ষ!)} 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi P. Ghosh. No email has been received; you may wish to re-send. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've re-sent the e-mail.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 07:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I still have not received it! -- Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I've sent you another e-mail. This is the fourth time. Maybe this two image would be useful Image 1 and Image 2. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not receive it. I tested using my sock account and sent myself a message without any trouble. I don't know what's wrong. I have sent you an email; please try sending your message as a reply to that email. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Now may be sent. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ICTUS Records

While closely following your edits, I feel as tho' I am being schooled. Would you like me to edit some that appear on your list? I think that I'm a better editor today. And, after seeing your edits, I'm getting a better grasp on how to avoid issues. With respect to possible copyright concerns, possible presumptions, over-linking, and other excess concerns, urging me to do the edits might go a long way towards helping me intuitively steer clear of that sort of stuff going forward. And, I was wondering ... would be possible for me to fix things without the fanfare of comments on the talk page? They leave sort of permanent "Scarlett Letter" affect or a scar — on me and on the articles.

All contributors evolve. And, unlike painters and craftsmen — who also improve over time, but whose earlier works are unchangeable — we have the ability to revisit and improve earlier contributions. All of us, as peers, can help each other without being punitive, even if being punitive is unintentional. — Eurodog (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that the clean-up is having an emotional impact for you. We record the reason for the removal/paraphrasing of material on the talk page is because it lets other future editors know why content was removed, and that it should not be re-added unless it's adequately paraphrased. In the example you gave, ICTUS Records, the majority of the content I removed (which was not added by you) was taken out because Wikipedia is not intended to be a place where businesses provide a catalogue of their items for sale or promote their business. And some of it appeared word for word on the company website.

For websites, it's necessary to use the Wayback Machine to try to determine whether or not material from the source website was there before it was added to Wikipedia. If the web page was not archived prior to its being used as a source, we have no way of knowing if the editor copied from the website or the other way around. I have to make assumptions, based on the quality of the prose (its promotional tone, level of professionalism, and so on) to try to determine who copied from who. For the articles I've looked at so far, it's pretty impossible to determine whether there's any copyright violations or not, because either the sources are not available online, or no sources were provided at the time the material was added. Normally what happens next, is I remove or paraphrase the material under the assumption that it is indeed copyright material copied from elsewhere. But since there's no way to access the sources you used, that would mean performing re-writes of all your additions to all the articles still on the list. I haven't yet found enough sourced examples of your work that I can tell which is which so I am quickly running out of articles that I can confidently evaluate. Here's an example to illustrate: Gifted Rating Scales (diffs to be checked: (+1093), (+229), (+1218), (+429), (+553)). None of these additions provided a source, and none of the material appears to have been copied verbatim from the two sources provided in the article. So I quickly hit a brick wall - I have no idea where this material came from or whether or not it's a copyright violation.

I am going to ping @Moonriddengirl: and @Wizardman:; hopefully one of them can answer your two questions: (1) Can the step of leaving a message on the talk page be omitted? The user is finding it a badge of shame; (2) Can Eurodog help out with the clean-up, and if so, what should he do? Thanks. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, I have always encouraged editors to assist with their own CCIs. However, it's best not to remove the diffs or "resolve" issues on the CCI subpage, but rather to place annotations beneath the article listing, like so:

• Article X (+1093), (+229), (+1218), (+429), (+553))
  • Issues with the third diff with copying from [source]; I've rewritten, [link]

That level of transparency allows a reviewer to verify, but also really speeds closure of these and can spare an article being blanked when problems are discovered, as it lets the reviewer know the problem has been address and check the link to make sure the rewrite resolves the problem. The {{cclean}} template on the talk page is not mandatory, but can be a good idea, especially if the article is not rev deleted. The purpose is not to be a mark of shame, but to help against inadvertent restoration of earlier versions of the article. There can be many reasons articles are rolled back. The {{CCI}} template serves to explain what often may seem like a very arbitrary change to an article and sometimes downright disruptive, when extensive content is removed. It's not intended as a badge of shame - just as an explanation of what happened and why and what can be done about it. :/ I think that information is generally important for large scale content changes, but I personally am open to other ideas. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll be offline over the long weekend, but will begin reviewing some of the articles next week. Understanding this problem, and knowing about the brick walls facing Diannaa helps me make better choices when constructing and editing articles. Eurodog (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed - European cuisine

I feel personally attacked by some editors accusations and the editors refusal to alter the Talk:European cuisine#To IIIraute section heading. I told Kutsuit that if he wants to address me personally, please to do so on my talk page - here & here. I have addressed the editor regarding his continuous edit warring at the article European cuisine here, before the editor started to address me personally on the article talk page - and I have even answered the editors agressive commentary. I think talk page headings should be addressed towards all editors. Your help is very much appreciated. --IIIraute (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You weren't being attacked. Also, I'm a woman so please address me by the correct gender-specific pronoun, my dear. By the way, speaking of edit wars, you've been involved in edit warring in this article since January, where you consistently failed to address any of the disputes in the talk page. Furthermore, your actions have been contradictory, as I've already stated to you. You have the opportunity to continue the dialogue that I began in the talk page, but you've instead resorted to different antics. Another Wiki user can testify to this once he/she is online. --Kutsuit (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said - I am tired. I have tried to be gender-neutral and did a mistake - my fault. I have not been edit warring, as one can see from the article history. I also have explained the two last reverts I did (in two months). Also, Kutsuit shouldn't be canvassing fellow editors with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way - what is considered inappropriate, I think. --IIIraute (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not canvassing at all. How on Earth was I trying to intentionally influence the outcome of a discussion by asking another user for advice more than a week prior to today's dispute? Are you trying to be dishonest? There was no discussion on the 7th of April. Instead, there was unreasonably disruptive behavior by another user who was also deliberately omitting several countries from the article for no apparent reason, much like your own actions. I asked Bobcats 23 for advice because I noticed that he was previously subjected to the same kind of disruptive behavior that I had to endure last week. That does not constitute canvassing at all. Either you do not understand when this term actually applies or you're deliberately being dishonest.

Furthermore, you were clearly involved in edit warring with other users long before I even knew about this article's existence. A quick look at the history of the article would show that you were also contributing to the disturbance of the article by omitting countries for no sound reason as well. I brought this to your attention in the talk page of the article, where I also highlighted your inconsistencies, but to no avail on your part. I have started a discussion in the talk page so that we may resolve this issue, but instead you have evaded the discussion and resorted to other antics. That is not indicative of someone who wishes to resolve disputes. In any case, I am not interested in continuing this discussion here anymore. If you wish to resolve the dispute, you can continue the discussion in the article's talk page. If not, I will see to it that others are invited to join the discussion so that a consensus would be reached. Right now it is evident to me that you do not understand the purpose of that article, which is to outline the various cuisines of all European countries. Your selective omission of whichever country you deem not relevant to the article is, in fact, in contradiction to the accepted norm in Wikipedia. --Kutsuit (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). I haven't looked at the edit warring issue — I may do so later — but IIIraute is perfectly right that the header "To IIIraute" is inappropriate on an article talk page. As he says above, talkpage headers should in fact be addressed to all users, as pointed out in the talk page guidelines under the heading New topics and headings on talk pages: "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." I've changed it. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

Thank you for your help, Bishonen. --IIIraute (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC) & Thank you for this, Diannaa --IIIraute (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at this → Talk:European literature - thank you, --IIIraute (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A question about ANI

Hi. When a WP:ANI discussion will be closed and admins write the result? After 24 hours? 48 hours? Or it depends on other things? --Zyma (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI doesn't follow a formal structure or a strict set of rules about closure. Many threads are archived without ever being hatted or closed (a bot does the archiving). Sometimes people request that an uninvolved person close the discussion. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion and after passing 24 hours, there is no result. 3 admins wrote their opinions and I still wait for the result. So what should I do? --Zyma (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The other user was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and was warned about battleground behaviour. Since the expiry of the block he has made a few posts at Talk:Celts but has done nothing that violates any rules. So I don't think he will be blocked again until the problematic behaviour resumes. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So what should you do now? You should go and write an encyclopedia; that's what I am going to do. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And what about his personal attacks against me and other issues? An admin should warn/block him for that. You want to ignore his activities? The main problem is his battleground behavior, incivility, and his pseudo-English comments. --Zyma (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I want a clear result by an admin. I must go. Thanks for your attention. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The user received additional warnings and guidance from another admin on their talk page on the 17th. Right here Atama tells him that his behaviour is unacceptable. So I will not be issuing a second warning for the problematic behaviour or blocking the user. I don't think any other admin will block at this point either; he won't be blocked unless the problematic behaviour resumes. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you're not too busy, I would appreciate if you would open the GA review on the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony, I nominated it for GA status you see, but nobody has reviewed it yet. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I will not be reviewing it. To be honest I don't think the article has reached the level of what we expect in a Good Article. A quick glance shows that many of the points Nick-D mentioned on the talk page have not been dealt with (and Nick said so too, on April 4th). For example, there's many citation errors: there's books with a footnote that are not listed in the bibliography (Beevor, Evans, Regan, Dear & Foot, etc). In fact most of the cites don't have their books listed; hence the material is unverifiable [fails GA criterion 2a]. The article is over-reliant on quotations. There's material in the lead that does not appear anywhere in the article (WP:LEAD) [fails GA criterion 1b]. A lot of the info is general info about field marshals and not about the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony [fails GA criterion 3b]. It still needs a lot of work, so sorry. Please see WP:GACR for the full list of GA criterion. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I will keep improving it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please compare it objectively with the GA criterion to see what still needs to be done. Please consider Nick-D's points and make sure they are all addressed; your reviewer will certainly do so. Good luck, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

CCI update

Thank you for clearing that one out! MER-C 04:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 10:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 11:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked User? New Account?

Hello, Diannaa.

I have noticed a number of similarities between the edits of a blocked user called Andrewbf and a new editor called Pulum34. The latter editor has caused some disruption to a number of music genre pages, and has not answered communications. I am sorry to have troubled you, but obviously large numbers of us enjoy Wikipedia and take time to ensure its accuracy and it is disheartening when it is disrupted.

(217.43.88.109 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC))

Hi there. I think they are pretty similar behaviourally, and have filed a report at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf -- Diannaa (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

He has another new account called Special:Contributions/Higo1. 183.171.178.153 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now mentioned that possibility on the SPI page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Auschwitz

Hello, Diannaa. On the left side of the article on Auschwitz we have a prisoner photograph described as "14 year-old girl" or something like that. We in fact have an article on this person in the Wikipedia. Shall I amend the photo to link and identify the 14-year-old?Hoops gza (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I believe that the 23:48, 19 April 2014 edit by an IP on the page April 20 should be hidden as it might violate living persons policy.Hoops gza (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's better to contact admins (or oversighters) privately about such things, not on talk pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I have taken care of both of these things. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Hoops gza (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi protection

Hi Diannaa. I've been thinking of this for a while. Could I get an indefinite semi protection for my User and Talk page. Thanks. SlightSmile 14:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the level of disruption on your talk page that woud make it qualify for protection. I will protect your user page, though -- Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. SlightSmile 14:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Davido

How exactly is the controversial incident section of the Davido article in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? WP:NPOV states that articles can be written from a neutral point of view. If one removes the content, they are favoring Davido and his camp. If Davido was in some sort of controversy, and that controversy was reported in the media, how can't it not be added to the article? How exactly is it poorly source. The references I used were Nigerian Entertainment Today, Punch, and Premium Times. Punch and Premium Times are Nigerian Newspapers, and Nigerian Entertainment Today is an entertainment Newspaper. Are you saying that quotations cannot be in an article at all? If that's the case, why do so many good articles have quotations in them? Versace1608 (Talk) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the quotations, they are far too long, and there were far too many of them in the article. It's a copyright concern. Regarding re-adding some of the content, this would be better proposed on the article talk page please, so that other interested editors have the opportunity to participate. I have posted on the article talk page with a more detailed rationale for removal. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the controversial section didn't contain any quotations. In the second, I quoted Davido and his publicist and because I felt that only in his words can his message be deliver best. The rest of the information in that section was written in my own words. It's not a big deal. I don't need to quote him nor his publicist. I can write what they said in my own words. I just don't see the point in deleting the whole thing. There are tons of artists on Wikipedia with some sort of dirt on them. Just because I like his music doesn't mean that I can't add content that many may not like. Versace1608 (Talk) 18:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I am going answer a couple of these questions here as well as posting on the talk page. I will be going to the gym in a minute here and we can discuss some more later if you like. There's several reasons why I removed the content:

• The section "Controversial incidents" was 600 words on a thousand word article (60 per cent of the total article!), giving these two incidents undue weight.
• The fact that other biographies contain BLP violations is no reason to include them here.
• The fact that you're able to source negative content on a living person does not mean it automatically qualifies for inclusion in their article.
• We don't base content decisions, especially in our BLPs, on what would be "fair" to the real world persons involved. We do however especially with our BLPs, strive to avoid doing real-world harm to living persons.
• Short quotations are okay, but inserting several lengthy quotations of 472 words total is way too much, so much that there's copyright concerns, and it violates our manual of style guidelines as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I am going to add the section you deleted, and this time, I will not add any quotation whatsoever. The controversial incident is backed by reliable sources, and is factual. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be adding it to the article. The information in the controversial section of the article isn't doing any real harm to the living person (Davido). Versace1608 (Talk) 19:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A Northern Affair

Hello Diana. Thanks for the removal of my copyrighted additions to articles, it is greatly appreciated. I noticed that you recently removed my added synopsis to the film A Northern Affair. I forgot to also add on my page during the review that the synopsis for this film was one of the few I wrote in my own words. I read what was written here and created my own synopsis. Please kindly let me know if you think it's ok. Darreg (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Darreg. This is one I was not sure about, since I could not find similar prose online. I have re-worded it and put it back in the article. See what you think, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Short Critic Quotes

Am sorry to bother you again. I noticed that you are also removing critic quotes on the film articles. Most popular Hollywood films I have seen on Wikipedia always contain quotes from at least one critic site (most times rotten tomatoes). I want to know why this case is different. Darreg (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Darreg! I am happy to hear from you, no worries. You can't go by what you see in other articles; not all have been checked by a knowledgeable user. Quotes from reviews should be short; it's better to paraphrase their comments into your own words (while being careful not to distort the meaning). It's a more copyright-compliant way to build the article, and it better complies with our Manual of Style, which calls for a minimal use of quotations. Please see the essay Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations for more information on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

added ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Davido". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to accounts again now

It's definitely him ... or else it's someone trying very hard to write using some of his style. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I thought so too actually. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And another one this morning :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Problematic IP user

Thank you for blocking User talk:69.31.216.250. However, I would like to request a longer block. It is obvious from the edit pattern that this IP's sole intention on Wikipedia is to do disruptive editing by adding unwarranted "boy band" categories every few weeks, so a short block would do no good. In addition, it might be one user who jumps between the three IPs that I listed, just using whichever one is not blocked at the time.Hoops gza (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hoops gza. My preference is to start out conservatively and see what happens. I will add this to my calendar and help you monitor. Please let me know if he pops up on any other IPs. So far we've got 69.31.216.250, 206.75.168.247, and 75.159.118.134. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Favor

Hi, Diannaa. Could you please move Ludwig Matthias Nathanael Gottlieb von Brauchitsch to Ludwig von Brauchitsch, the full name is only required in the articles lead. Regards. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Brother Down

For the complete list, see User:Diannaa/Soundtrack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71EnaOs-Xdk

Talkback

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at Happy Attack Dog's talk page.
Message added 02:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 02:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

IP user disrupting stable articles once more

Hey Diannaa, remember the anonymous IP user who was caught plagiarizing and violating numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Well, he/she is at it again. I requested a "semi-protection" for the article Snakebite. I will see what other articles he/she is disrupting or vandalising, and I'll let you know. Thanks. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 01:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Judae1

Hi Diannaa,

I don't know how closely you have been following the developments at Ronn Torossian. I just wanted to point out to you some posts by User:Judae1 at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Ronn_Torossian. Judae1, as you may remember, is a senior executive at 5WPR, Torossian's PR firm, but has generally kept hands off that article after being reprimanded for conflict of interest. He has, since then, been a good citizen and has contributed to the pedia on a variety of topics. However, judging by the fractured syntax and sycophantic whining of the posts at Fred Bauder's talk page, the posts were not written by him but by our Janus-faced friend Babasalichai. I am referring not to the first post ("Fred, by merging the pages together"), but the second ("Can you suggest a route for appeal?"), which pretty clearly was written by a different author.

Perhaps you might want to warn Judae1 on the side that letting banned users access his account is a nono. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a concern, but looking at the prose style, I'm not 100% sure that what we're looking at there is Babasalichai having access to the account. (Or even Babasalichai influencing Juda's thoughts on what issues to write about on that page, though that is certainly a possibility.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The second and third post are not as well written as the first, but I don't see any of the usual tells. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it was a false alarm. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

CCI update

MER-C 10:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh to live in India, where all the villages are famous and all the movies are super blockbuster smash hits ... -- Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha! MER-C 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Covenant University

Hello. I noticed that when you were investigating all my edits on wikipedia, your comment on my edit on the article Covenant University was kindoff probable ... probably because you could not find any citation backing up my earlier claims in the controversy section I created. If you could take a look at my edit again here, you will notice that I actually added my citations to the External links section instead of the References section because at that time I did not really know the difference between the two. I guess another Wikipedian noticed my mistake and recreated the criticism section then transferred the links I added, to the References section. I just wanted to clear the air about that because I don't want to be viewed as a Wikipedian that adds libelous contents without citations to Wikipedia. Thanks. Darreg (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Darreg. Thank you very much for your work helping to clean up. The reason the item was marked as "probable" is because it appeared to be copyright content as it seemed professionally written. And you can see by the diff that the text has line breaks, which is often a clue that the content has been copied from somewhere. Since the content had already been removed from the article by someone else, it was not necessary for me to hunt for the exact source, so I listed the edit as a probable copy vio. This was not meant to imply that the content was unsourced or that it was added maliciously. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I just wanted to clear the air on that to avoid any future block with claims that I have been warned before about adding libelous unsourced content, I am just trying to be proactive as regards my edit history and its not like I am EVER going to add any unverified information. Darreg (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Help Requested

Hey Dianna, could you take a look at one section of the Peer Review I have going on? User:Hamiltonstone started a PR and after much work, dropped off the radar. At the bottom of the review section I linked, you can see where I responded to him late on the 23rd. After a ping or two and a talk page message, I haven't gotten any responses. The other editors have finished with their PRs (it was a triple PR).

I was wondering if you could give what Hamiltonstone was requesting and my response a look-see and see if I am finished. I am hoping to get this thing to FAC soon. Thanks in advance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer. Since PR and FA are formal procedures I don't want to do this. I suggest you'd better wait for Hamiltonstone himself to review your work. Sorry, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Since he has edited a couple times, which means he should have seen the "New Messages" thing at the top, I don't think he is going to come back for review. :S At least anytime soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I suggest waiting for his response for another week or so, and proceeding with your FA nomination regardless at that point if he doesn't respond. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I was considering doing that anyway. :) I just didn't want to leave that part of the PR open and unfinished. Though, it looks like I might have to. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the Peer Review instructions, and it says that you are not obligated to respond to all posts. You did in fact respond extensively; it's not you that's been lax here, so I think you should leave it unfinished if you have to. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that a PR had to be completely finished before the article could go onto FAC. I learned something there, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Since two of the three PRs on the page are complete, could you close the full PR page for me, please? The PR instructions say I can myself, but it is discouraged. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I will do it once one of these conditions has been met -- Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I plan on nom'ing it at FAC momentarily. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nom'd to FAC just seconds ago: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WINC (AM)/archive1. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ma'am. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like I put a AFD on a topic that was deleted per afd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Sommer-which now it seems to be closed or something not sure how to get rid of this-I did put the deletion tag on after it that it was discussed-but yep didn't realize it do that on it. Well at least I now know what happenes when you put an AFD tag on a page that was once deleted! Wgolf (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the deleted version and it was identical to the new version, so it qualified for G4 deletion. I went ahead and did that, plus cleaned up the AFD page for you. Logging off now, see you laters. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Aztegdude

Hi again, Diannaa. Its been a long time since I became inactive. Anyway, can you please keep an eye to the user I linked on the title of this message. I've suspected that this is not the only sock puppet account of Boboy9. I've seen another account and IP addresses, which considers that they're contributing on one article which is DZUR (recently movedthe original to DZUR (defunct) article. I've try to reverting it, but it keeps saying that it has a spam content on it. Please help and thanks again. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 06:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrewbf has multiple accounts again.

I doubt he has many computers and cell phones that edit warring all day. Most recently account Special:Contributions/Laratadelaciudad. Just want to know his location and ID. 183.171.177.37 (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, should ban him all contributors forever for his all electronic devices. 183.171.177.61 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The account is now blocked as a confirmed sock. Please let me know if you see him editing as an IP and continue to monitor for new accounts. Unfortunately we are not able to block his electronic device as these typically use a dynamic range and a block would impact other editors. Thanks for your help. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the 183 IP knows this already, but it is very easy to semi-protect multiple articles so that IPs (and new users) cannot edit them. One could request such protection at WP:RFPP or one could ask Diannaaaaa for more advice.

To the original question, if you see an IP page and scroll down, there is a "Geolocate" link usually. But, this means little or nothing, and is best ignored. It says I edit from "London" ... ahuh. So do a few million other people. Really it tells you what country (and maybe the area) they edit from, unless they are faking. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There's too many articles for us to consider semi protection at this point. Another admin has blocked one IP which is presumably his home base, so hopefully that will help. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert Beerbohm

Hello Dianna

I am very new to figuring out how wikipedia works, its rules & regs. I do not know how to write you directly so I hope this is OK until I get set straight.

I thank you for protecting me last Dec 2013 from malicious libelous type words placed on my wikipage some one made up about me. Early on I did not know it was not kosher to place data about one self on one's own page. I since learned that is not good and went on to other aspects of rebuildign my life after being laid up four years seeking dual hip joint replacement surgery, then finally getting both replaced on same day in LA in 2009, then two more years healing from that.

Some one decided to place CGC "Controversy" on my page evidently some time ago. I just became aware a couple days ago. There is much more to this "story" than the few words so far placed there. This is malicious libelous as this firm CGC blocked me from defending myself on their talk boards after having posted just one defence. This was last November. The firm is a ponzi scheme fraud. The owner has threatened to sue me I am told by their outside counsel Mark Zaid, a Wash DC attorney.

I have many thousands of positive feedbacks in my eBay store BLBcomics from some 67 countries. I do not accept the concept one has to have all their merch 3rd party slabbed adding undue cost to a vintage comic book. They advertise do not trust a comic book being offered for sale unless it is slabbed in a plastic coffin by CGC.

Would some one inside Wikipedia please respond to me at (Redacted) ??

Or here, if I can find this page again.

Thank you very much BlowinNTheWind (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Robert Beerbohm

Hello Mr Beerbohm, I have semi-protected the page and will watch for further additions of unsuitable content. Please don't post your email address on Wikipedia (i have removed it) as robots scrape the site looking for people to spam. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dianna. Am only trying to do this wiki thing properly and have made unintentional mistakes along the way. I feel very honored in the first place there is a wiki page about a very little bit about my history inside the world of comics.

I have had a long road back recovering from being very damaged as a passenger in a van accident back in 1973. As a result I take Dilantin twice a day to combat lowered electricity levels in my brain. A lot of mistakes were made during my descent 2005-2012 which I have been working hard since turning the corner healing the last couple years at fixing best I can.

CGC and their ilk minions never cease the attacks as I point out the ponzi scheeme they truly are. Back in summer 2007 that firm damaged in their HQ in Florida a valuable All Star #8 (first Wonder Woman 1941) as well as All Star Comics #7 and refused to make good on it. I do not have the funds to hire a Florida attorney.

With Steve Geppi's personal blessings by his firm Gemstone's specific invitation Oct 1996 I have been co-teaching the origins of the comic strip book in America dating back to 1842 to the rest of the comics world inside the pages of Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide for 17 years in a row now since OPG #27 1997 along with numerous articles in magazine re same. Am in the credit/acknowledgements in over 200 books by others on comics as these authors seek clarification on what their own books are covering. Seven more again just this year 2014 alone. Exploring and dealing same is a way of life for me for over 40 years now.

I was out of it for over half a decade in mind numbing pain 2005-2012 which I am trying to fix errors I accidentally made. I deal with short term memory loss as a result which is why I have to take the Dilantin. if I do not within a couple days I revert back in to a fog which is beyond difficult trying to deal with. Again, thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlowinNTheWind (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Adolf Hitler edit

Hitler's use of psychological projection is described in detail in Langer's secret OSS report. I'm not sure why you removed it?, Langer's report is already cited deeper in the article. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not in favour of adding this material to the lead (or anywhere else in the article) regardless. Please discuss on the article talk page, not here, as there are plenty of other interested editors. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I don't care that much. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Message

Hi Diannaa. Could you please move First World problem to First World problems. Cheers! Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonas. it's "first world problem" in the Oxford Dictionary. I think it should stay there. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm very firmly convinced it's "first world problems". Just saying "first world problem" sounds wrong. Perhaps that's just me. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to open a move discussion on the article talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of work just for a simple move, honestly. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, check out the picture on my user page of me nailing the Joker look. I'm considering acting you see. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

UserPage Removed

Hi, I would like my userpage RoseAurora {{db-author}} removed because I'm going to use this account anymore, and I won't log in that much

Hi User:RoseAurora. There is no user page at that location, so there's nothing to delete. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)