User talk: Diannaa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is 7:44 PM where this user lives in Alberta. (Purge)


Sarabjit Roy[edit]

Hi Diannaa! Wondering if the creator of that article is related to WP:LTA/IAC, of whom this name is tightly connected? CrowCaw 21:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Could be, I suppose. I don't know much about it though, so you might consider asking one of the people who put together the LTA page to have a look. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Will do, thanks! CrowCaw 21:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, you were mentioned[edit]

Just FYI, I mentioned you on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Adam Kess. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Another one …[edit]

Hi, Diannaa! Further to this, acceptable permission has now come through for this one too. Licence is dual, CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, ticket number is 2015110710013381. Would you be so kind? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Diannaa! However there's a hitch: I didn't know the photo was credited to someone else (Barry Dolton). I've now written to ask for a release from the photographer or clarification of how copyright was transferred. Do you want to un-undelete it until that comes through, or are you happy for it to be tagged as OTRS pending? Sorry about this! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me like it was a work for hire as "Bonesaw" is in the photo, but best to be sure. I will change the tag while you find out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
All done, the photographer gave permission. Many thanks as always, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Tame Animal note to William Harris[edit]

'morning Canada,

Thanks for you note on my talk page, but I was depending on WP:NOATT - "If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." However, your request is now actioned. Regards, William Harristalk • 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@William Harris: Your edit triggered a bot report at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc. Even though it's not strictly required by the guideline, would simplify checking the bot report and help you avoid receiving such notices in the future if you could mention the source page in your edit summaries. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[edit]


I declined speedy deletion of this article per the review in the NY Times providing a credible assertion of notability. I recognise there are multiple issues with the article and its subject, not least the COI of its creator. BC108 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Blanking pages nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

Hi Diannaa! I noticed that you have blanked some of the pages I had nominated for speedy deletion. I am quite curious why you chose to blank them instead of deleting them, is there something you would like to preserve? Here is a list of the pages:

I am trying to make the list in the collapse template on this page a bit shorter.

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk pages are not normally deleted. These are not advertising as such, but are personal details. There's no need to delete. — Diannaa (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Breheny photo[edit]

Hi Diannaa,

A photo of Jack Breheny that I uploaded to his article was deleted in December. Arnold Rowlands took the photo, so I gave him attribution, but Arnold has been dead several years and his slides are now in my possession. So what is the best way to put the photo back?

Possession of the photos is not the same as holding the copyright. According to copyright law, for works with a known author with a known date of death, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of author. — Diannaa (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill Burr & Monday Morning Podcast[edit]

The Image is a free to use image, and I have consent to use the image by the author a well, which has been sent to wiki permissions!

your consent deletion is inconsistent

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello how are you?, I have a complaint about the IP troll here, here operation out of UAE (for accuracy he is a Syrian resident in the UAE), He used to caused a month of extensive disruption and some fifty thousand ranged block IPs and targets articles about Christianity articles as user:Jeppiz show here and here the user is pushing an anti-Christian and pro-Muslim POV on several articles, this user and IP troll was blocked the arabic wikipeida months ago for his vandalism and insults, besides racism and disruptive comments relating in particular to the Christian articles in Arabic Wikipedia. and he has also more than 53 sockpuppeteers. - you can ask the admains of the arabic wikipeida as user:باسم and Meno25 about this IP troll.

Now im facing harassment and personal attack from him, in my personal page and talk page, and Mia Khalifa talk page. he sended this video that he create] for me title=User_talk%3AJobas&type=revision&diff=697625490&oldid=696495263 here, I'm asking to protect both my personal page and talk page and Mia Khalifa talk page (he called me pervert there).

There is something draws my attention, his sudden appearance (after few hours after the complaint Xtremedood filed), and his strong defense of the user:Xtremedood, after i brougth up the sockpuppet of user:Xtremedood, and accusing the User:Capitals00 (who had a problem recently with user:Xtremedood) having sockpuppet, the same accusing that user:Xtremedood did. I think it's a strange thing that this IP defend in that strong way of the user:Xtremedood (who by the way is an active sock-puppeteer who has operated at least three others accounts as well as several IPs).
Thank and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I have semi-protected your user page; that's all I am going to do. User talk pages and article talk pages are not normally protected. The IPs are both blocked. — Diannaa (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello sorry for asking again, The IP from UAE back agia with the personal attack. Can you block this IP here. Thank you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry agian to ask agian. He is backing and he not leaving me in peace here, with his personal attack as calling me pervert.--Jobas (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I've semi-protected Talk:Mia Khalifa but I see he popped up on still another page. Please post here if he continues; I will be here for another two hours. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much Diannaa, I do appreciate it. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
He is going now to other user pages. telling lies about me. will sound he is not leaving me in peace.--Jobas (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Part of the reason he keeps doing this is because he sees how much he is upsetting you. So I suggest that you revert his posts without comment. There's no need to refute his posts, as any sensible person can see them for what they are: harassment. Blocks appear to be pointless, as he seems to have an unlimited access to IPs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Your point is rigth. Have a nice a day.--Jobas (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Request of semi-protection[edit]

Hi, it's me again. Sorry to bother you, but I require your assistance again as I'm facing disrupting editing made by the same anonymous user, this time on this page. It's really annoying that it won't even try to answer on his talk page about his activities. Could you do something, please?--Dk1919 (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Right now this looks like a content dispute. Pages are not protected for that reason. Please try discussing the matter on the article talk page first. — Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Kanikai Sami[edit]

You deleted some copyright violations from this page. Does the deleted page currently appear on the page Kanikasamy? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa

I was just curious why a section was delete from the page Kanikasamy, That is not copyright information and not sure how was that classified. Please advise how can i get that content back Thanks

The information was copied from a museum document, which is copyright. We can't reproduce it here without the copyright holder's permission. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Otto Steinhäusl[edit]

D -- I can't get the photo caption to sit correctly; do you mind having a look? Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Book with multiple authors, single topic[edit]

Hi Diannaa! I wanted to reference this book:

The Fatal Decisions. With a commentary by Lieutenant General Siegfried Westphal. (Edited by William Richardson and Seymour Freidin. Translated from the German by Constantine FitzGibbon. With an introduction by Cyril Falls.) [By Werner Kreipe and others.]. William Holt RICHARDSON, and FREIDIN (Seymour); Cyril Bentham FALLS; Constantine FitzGibbon; Seymour FREIDIN; Werner KREIPE; Siegfried Westphal, World Distributors: London, 1965.

but am at a loss for how one goes about it. Six authors (Werner Kreipe and others), two editors, one translator, and one guy writing intro commentaries to each section. If you could provide a little guidance it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at Auschwitz concentration camp, where the book Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp is used as a source multiple times. Each chapter has a different author, so the book had to be listed multiple times. For example, the chapter written by Robert J. Lifton:

* {{cite book | last1 = Lifton | first1 = Robert Jay | authorlink1 = Robert Jay Lifton | last2 = Hackett | first2 = Amy | editor1-last = Gutman | editor1-first = Yisrael | editor2-last = Berenbaum | editor2-first = Michael | title = Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp | chapter = The Auschwitz Prisoner Administration | pages = 363–378 | year = 1994 | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington, Indiana | isbn = 0-253-32684-2 | ref = harv}}

The chapter written by Gutman:

* {{cite book | last = Gutman | first = Yisrael | authorlink = Yisrael Gutman | editor1-last = Gutman | editor1-first = Yisrael | editor2-last = Berenbaum | editor2-first = Michael | editor2-link = Michael Berenbaum | title = Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp | chapter = Auschwitz—An Overview | pages = 5–33 | year = 1994 | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington, Indiana | isbn = 0-253-32684-2 | ref = harv}}

If you wish to source something to the introductory material, put it in the | chapter = field, for example, | chapter = The Ardennes (introduction) and list as author the author of the introduction rather than the author of the chapter. Here is some mark-up to get you started:

* {{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | editor1-last = Freidin | editor1-first = Seymour K | editor2-last = Richardson | editor2-first = William | others = Translated from the German by [[Constantine Fitzgibbon]] | title = The Fatal Decisions | chapter = | pages = | year = 1956 | publisher = W. Sloan Associates | location = New York | oclc = 392880 | ref = harv}}

Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016[edit]

Reinhard Heydrich[edit]

D -- I recall you have the Shirer book; someone is calling into question his number claim as cited to the Einsatzgruppen; although, what is in the article is a common number - "over one million". Kierzek (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi K. The source is the Rhodes book, which gets the data from Hilberg. Hilberg trumps Shirer, as more data came out later, once the Iron Curtain came down. I have amended the article. — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking; I will say that others sources still use the "over one million" number; the exact number will never be known. Kierzek (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
If you have time and interest to dig out those other sources, we could always revise again. They could just be citing Shirer though, as he was considered the last word on the subject for many years. — Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the current RS cited estimate you added is sufficient. Of course the "one million" number is a common estimate for the number of Jews which were killed and the "over", is what it is. Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Famous Ferguson Case[edit]


I thought I had edited the plot synopsis enough to not be plagarism. I apologise to Wikipedia for inadvertant plagarism. Editing is clumsy for me right now, as I have to do all my online work on an old Nook and can't use word processing and must type everything with a stylus.

I went back to try to fix the unoriginal bits (my goal was just to use the TCM stuff as an outline), but it's completely gone. Is there any way you could send me what I posted so I could fix it and repost once I'm sure? -- I can't save anything to this device, so I don't have a copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olef641 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The material you added was almost identical to the source webpage. What you need to do is write the synopsis using your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Additions to page on Bhai Randhir Singh[edit]

Got your message on the reversal of changes I made to the page on Bhai Randhir Singh. The intention of the changes was to replicate on Wikipedia (with some alterations) the publicly available content on this personality - all of which quote from the same copyright. The source page that you have mentioned my content is copied from, has itself replicated the content from another website. Once again, the intention of the update to this page was not to reinvent or create brand new content for publishing, but to improve and provide on Wikipedia the "same content" available on lesser known sources (with due citations and links to these sources).

Also, the changes I had made that were not from this source, but were compiled originally, have also been removed.

Just as the other websites provide the copyright information in their bibliography, is it not possible to do the same on this Wikipedia page? The person this page is dedicated to is my great grandfather and I am very anxious to provide a decent Wikipedia page for him. I will look forward to your reply.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipeshwar.singh (talkcontribs) 06:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Being publicly available is not the same thing as being in the public domain, Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your namesake the princess[edit]

Thank you for doing the revdeletion there (and in all the other places where you've done it), and for blocking the culprit. However, I've messed up: I completely underestimated the extent of the problem and didn't get anywhere near all of it. The same editor has added innumerable copyvios there. So far, I've got as far back as this, from here, but I've no confidence that's the end of it. So could I ask your advice? Do you think it'd now be better to blank and list this, or keep looking until I find his/her first substantial edit and roll back to there? I'd hoped to avoid blanking such a high-profile article, but I now think that that could have been a wrong call. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

His first substantial edit was this one way back in 2012. I think the best way to handle it is to do a clean-up of this high-profile article. To that end, I have put a mini-CCI in User:Diannaa/sandbox. The edits that need to be checked are the ones in Bold (142 of them). I have to go to the gym now, and will start when I get back. Once I've completed the task we can decide on where the cutoff is for further revision-deletion. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, of course that's the most energy-efficient way of doing it, why didn't I think of it? (and why doesn't the Isolate button in the revision history actually DO anything?) I've done a slightly different version here, listing only edits over 200 bytes and numbering them (because I kept losing track). I'm moderately certain of two things: that this, which I cited above as a source of copyvio, is in fact copied from us (and liberally pasted with copyright notices into the bargain); and two, more to the point, that the first "bad" edit in this series is this one, 297 bytes on 14 April 2012, #7 in my list; the sentence "The Spencer coat of arms came into existence centuries ago" was here in 2004. The article seems to have been in pretty good shape at that time, which is a relief. As far as I can see the only "real" hits in Earwig are 6 and 10, and the overlap in both is mostly in quoted material. Do you agree, I wonder? Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Just got back from the gym, and have discovered the same thing: The coat of arms diff is the first sketchy edit. Earwig will not locate overlapping material where the source link has gone dead (or is archived). Going through the edits one at a time will give a feel for the user's competency in the language and make copyvios easier to detect, even when the source material is not cited or irretrievably 404. I have removed the revision-deletion temporarily to make the diffs easier to assess. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Just got in. Heavens, I now see what you are doing (I'd wondered why you'd unhidden the history!). I was just going to roll it straight back to the last clean version, update the infobox and footer material, ask you to revdelete, and leave it at that … I feel bad, I had no intention of asking you to take on such a mammoth task. If there's any left to do I'll try to do some of it tomorrow; but right now it's time for the arms of Murphy (as they say in Ireland). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I got about a quarter of it done, and will resume tomorrow. If you want to work on it in the morning, you can start at diff #42 on your list, or work from the set in my sandbox, from which I have removed the completed diffs. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I did a few, working backwards rather than forwards. What I'm thinking now is this: essentially, everything added by that editor is copyvio (partly because there's probably a language competence problem there); checking every addition against the sources is an unreasonable amount of work; if you felt like opening the CCI, we could presumptively remove all his/her additions, which would still be time-consuming, but much less so. Though actually, for what it's worth, I still think that rolling it back to the last clean version is the best solution. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Copy vio is an impossibly huge problem, no matter how one decides to tackle it. Did you know, I am currently the only person currently working on the WP:CCI cases? So opening a case doesn't change things much. I just thought it would be best to get this one high-profile article promptly cleaned, while doing the smallest amount of disruption to other people's edits. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of revdel, can you also fix this one? Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Logging off now, ttyl. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Diannaa thanks for your tireless efforts on copyright concerns, Eranbot in particular. Thanks for your continued interest and dedication to this project. (Curious, where in Alberta do you live. Coffee sometime? Email me to maintain confidentiality. I'm in to Kootenays.)--Lucas559 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback, Lucas. I live near Edmonton. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just wondering...[edit]

I noticed that you left a message about attribution at User talk:Enthusiast,[1] which is a redirect from User talk:Enthusiast01. Enthusiast has only made 3 edits, in August last year, while Enthusiast01 has made more than 41,000. If all of the messages are going on the Enthusiast talk page, isn't it likely that Enthusiast01 is seeing none of them unless he has that page on his watchlist? Enthusiast01 is copying and pasting a lot of content, including bad references, into Postal service in Australia and still isn't providing attribution. It's been a pain fixing the bad cites and then having to search for the articles from which he's copied them so that I can fix the cites there. --AussieLegend () 06:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The user himself created the redirect, so I assumed he is indeed reading the messages. I have sent him an email asking him to confirm. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought he might just be trying to avoid talk page messages. He doesn't seem to abide by requests. --AussieLegend () 09:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
He says via email that he moved the page to get rid of the "01". As there was no conflicting page history, I was able to move the page back to its proper location. I've also urged him via email to read and acknowledge the messages under the section headers "Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution" and "Postal service in Australia". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisition[edit]

The edit summary here made me laugh, thanks! Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you saw it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy Figueroa[edit]

Sammy Figueroa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Diannaa. Thank you for the revdels. On Sammy Figueroa I used the incorrect end revision number, so enough of the history did not get deleted. This revision introduced the copyvio. After further investigation, I have comcerns about the first revision of the article.[2] — JJMC89(T·C) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The source page is titled "Tour dates 2016" so it's likely they copied from us. I have rev-deleted from this revision. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky’s new one[edit]

I think the banned user has a new one User:Smoovez. (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, I see two of her "tells" for sure. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request[edit]

Hello Diannaa, could you revdel this edit on my user talkpage please? Just a troll, but I don't need that kind of crap in my userspace. Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email – you've got mail!
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.
Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The mail did not arrive, Elizium23. Please re-send. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The "email this user" feature simply does not seem to be working for me. So I'll put it out here. I have a WP:REVDEL request for all edits here on User talk:Engleham. Attempted WP:OUTING, personal attacks, all kinds of things, all while this user is blocked, to boot! Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Please check and make sure I went back far enough. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually it goes back 52 revisions, starting with this one. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, all done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
That did the trick! Thanks so much. Elizium23 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Copy vio[edit]

Could you check this page Kandukuri Veeresalingam for some copy vio.--Vin09(talk) 10:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, Vin09. I was able to save the article by rolling back to a prior version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Unresponsive birth date vandal[edit]

You might like to revisit your protection of Freddy Cannon and Dave Bartholomew. I'm starting to get a little fed up with this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


What is the procedure at this point for him to appeal his ban and/or certify that he has read specific policies.Naraht (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The user is blocked, not banned (there's a difference). What he has to do to regain editing privileges is to convince us that he has read and understood our copyright policy and intends to carefully comply with it in the future. More advice can be found at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File deleted despite permission[edit]

Hi Diannaa. You had requested that a permission be sent for each image in the collage "Chitta Kukkad Music Team.jpg" on the page Chitta Kukkad. The owner Parichay told me that he sent in the permission letter on February 2 to, however the collage was still deleted. Please clarify; thanks. Django48 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted by mistake. I have now restored the file. — Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Django48 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Germany or Nazi Germany?[edit]

Do you have an opinion about this RFC? You may be interested so I am passing it along. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dongseo University Images[edit]

Hello Diannaa, I'm sorry to bother you with this again since you appropriately directed me the last time I wrote you to the editor who removed the images from the page for Dongseo University. That editor advised me to wait, and I have been waiting for what seems like a long time. Now I cannot find how to contact that editor again. The situation is that I sent an email to on December 10, 2015, from my email address affiliated with the university to establish that I am authorized to upload the images posted. I am hoping these images can be restored to the page. Please advise on how this can be accomplished. Thank you for your time.Keir Thornburg 02:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Keir Thornburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keir Thornburg (talkcontribs)

@Keir Thornburg: The deleting administrator was user:Explicit. I cannot help you myself, as I was not the deleting administrator, and I do not have OTRS permissions and thus cannot view your email or add the OTRS tags. — Diannaa (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yikes. As much as there is a backlog at OTRS, this seems like an unreasonably long wait for something that should have gone through with ease. I'll see if I can get an OTRS volunteer to look into this. — ξxplicit 02:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Peace dove.svg Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Marcus Simaika[edit]

Hi Diannaa. You had written to me regarding copyright for the picture of Marcus Simaika which I had wanted to upload onto Marcus Simaika's page. You gave me e-mail address which deals with publication permission. I wrote to those guys well over three weeks ago and got an automatic acknowledgement that my email has been received. They never wrote back to me. I sent them a reminder two weeks ago but they never wrote back.

What else can I now do to get the picture of Marcus Simaika uploaded on his page?

Thank you

Youssef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssef simaika (talkcontribs) 15:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Banff Centre Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon[edit]

Hi Diannaa, would you be interested/able to help out some new editors at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Banff/ArtAndFeminism 2016/The Banff Centre event on March 5? They would greatly benefit from the assistance of a highly experienced Wikipedian in the room; if you'd like, I'd be glad to put you in touch directly with the Banff event organizers.--Pharos (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Could you have a word with this user regarding their edits on the WLVA page? I have tried to explain to them OR and RS, but they don't seem to be listening. I am low on patience today, so I am handing this one off. Thank you in advance. - NeutralhomerTalk • 16:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

...and now we have personal attacks. Minor ones, but PAs none-the-less. - NeutralhomerTalk • 16:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Drmies warned for the personal attack, and another user has somehow verified these citations, — Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned to Drmies, I went through the sources added by me_and and and found all but one of the "Variety" sources were just "thrown in". When you clicked on the links to the Variety articles, and went to the page in the reference, there was nothing regarding WLVA (except for one).
Seeing that, I went through and checked all of the sources and none of the others had any issues. It's clear that User:me_and and User: tried to add fake sources/links to the article thinking no one would check. I'll leave it up to you, but I think a block (a short one) is in order. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you object to the Variety sources. I've put some more detail about exactly how you can verify the sources for yourself at Talk:WLVA#Variety sources, but I'm very confident the sources are good, and I'm really struggling to see what's causing you so much difficulty in checking them for yourself. I'd suggest moving this discussion to the article talk page, rather than spreading it out over four different editors' talk pages. —me_and 12:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

Deletion of page without reason[edit]

Hi Diannaa,

I just wanted to check with you why my page was deleted as there was no reason left behind before you deleted it. It had been moved as requested and then suddenly deleted.

RaniaD87 (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyright violation. You had stated you intended to add a license to the source page, but at the time I deleted the draft the license had not yet been added. I am restoring the draft, at Draft:Homa Farley, because the license has now been added to the source page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Guatemalan vandal again[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS), this time I waited to see what if the IP learned anything from previous blocks, but nope, again with the false date changing. Erick (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Combining with the previous IP we get the range (128 IPs). Blocking for one month to start. No one else is editing from this range. — Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


I can see that there exists some copyvio at Maddi Anjaneya Temple. Could you check it if you are free.--Vin09(talk) 12:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Revised Code Biology page (10 Feb 2016)[edit]

I (Marcello Barbieri) am the owner and the copyright holder of the website and I declare that in the article “Code Biology” submitted to Wikipedia I have used the material contained in that website only as a source of information, not as a source of content. To my knowledge all sentences have been expressed in new terms. I am willing furthermore to give Wikipedia any license that may be necessary for donating copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Yours faithfully Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

IP that has been disrupting the F1 project.[edit]

Hi Diannaa. I don't know whether you remember this, but three months ago you blocked two IP ranges who were disrupting articles on Formula One. Unfortunately, the IP resumed their activity as soon as the blocks expired and have continued ever since. We have tried to talk with them, but they just don't want to listen. After all these months, we are now really running out of inspiration to keep dealing with this continuous disruption. We are really at loss now what we can do to protect our project from this. The IP ranges in question are 91.21.200 and 88.106.200. One our project members has been listing them. Tvx1 00:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at some of the recent edits such as this one at Lola LC91 and this on at 2016 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series and this one Brabham BT10 am not seeing anything egregiously bad enough for a block. Other people are using both ranges, which are and — Diannaa (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
This diff is more typical. A couple of other editors and myself have (it seems) being working almost full time on tidying up after his editing blitzes. Little of what he does has any merit and despite pleas, he just will not stop. Eagleash (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And they also have the habit of creating drafts and then resubmitting them after they were declined without addressing the actual issues. Here is an example. By the way the edit at Lola LC91 you checked is actually one of string of edits on that article removing a ref improve tag without actually adding refs. Tvx1 02:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)