: 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 -- [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 14:49, 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 -- [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 14:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
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? '''[[User:Versace1608|<span style="color:red;">V</span><span style="color:blue;">e</span><span style="color:black;">r</span><span style="color:green;">s</span><span style="color:#FFBF00;">a</span><span style="color:black;">c</span><span style="color:red;">e</span><span style="color:#8B0000;">1</span><span style="color:#253529;">6</span><span style="color:#EA3C53;">0</span><span style="color:#4F7942;">8</span>]] '''</font></big>[[User_Talk:Versace1608|{{Font color|white|#3C1414|'''(Talk)'''}}]] 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Request for the Deletion of Orphaned revisions in Freely licensed files
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 cuisinehere, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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 | talk10:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SlightSmile14:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
