[[User:Ron Gates|Ron Gates]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 10:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[User:Ron Gates|Ron Gates]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 10:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Hi Mr Gates. The image will automatically be restored once the email is reviewed by a member of the OTRS team. This could take up to a month, so please be patient. -- [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 12:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mayawati may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
14 Oct 2011"/> and the [[Ambedkar_Memorial|Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Samajik Parivartan Prateek Sthal]] (opened November 2012.<ref name="Srivastava 2012"/>
Hello again, Diannaa. I've been looking over the list of coats of arms discussions at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 17, and I was wondering if you could give me some clarification regarding your position on this entire class of images. You opposed deleting many non-free renditions of coats of arms at that page, indicating that they could be used under our non-free content policy. But a week later, at an AN discussion, you stated "We already know that it [a non-free COA rendition] fails NFCC #1, because a free image could theoretically be created using the description given in the blazon."
I just want to make sure I understand your position correctly since you're an extremely active, long-time Wikipedian with a solid knowledge of our policies. Do you feel that a non-free rendition of a PD blazon fulfills all of our non-free content criteria, including #1? (Let's assume that it's used in an article that mentions the coat of arms, but not that specific rendition, as is the case the vast majority of the time.) Thanks for any help, – Quadell(talk)14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assertion that coats of arms fail NFCC #1 is technically correct. However, the material from the http://www.araldicacivica.it/ website is released under a Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IT) license. Which if I am understanding it correctly should be enough for us to host these particular files as fair use. That was the decision taken by the Italian wiki at the time of the discussion on the Commons. commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA. The files were transferred to the Italian wiki from the Commons at that time, and I expect that's how we got our collection of stemma images as well. We have currently got 3,009 images that mention araldicacivica.it on their file description page, so it seems pointless to single out these twenty for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted two images here as G7 because the uploader, User:Vanished user jp3oilqwdjlk4t, was the one who nominated the files for deletion. However, in the discussion, two users (User:76.65.128.222 and User:Quadell) questioned that it was unencyclopædic and that the deletion rationale was flawed. The IP suggested G7, so the deletion doesn't seem to go against the IP's wish, but User:Quadell only wrote that it should be kept. Doesn't G7 require that no one opposes deletion? I think that some G7 deletions may have been undone by other people at WP:REFUND, although I'm not sure.
If you look at the history of the deletion discussion page, you can see that the uploader removed parts of the deletion discussions. I'm not sure whether you noticed this when you closed the discussions. I don't know what the files looked like, so I'm not sure what I would have written myself if I had participated in the deletion discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stefan. I was not aware at the time I did the deletions that the user had removed other people's comments. The images were previously published on Facebook, and the file descriptions included links leading to an individual person's Facebook page, complete with real name and photo etc, so in order to protect the uploader's real-life privacy I think they should stay deleted. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Based on this additional information, I agree that the files should be deleted. However, it was not at all clear from what I saw in the deletion discussion. I have been away on holiday and recently started going through my watchlist when I noticed the removal of comments in a diff for that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I think not. Let's try to find a copy of the logo without the additional images, which would have copyright issues beyond what we normally have for a corporate logo. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In looking for another copy of the logo (which I didn't), I found this article and in the 10th paragraph, it mentions the following: "Rich Gehm, 65, a radio engineer who was laid off in October when the local A.M. radio station went under...". Now, I'm not sure about how the station went under, I'm still waiting on some information about that, but do you think that would be a reliable source to mention that the station "went under" in October of 2011? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search on the FCC's Consolidated Database System and the only station (radio or TV) to be licensed to Bennettsville, SC (from 1920 to now) was WBSC. The Consolidated Database System gives all the applications and licenses from 1920 to present day for any given town, state, or company. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think since you know for sure and have done your research, you can simply say that the station went under at that time. Or if you want to be a little more elaborate, you could say "A former employee told the Huffington Post that layoffs occurred in October 2011 and the station went under." -- Diannaa (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. :) I kinda combined the two, using mostly yours, and came up with "A former employee told the Huffington Post, in January 2012, that layoffs occurred in October 2011 and the station had went under."
I tend to add too much to a sentence or an article, trying to give the whole story, when most of the story isn't relivant. :) Thanks for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa. Thanks for finding that report on WP:RSN. I left a detailed reply on Charmlet's talk page about the blog piece, which he erased. I have sent you an expanded version of that reply by email. Thanks again for digging around. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... could you perhaps take a quick look at Talk:SmartScore and check that I haven't inadvertently stepped over any lines? I'd be grateful. It's possible that someone else may have done so there, but that isn't why I'm asking. All the best, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jlan. You are repeatedly being told that you seem to have a Bone To Pick, ie. the COI editors are accusing you of having a COI, which it is pretty obvious to me is not true. I found it quite shocking that CorporateM felt you were harassing the other user. I do not agree with that assessment at all, and it made me wonder about the possibility of these being good hand-bad hand accounts. But CorporateM has got the article into not-too-bad shape; the reception section is overwhelmingly negative, which is an accurate reflection of the actual reception of the software. I would not worry too much about what the earliest review said about the software; it's no longer very relevant, as a Lot can happen to a piece of software in 13 years. I will add the article to my watch-list for a while. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for that. Actually I think CorporateM was telling the other guy he was close to harassing me, but maybe I misread. And I'm certainly not bothered about it. Thanks for watch-listing it, too. All the best, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent IPs (79.214.132.203, 79.214.133.192, 79.214.171.20, 79.214.176.105) are from a slightly different range (79.214.128.0/18 [up to 16384 users would be blocked]). I will try blocking this range for two weeks. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me a hand with an image upload? I attempted to upload this image as "WTYD-FM WXTG-FM 2013.png". For whatever reason, after I went through the steps with the Upload Wizard, clicked the location where the image have been, it failed to upload. Can you help, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, this I did not know. :) I always try to convert images (via MS Paint) to PNG cause it seems to be the perfered file type. Now I can convert them via the website you linked, which will work better. :) Thanks again for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(stalker) I have wondered this myself. I will ask at commons if someone wishes to create a .jpg vs .png page. My camera uses .jpg but I use .png when doing transparencies. I can report back here if you wish. I convert myself with GIMP. Just open and save as almost anything in that program.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inkscape is the freebie for .svg. I tried and gave up, steep learning curve for me after using GIMP for years. I agree they are better for logos but you can't do them with photographs, I don't think. I will see about getting a simple page written at commons for the pros and cons of all formats in a three paragraph nutshell.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the image deletionists have been lately complaining that svg files are too high quality for fair use, and some have been converted to png. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution issue should go to a consensus discussion. I always assumed that the re-use warning template on .svg covered any re-use issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who thing
I see you removed the image of the 12th doctor. I asked whether the fair use image was 'character in costume' on the talk page. I think our fair use policy allows this if we show him as a character and not an actor. I actually don't care if we have 11 or 12 but other editors may whine. If they do just use the 'we are not in a hurry' clause. That should keep them quiet until we have RS as to what the character looks like.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for removing the Capaldi image is because he is not in character, yet the image of Matt Smith is a photo of him on the set, not in character as the Eleventh Doctor. My version of the image included an image of Matt from The Rebel Flesh.--(Sootyheightsfan (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Are you saying there was more than one version with eleven doctors? I have no easy way of chcking that now, because Edocker has deleted the excess files. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This change needs to be discussed at the file talk page or at the wikiproject level. I don't actually know anything about Dr Who and thus unable to help select a photo of the 11th Doctor. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Diannaa. I don't know Who is Who because I haven't watched the show that much. A fair use review/drama board should help decide which Doctors are in character and which are not. The ones that are not in character would probably violate policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to delete specific revision logs from a Wikipedia page ?
How can I delete specific few revision logs from a Wikipage created by me ? While creating a page for a living person, I made some mistakes while creating a page. I was new to Wikipedia and created many edits while updating information about the living person. Hence i want to delete the earlier revisions, call it draft edit revisions? Is there any particular e-mail address where I send my request and the necessary details ? Please note: I want to ONLY delete my draft edits / revisions. Please help !!
Satish Kapoor 12:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satish Kapoor (talk • contribs)
Hi Satish! The rules for revision deletion are pretty strict and it sounds like the draft material you are talking about would not qualify for deletion under the rules at WP:CRD. If it's an article you created that no one else has worked on at all, the entire article can be deleted under a speedy deletion criterion G7. If you think it qualifies, please tag it {{db-g7}} and an administrator will review the article and delete it if it qualifies. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist
Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons. Two arrests were made in relation to the case according to her mother. The police are not saying anything. You may wish it on your watchlist again in case it needs a quick protect. If we mess up then it may effect legal procedures if we have false statements in our article. IPs will probably slam it when names are released. It isn't like a current violent event so IPs will probably have the same sources as us. It is just slow justice now and we aren't in a hurry.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I have a question, my user talk is almost full. How do I archieve those just like yours? Thanks for the reply. Cheers Hamham31Heke!02:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one outlier IP (190.160.206.239) is coming from Santiago and the rest are Guatemala City. I will block the Guatemala City range for another two weeks. This is a bigger range than last time: Range 190.106.192.0/19 (up to 8192 users would be blocked) -- Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dianna! I'm working on cleaning up some old OTRS tickets following the recent upgrade. I am requesting restoration of the above noted image, based on permissions received in ticket# 2012110610010489. I appreciate your assistance. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 17:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to correct the complaints. I reworded everything and only put back part of the material. I made sure not to veer off the EXACT message of the source.
Roscelese again TOTALY removed it (did not attempt any alternitaves). It seems that the Roscelese is trying to avoid the material at all cost. (Unless the user finds a way to somehow hide the message).
Civil Rights5 (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read closer what Roscelese is saying. Read this again. Please read and understand Wikipedia policies that are in place to protect the website and living people from harm that can result from material that we post here on this website, one of the top ten viewed websites in the world. Just because you can source something does not mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. We have a responsibility to do no harm. That is Roscelese's primary motivation, and mine, in preventing you from adding material to the article. This is an official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; and it applies to all our articles. It says, in part: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. Material about living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." If your edits are repeatedly being removed by a Wikipedian with eight years experience and over 22,000 edits to the encyclopedia, it's because they do not belong in the article. I am logging off now for the night -- Diannaa (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not (and still do not) understand any connection between THIS and what I added (at least the first main part).
I thought I was adding material as a response against a direct attack on a living people.
I thought I was bringing in sources explaining the reasoning behind why these living do this these horrible acts that this article accuses them of doing.
I also thought that the user Roscelese is preventing the material in order to further attack these living people and make them sound crazy.
I also noticed previous edits by Roscelese on this article in which the user partialy altered the sources in order to make this group of people sound like idiots.
Am I seeing that you also agree with Roscelese that we should refrain from this, and I therefore maybe should stop editing this issue?
Speculating on other people's motives is never a good idea.
Adding content on individual cases will turn the page into a wall of shame, and we don't want that.
Adding the Exclusive Bombshell Claim of one juror gives that opinion undue weight. You wouldn't find it in a paper encyclopedia, so don't add it here.
You have less than 30 edits to this wiki. Perhaps you should choose a less controversial article to edit. It takes a while to learn Wikipedia policies and a controversial article is not a good place to do that. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you brought out very significant points. I will leave the issue now. I will get back to this article at a later time perhaps after gaining more experience, and giving the issue more time to calm down.
I hope you will continue to keep a close eye that this article should not get worse and should be as nuetral as possible for such an article.
Diannaa, please see User talk:Dhruvekhera for a new unblock request dated August 11. You did the original block back in fall of 2010 and you suggested to the user that they make a new unblock appeal in six months. Since that time, most of his unblock requests have been ridiculous but finally he has made a sensible one. Do you want to see what you would do now? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I've noticed this IP address 49.144.189.67 which is responsible to add a sections in this article about live coverages, which is not really covered by the said network. Can you please help me to warn this user, as he try to disrupt Wikipedia? You're action and response is highly appreciated, since I tried to warn him. Thank you. Hamham31Heke!05:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your warning worked, as they stopped editing right after that. Persistent vandals should be reported to the vandalism noticeboard at WP:AIV. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Wannsee Conference 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 GA bot, on behalf of Brigade Piron -- Brigade Piron(talk)09:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zoomer (NES accessory)
Hey, there, my image was deleted by you, I just want to know why. I uploaded it as a non-free image, and Future Perfect at Sunrise told me, "If the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia".
The file, as it turns out, cannot be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file, as it is a copyrighted product and therefore a copyrighted image. Please try and undo your deletion of the file, or just reply back.
The object is not the problem, it's the photograph that was non-free; it came from www.assemblergames.com and hence is a copyright image. The non-free photograph can be replaced by a freely licensed photograph simply by taking a photo of the object and uploading that. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File permission for File:Ayaan CHawla.png
Hello Diannaa, I have mailed the permission details on permissions-en@wikimedia.org 5 days ago and also written on (talk) talk page and i requested Ayaan Chawla also to email on permissions-en@wikimedia.org if he can so please check.... And restore the photo.
Hi Mr Gates. The image will automatically be restored once the email is reviewed by a member of the OTRS team. This could take up to a month, so please be patient. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
