User talk:Diannaa

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 8:43 PM where this user lives in Alberta. ⁽⁾

Nazi Germany

Hi Diannaa, as you were one of, if not *the* reason Nazi Germany made it to GA-status a few years ago, I wanted to reach out to you. I’m currently in the process of working on the article and I envision taking it to FA-status eventually. It’s not there yet but I think it’s definitely possible.

With that in mind, I wanted to ask if you’d be interested in working with me to see that through? I can’t think of anyone I’d like to work with more on this topic than the person who got it to GA-status in the first place.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 07:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi White Shadows. That's a great idea. My main commitment right now is copyvio cleanup but I will do what I can to help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I appreciate the recent edits too! I’ll work on it a bit more this weekend and compare what we have right now to the FAC criteria that exists. I may ask for a Peer Review too to get input on what may be missing before trying to take it to FAC. When I think it’s ready I’ll message you again so you can share any thoughts you have. When you’re in between your copyvio cleanup, feel free to join in!—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 16:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Man, editing on a phone is very difficult. Sorry if this sounds so broken up, but I trust you get what I meant.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 16:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There was a peer review done as part of the Core Contest prep in 2013: Wikipedia:Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

So I've found a few things I could use help with. Braun 1992 needs a page number (and the ref itself probably needs more info, like links, where it was published, and other info present in most journal citations. Page numbers are also needed for Zeitlin, Panayi, Hagemann, Flint, Dussel, Hanauske-Abel, Biddiscombe, and Hagemann. I only have limited access to JSTOR, but your userpage suggests you may be able to get those page numbers for these citations. These are the only citations I can see that still have issues at this point. If those are fixed, it'll go a long way towards getting this article set up for an FAC.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 21:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Braun 1992: was not available. I was able to look at Zeitlin but that paper does not support the material in the preceding sentences; it contradicts it on pretty much all points, stating that German aircraft manufacturers preferred skilled laborers and opposed rationalization. It does not mention rail lines or the location of factories, and it's not a general article, it only covers aircraft manufacturing. If the related content stays in it will have to be re-sourced. More to follow after supper. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 22:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

We could probably find a cite for that stuff using Speer, but he would say that, wouldn't he? - so an independent source would be best. If we can't source it, it will have to come out.

Panayi - source checks out fine; page numbers added. Hagemann - unable to access. Flint - I was able to access, but it does not support the content. Dussel - checks out fine and I added a bit more from that source. Hanauske-Abel - checks out fine; page number added. Biddiscombe - I was able to access; tweeked the content a bit to remove a minor copyvio and better reflect what the source has to say. Hagemann is on your list twice, so that's it for now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point with Speer. Thank you for the rest!—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 00:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have resolved these citation issues in the following manner: I replaced content sourced to Braun and Zeitlin with material from Fest and Speer; removed content sourced to Flint (general statements like this are difficult to source; if something turns up we can add it back); and replaced content sourced to Hagemann with material from Evans and the USHMM. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hey Diannaa, I've got the exact wording for this snipped you recently removed. "On this wintry morning of January 30, 1933, the tragedy of the Wiemar Republic, of the bungling attempt for fourteen frustrating years of the Germans to make democracy work, had come to an end." (It can be found on page 183) If the wording I used doesn't fit, do you think there's some other way we can convey what I was trying to get across there regarding the generally-accepted date of the establishment of Nazi Germany and the end of the Wiemar Republic?--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't extrapolate that into a general statement about what all historians think. Attribute it to Shirer: "Historian and war correspondent William L. Shirer describes this event as marking the end of the Wiemar Republic and the beginning of Nazi Germany." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have done that from the beginning. I'd like to pull at least one or two more historians who cite the date as the beginning of Nazi Germany however. I'll look around to see if I can pull any other names before I add that bit back in.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to help out too colleagues :) Oh, and by the way Diannaa, you do an awesome job in the frightening world of copyright. I just didn't want to pile on to the accolades above, so I will say it here. Huge respect for your work and attitude, especially in the darkest chapters of the 20th century. Good to meet you, user:White Shadows! We haven't met. Hope to do good work with you and our other colleagues. Regards, Simon Adler (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The more the merrier I say. This is the sort of article where it wouldn't be surprising to see several editors working to get it to FA-status.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 03:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time I used to have, but will be glad to help when I can. Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm jut spit-balling here, but what do you think about renaming the Nazi Germany#Racial policy to something more like "Crimes against humanity"? We can include a subsection there called Racial policy, but a new title may better suit the sub-sections that are currently below it.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 21:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Race is such a cornerstone of Nazism and the Nazi policies, I believe the "Racial policy" title should remain. Also, White Shadows, some interesting additional information added, but I am concerned about the growing length of the article; byte size, so to speak. It is a common problem, as you may know, with articles such as this. Diannaa and I have faced this before in articles herein, and so I would respectfully request that you keep that in mind and look for places where edits for concision can be made. I would have cut some more this morning, but wanted to mention it here first. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree we have to be cautious about adding any further material to the article. I haven't reviewed since I last visited the article, but in general, I would like to point out that the suggested article size is still 10,000 words, and this article should be an overview, and not overly detailed. I am still thinking about the suggested change to the section header, and am leaning towards leaving it alone. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I had a feeling we were reaching critical mass with respect to article length. There were a few sections however that were so incredibly short, I had to ask myself why they even existed. The Romani section before I lengthened it comes to mind. At this point, I think we've packed quite a lot of info in the article and I agree it shouldn't get much larger. Kierzek, if you want to cut anything else that I've added over the past few days, don't hesitate to do so. I'd love to see what edits you can come up with.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Left this out. I'm ok with leaving the section title alone. It seems there's a consensus to keep it the way it currently is.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thought of an idea: "Impact of racial policy". Or leave it alone — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I like that suggestion a lot.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 18:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay with me or "leave it alone". Kierzek (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest we leave it as it is. Simon Adler (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like we have enough editors who think the current section name is sufficient.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 00:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe it's just the optimist in me speaking, but I really think we're close to being comfortable (at least from my perspective) to nominating this article for FAC. We do however need alt-text for each of the images we have up I believe. I think it would also be wise for us to nominate the article for an A-class Review first, which can led to some additional input from others who edit regularly on topics related to this, before we go to FAC. Obviously we all know about how this stuff works, and I'm pretty sure all of us have conducted an ACR or an FAC before, but I'm just sharing my thoughts because this is such a large article, and it deals with such an important topic in history. I can't think of anything else I've worked on with the intention of bringing to a higher grading standard before other than World War II itself...and even then I only took it to GA-status.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 00:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I thing we are close too, but will continue to trim for length. A-Class review is a good idea — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your idea White Shadows as to starting with class-A review. And nice work on trimming guys. I had held off on doing the "World War II" section last night as Diannaa you said you were going to pick up there at that time. Its all good. Kierzek (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW - in checking the cites, I see Encyclopædia Britannica was used of a point. That should be replaced with a better RS cite. I am at work right now or I would do it. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Encl. Britannica replaced by Shirer. I will resume copy edits and trimming later - I don't wan to go too fast, so that people have time to review and check my work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• That makes sense, once one of us feels like it's ready to be taken to ACR we can just post a message here and seek some last minute input from the others. I do have a suggestion for everyone. Under the Nazification of Germany" section, it seems the last paragraph is very short and could use lengthening. I suggest trimming the bits I added about the take over of the labor union across Germany to compensate for article length. I made an edit to that effect just now to get your take on it. If there's a consensus that the last paragraph's length is sufficient, I can revert my change and bring the section back to what I had originally written.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 00:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add things to improve the visual appearance of sections. We're still 4000 words over the suggested page size. Please stop adding. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• In that case, I’ll keep that change in place without adding anything else. I’ll see what more I can condense today.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 12:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can remove some section headers to fix the tiny-section problem. I'll look at that option later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at "Further reading" section, that is a place we can trim words; there are enough good RS books used and cited in the article for general readers benefit. Update - I took a crack at it. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a great idea, though I am pretty sure that material is not included in the word count. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• So I've got an opening in my queue and I wanted to ask everyone if they were comfortable with me submitting the article to ACR. You'd all be listed as co-noms of course.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's very close to ready and we could list it now. I will continue trimming and copy editing though, and I think we still need some alt-text on images. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've created the ACR page and added you two in as noms. I've started work on adding alt-text and will continue to do so throughout the ACR process.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 22:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I should have some time to work on the lead, paras 3 and 4, tonight (late) after work, per Peacemaker67's comments. Kierzek (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Update, I took a break from work and had a go at it. See what you guys think. Kierzek (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I am working on the Legacy section now, and will tackle the attitudes toward the regime suggestion next. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Guys, I have been kept very busy of late by real life matters, but will try to help out more this coming week. Kierzek (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright and new page Patrol

I was mulling how to write a proposal to have copy patrolled directly contact editors. I'm not sure whether it is a good idea or not, so I wanted to batted around with you before even considering a formal proposal. However, while thinking about it I stumbled across: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/EranBot/2#Discussion, Which appears to be an initiative to have the editors working on new pages feed address copyright issues. I had seen some discussions of this in the past but it seems to be reaching fruition. Are you involved in this initiative?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Seems rather like Coren's bot used to do: Tag the article, list at WP:SCV, and notify the editor. Crow^Caw 20:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018 and the project page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018. The idea is to have a notice on the new pages feed for items that are listed at CopyPatrol. Items from CopyPatrol that are over a certain percentage on the Compare score will get flagged so new page patrollers will be cued to examine that aspect.

I'm not sure having the bot contact editors is a good idea, as we have circa 25% false positives, and probably around 25% or so of the remainder are not copyvio per se but unattributed copying from compatibly licensed material. So they need a different kind of note. Plus there's many occasions where people who are whitelisted appear on CopyPatrol anyway, and I don't want to annoy them! And sometimes I want to send a short personal note, especially when their talk page is already a sea of templated warnings and messages. So my opinion is no, CopyPatrol should not notify users. The CopyPatrol list serves as a substitute for listing at WP:SCV or WP:CP, where CorenBot's reports were posted for assessment. @ Sphilbrick, @ Crow, please check your email, I just sent each of you a note on a related topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You make some excellent points, but before I abandon this idea let me try talking through some possibilities. I have noted that some white listed people to show up in the report. Frankly, this doesn't bother me a lot, because when I recognize the name my reaction is "oh good, this one will be easy". For the record, I don't automatically accept it. In most cases, it's text from a public domain or acceptably licensed source so I checked to make sure that's what's going on. My initial thought was that we could tell it but doing a response to skip those in the white list, but if it hasn't figured out how not to do the report, it's likely that the same problem will persist in the notification and they will get notified which will be annoying. One option is that we push the developers to sort out why the white list isn't working properly. I wouldn't push for hundred percent perfection but is a report from an article edited by Rosiestep several times a week. If they could sort out what's wrong, it might keep it out of the report which would obviously remove the need to contact them.

I agree that sometimes a personal note is appropriate. This may not be the ideal practice, but in many cases I send a template response (because it contains lots of useful links), and follow up with a short personal note to make it clear that a human is willing to discuss the issues. I think that could still be done. Even if the bot automatically notified them of the potential issue, would still have it in our report and have the ability to follow up with a personal note. I won't be surprised if you prefer to replace the entire templated response with a completely personal note, and if that's the case this won't work well for you.

I agree the false positives are relatively high. Let me see if I can turn that into a positive. I'll follow this up with more detail.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm imagining that a well worded message, even though a template, might be helpful. It could start out by noting that the edit has been detected by software as a possible copyright issue, follow up with an explanation that a significant proportion of such reports are false positives and go through some of the examples of potential false positives, so the editor could participate in the discussion.

For example, one of the false positives that bedevils me is copying within Wikipedia. If they follow the protocol as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, I know I'll catch it, and we could tell them that if they follow that protocol, some human will be along to accept it, and they can ignore the message. If, however, they copied within Wikipedia and did not note that in the edit summary, they still have a chance to fix it with a dummy edit and that might occur before we get around to reviewing it which would be a net positive.

Other examples of false positives are copies of appropriately licensed material, and the template could mentioned that if that is noted in the edit summary the reviewer will see it, and the reviewer may notice it as part of the review, but it's always easier if it's explicitly noted in the edit summary. It could also mention if they plan to do a lot of work with public domain or properly licensed sources, they could let us know so we could add them to a white list.

I won't be surprised if this isn't persuasive, but I think it's worth discussing to keep working on improving our procedures.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know I haven't read this yet and will get to it later. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No rush, you are busy doing good work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Before you spend too much time thinking about this I want to withdraw my suggestion. I just happened to review five reports. One was a copy within Wikipedia, the other four were all restoration of inexplicably or inappropriately removed material. Contacting those editors would constitute an annoyance, because the edit summaries generally explained the situation. (These examples do support my request for the tool to check to see if the added material also matches an existing Wikipedia article but that request seems to be not getting any traction.) Too many false positives to justify contacting editors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

OK in that case I will get through my watch-list and get to the gym (I will still read this later though). CopyPatrol reports from yesterday are done :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Potential COPYVIO Corana and Hygeia

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of copyright content in the Corana and Hygeia article, but the source may be in the Public Domain. Woodlot (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There's an even bigger overlap with this page, which is marked as being available under a compatible CC-by-4.0 international license. I see the article creator (who does this all the time) has already provided the required attribution at the bottom of the page and in the edit summary when they created the page, so there's nothing to do here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Robert Fowler (surgeon, soldier) speedy deletion

Hi @Diannaa:. Thanks for your time in looking at this, but I'm a bit confused and although I'm loath to impose on your time I do have a couple of questions if that's OK. By way of background, I created the Robert Fowler page because his name is on a To Do list on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/To-do portal (in fact in researching him I discovered there are 2 Dr Robert Fowlers so I am researching the second one also).

I certainly did copy material from directly from http://adb.online.anu.edu.au/biography/fowler-robert-10231 as you note but I pasted that into my sandbox to use it as a basis for the new page I created, which I understood was an appropriate workflow, but maybe it isn't??? I'm a bit confused because the final page that I published was in my view significantly different form the original content and included fresh source material, so I thought I had created a legitimate page... Unfortunately I can't tell now if the speedy deletion was for the sandbox, the actual page or both, as both are now gone. Obviously I'm pretty new here so I do very much appreciate the guidance of experienced editors and I absolutely am wanting to contribute legitimate, appropriate content, so even just a brief response would be very helpful. Finally, is there a way to resurrect the old content so I can use it as the basis for a revised article?? Sincerely, Cabrils (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils. On double checking, I find that the sandbox version and the version in mainspace are identical. Some of the content was properly paraphrased at the beginning of the article, but the bulk of it was a direct copy. It's not okay to add copyright material to Wikipedia, not even temporarily, and not even in sandboxes or drafts. The version that was flagged by the bot was the one in mainspace. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. I can send you a copy of the deleted material via email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I can't believe I did that! I must have mistakenly left that source material at the bottom of the page. Thank you for clarifying that the sandbox cannot contain copyrighted material-- I will prepare any new content offline from now on. If you could please send me a copy of the deleted material that would be great-- I have activated my email. I'll clean up the page and then what is the best way forward—- to publish it and alert you to check it if you wouldn't mind??

Also, will my account have been flagged because of the copyvio?? If so, is there some way this can be removed--it was a genuine (ignorant) mistake?? Much appreciated, Cabrils (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry - lots of people make mistakes. It's okay for you to remove warnings (or any other material) from your talk page. Eventually you might create an archive once your talk page gets long! The page's history serves as a record of all the posts made. I can check the new version of the article for you when you get it re-added; just let me know. Email has been sent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Really appreciated Cabrils (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New page up live at Robert Fowler (surgeon, soldier) for whenever you get a moment. [UPDATE: User:Seacactus 13 has just reviewed it and seems to be content-- at least they didn't appear to do anything nor message me. Cabrils (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)] Thanks very much Diannna! Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The new page is okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks, and happy editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Cabrils (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issue: Comparison of Optimization Software

Thank you for your guidance. I am a product manager for FICO, who is the copyright owner for this content. I was just adding it to this page to ensure that accurate information was available to user. I will adjust my added content to remove the potential for any cxopyright concerns. Thank you FICO-NCrossley (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Road racing

Thank you for pointing out the copyright problem for Road racing. I have removed the links and will seek new inline citations that don't violate copyright rules.Orsoni (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Orsoni: Removing the links is not a solution. Removing the copyright-violating prose is what needs to be done. The copyvio detector is still showing a 73.6% overlap, so there's still a lot of clean-up needed. Please let me know if you still don't understand what the problem is or how to fix it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I thought I had changed the violating prose but, maybe I rushed. I have tried re-editing and have found new cited sources. Please let me know if I still need to clean it up.Orsoni (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There's still quite a bit of overlap: Use the copyvio detector— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay. I have tried to clean up the copyright violations however, some words like the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile are impossible to write in any other form. The copyvio detector shows 25% overlap. I'm not sure what the allowable threshold is. Thanks again for your assistance.Orsoni (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Names of oganizations, book titles, and the like do not need to be re-worded. There's no set threshold - all unique phrases have to be edited out by putting the material into your own words. I have finished the clean-up for you, including the required paraphrasing of the content copied from the New York Times and Motorsport Magazine. All done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Message from Tim Bates

Stereotype threat

re stereotype deletion, I had a quick look, but still not sure what the problem is: There's a paraphrase of the abstract, and a block quote, marked as such, which is well within fair use. Am I missing something?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim bates (talk • contribs)

The content is almost identical to the abstract. That's a copyright violation. I removed the block quote as it doesn't make sense to leave it in without the preceding paragraph. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Latvian National Symphony Orchestra

Hi Diannaa, for when there's nothing else on your plate. Persistent copyright violation, promotional content. Lots of rev/deletion, it appears. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• With apologies for dropping another batch here: European Museum Forum, European Museum of the Year Award, and pretty much anything the COI account has contributed to. Thank you! 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

These will have to wait. Super busy today. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• • Understood, and no hurry. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • These are all done. Sorry for the delay. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

Since you primarily block the IPBlanker, I've moved it in my userspace in an effort to clean up the obscene amount of pages I have. It's here now: User:Chrissymad/Sock drawer/IPBlanker. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

OK cool, I will amend my bookmark. I have a related page at User:Diannaa/IP blanker — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Time for a short break

To everyone except Diannaa - I need a bit of a Wiki-break, hopefully not long. I hope tps will step up and help out at CopyPatrol.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy your break! You deserve it — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a good day to take a break!! because it appears to be National Edit Wikipedia Day in India!! lol — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Help requested

Hi Diannaa! Hope all is well. I haven't bothered you in a while, soooooooo, here I am to bother you. May I please trouble you to consider a block on Eivinas Maziliauskas? This is an unresponsive editor who has basically taken ownership of List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes. I haven't materially edited this article since about 2015, but took a look at it recently and found a ton of MOS violations, incoherent section headings, and other stuff that I corrected here. Eivinas Maziliauskas systematically reverted all those changes silently. I opened multiple discussions detailing all of my changes, I also pinged and urged the user to participate in discussion, but they wouldn't.

He and anonymous IPs (who I assume to be him logged out) started adding unsourced air dates, which I've been reverting. Here he adds unsourced airdates but also plot summaries he copied from other places, like here. I warned him for this. He then added this plot summary, which I found here, which I gave him a final warning about. He then added these plot summaries he did not write, which can be found here and here at the official Oggy YouTube presence. That's three copyvios, and I would have blocked him for that if I hadn't gotten involved as though this were a content dispute. Anyway, if you could look at the matter, I'd be appreciative. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb. Another admin has blocked for a week for the copyvios and disruption. The remaining plot descriptions are copied all over the Internet, which makes it difficult to ascertain whether or not there's additional copyvios remaining on the page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Broken Key

Hi Dianna. Copyright rules were broken at The Broken Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whenever you have the time. Take care. Dr. K. 23:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you as always Dianna. By the way, the very first edit still has the copyvio plot. Can that be nuked? Dr. K. 01:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

All fixed. Good catch — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice. :) Thanks again. Take care. Dr. K. 17:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright wondering

Hi Diannaa, I'm wondering about your intervention to the visibility of an anon-edit to Henri Poincaré. Did you accidentally stumble upon my revert, and decided to change the visibility of the edit, or were you somehow triggered by my message on the ip's talk page? - DVdm (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi DVdm. The copyvio was reported by a bot, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. Good to know. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

I know that copy/paste from the web is a no, no, but I'm not sure where the cutoff point of blatant and paraphrase/quote, so if you could have a look at this c/p, quote ? it would be appreciated. Could you ping me with your opinion, I'd be interested. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Quotes are permitted, but most of this is general remarks and historical info that we don't have to present via quotation and is already covered elsewhere in the article. I think I would trim it down and keep only the very last bit, something like this: "In 2016, Rolling Stone described them as 'one of the most accomplished and absorbing bands rock ever birthed'." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your expertize, too many fine lines with text copyrights, I think I'll stick with files :P. Thanx again. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2018 EBSL Superfinal Arena Alghero.jpg

Greetings Dianna,

On September 14 you nominated my image for deletion as I had attributed the copyright to Brian Murgatroyd but at the time had not supplied evidence of permission. That same day I forwarded the evidence that I gained permission from him to upload the photo to permissions-en@wikimedia.org & received a confirmation receipt. It has now been a week since the nomination and the image has now been deleted. I was just wondering if you know how long it takes the permissions volunteers to sift through the emails. Since this is the first time I've encountered this situation, I've no idea if a week is normal or not to wait for a response.

Cheers! TurboGUY (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi TurboGUY. Apparently they only have about a 2-week backlog right now so it shouldn't be too long to wait. Next time, please place an {{OTRS pending}} template on the file to avoid deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Diannaa. Hopefully it's resolved soon. TurboGUY (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

National Yunlin University of Science and Technology

Hello Diannaa, could you revdel the latest in-between versions of this article once more please? Unfortunately the content was restored after your last revdel on 27 March (and I missed the update somehow). Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Done - thanks for the update. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Kangeelu

I didn't copy any new material at all, as you would know if you read the piece. I just edited it for clarity and moved stuff around. Why remove what I did and accuse me, when the problem, if there is one, is with the original? Why wasn't it picked up when it was posted? Why should anyone waste their time trying to make articles better when you can't do your job and see that an article requiring copy edit is OK to edit first? You need to look at your own procedures and stop wasting other people's time.--Shim shabim (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The person who created the page did receive a warning but somehow I placed one on your talk page as well. That was a mistake, because you didn't add any copyvio material. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Potential COPYVIO Biloxi, Mississippi

Hi Diannaa, there appears to be a copy/paste section (Fire Department) recently added to the Biloxi, Mississippi article. The source of the potential copyright violation is shown here. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Deschooling

Hi Diannaa, the article has a fairly large chunk copied. Here is the report: here. Much obliged!. scope_creep (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scope Creep. That is a Wikipedia mirror. As are most of the other articles on their website. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

NVIDIA RTX

Hi Diannaa. Just saw your message about removing the NVIDIA RTX page. Totally confused as to why you feel this was "copied" from other posts. This page started out as [[[RTX: (ray tracing technology]], company decided that this was a platform rather than a technology, but community changed this to NVIDIA RTX to align to other NVIDIA product naming conventions on wikpedia. I work at NVIDIA (and yes this is disclosed on my profile page) and can assure you that we have the permissions to use the content. I'll set out sending the required email from my corporate email. Popoki 🐱🐱 chat 18:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio ahoy!

This diff is full of all the problems: [1] Fortunately, it's just one diff! Could you kindly erase it from existence? Thanks as always for everything you do... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Julietdeltalima: I've revdel'd the diff and warned the user about copyright violations. clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

HMAS Nepal (G25)

Just reverted a copyvio on this article - can you do the revdel please? Lyndaship (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Done, and warned the user. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Luis Ernesto Michel

I briefly mulled writing a proposal to have copy patrol add a feature to allow a user to watch a particular report (does a similar functionality in OTRS). However, after thinking about it a bit I think 90% of the usage would be me watching a report to see how you handle it so I decided to cut out the middleman.

The report involving Luis Ernesto Michel Look like it should be straightforward based on the URL of the matched site. However, the edit and a site which is in Japanese and even when translated seems to have nothing to do with the subject. I wondered if there was some matching material at the site until recently and the site was abandoned and picked up by someone else but the way back machine didn't support that, so I'm curious to know what you think, assuming the very likely possibility that you are the person who will review it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a subtle clue in the edit summary: "Citations needed template exists". Sure enough, when I hunt back in the edit history I see that the content was removed as unsourced in May 2017. iThenticate shows a crawl date of 12 December 2010 for http://luismichel.com/index.html. The content is no longer there and the page was never archived by the Wayback Machine. Checking back at old revisions I see for example special:diff/400269330 that we already had the content on that date. Some of the material has been here since 2006: Special:diff/94183398. The page is a Wikipedia mirror - it's a false positive. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I sort of noticed the edit summary, but it didn't sink into me that it was a clue. Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Need some help with revision deletion of personal info

Hi Diannaa, I found you listed as "willing" to handle rev/delete requests. I would really appreciate it if you could delete/hide some revision history entry info that shows my old username and university, which could be used to identify me personally. Here are three entries I have found that I would like deleted or amended to remove my old username and my university and class:

User:Yurrp: Revision history:

1. 14:14, 19 September 2018 Euphydras: References my old, personal username as part of change/move to new username “Yurrp”.

2. 18:08, 4 June 2018 Yurrp: References my university and class

User:Yurrp/sandbox: Revision history:

3. 14:14, 19 September 2018 Euphydryas: References my old, personal username as part of change/move to new username “Yurrp”. Thank you for your help!Yurrp (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That was super fast! Best, Yurrp (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Global Cultural Districts Network

Hi Diannaa, another cache of copyright violation, when you have a chance. Thank you, 2601:188:180:1481:F1D3:A992:41FB:F56 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:F1D3:A992:41FB:F56 (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Hay (publicist)

I hope I'm posting this right on the talk page lol. Please forgive me if I'm not. Thank you for ALL that information you gave me. Huge help. I fixed the introduction I think on the article. OnlyPlayJazz (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The new version is ok from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Pioneer Springs Community School

The usual--blatant copyright violation of promotional content from school website. Thank you, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:1481:F1D3:A992:41FB:F56 (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Draft:Aquazoo Löbbecke Museum

Well, this is not nice. I am working for this museum and hence also the texts from the museum's website are written by me and my colleagues. I had not even the chance to contest this speedy deletion or to copy my written wiki in which I put a lot of effort. If the wiki I created is not appropriate, could you at least bring my content back to me, so that I can work on it offline? Or is it now totally lost? Unfortunately I had no backup for that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan3345 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in working on Wikipedia. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I considered sending you a copy of the deleted draft via email, but decided against it, as all the content is copied from elsewhere, and we therefore can't accept it for publication or host it anywhere on our site. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads

Hi, You deleted something I wrote about Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads. I think it was a mistake. I never visited the page you think I plagiarized. Of course, now I can't see what I wrote to compare it exactly. It's possible that I copied something from Oyez accidentally. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Many of these summaries appear in multiple locations online. Justia, Caselaw, etc. The bot found extremely similar content to your edit at Caselaw. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted material without evidence of permission

Hi Diannaa, you wrote to tell me that in some of my addition(s) to "Draft:Manuel García Velarde" there are copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. I have not found it, I only have cited a list of published contributions but nothing more. Could you give me more information in order to know how should I correct? Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbedia (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, but it's obviously the same because it's the same person's website. Professor García Velarde asked me to publish his profile on wikipedia and he sent me that text. What do I need to be able to publish it? It is the author himself who has written this text! Does he have to authorize that his curriculum can be published? Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbedia (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Viet comics

In your edit of 13:08, 25 May 2018 of Viet comics, you introduced the word "Rigt", which I don't believe is a word in either English or Vietnamese. Please fix. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Schaal

When you have a moment, could you please look at a possible copyright infringement in this article. You should be somewhat familiar with the article because you took various actions in the past. An editor is claiming that some portion of the article infringes the material at the subject's website. I tried to figure out which came first, the website material or the Wikipedia article. I failed. What do you think? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)