User talk: Diannaa


 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Talk page archive
Send me no flowers
List

Splitting

Is there anyway we can split Vulva into two articles properly? One for humans and one for non-humans? I want to see if there is a way to properly do it. Thanks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splits of major articles might be controversial or contentious. The first step is to gain consensus on the talk page. There's detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Splitting. Why do you think this article needs to be split? is the first question you should ask yourself. It's only 6401 words, and almost all of the content is about humans, with only small section at the bottom about other animals. — Diannaa (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can see your point. Thanks anyway Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Barnstar
Thank you very much for your tireless work in dealing with the endless stream of copyright issues on Wikipedia! 💎🌻 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ToBeFree! — Diannaa (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

Fingering (sexual act) should be split into two articles. One for vulvar/vaginal fingering with its current title and the other for anal fingering with the new title "anal fingering". While fingering is a similar activity whether genitalia or anus, they are different nonetheless, in regards to technique and health risks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've posted on the article talk page, so that's good. You don't need to postabout it here though, since I am not interested in commenting on your proposed split. — Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. That's good I'm at least doing the right thing! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to get other editors attention about this? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not covered at Wikipedia:Splitting? See Wikipedia:Splitting#Step 2: Add notice — Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! Just did that too. Thanks! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

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) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of page

Can you help me create a Wikipedia page for artist Jesubamise Afolayan (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have time to help with this project. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artist

please help 🙏🥺if you can send someone to do it for me I'll be very grateful. Can I also have your WhatsApp number incase I want to hear from you.. I'm Afolayan Jesubamise Emmanuel known as Jüstt Mëë, a Nigerian afrobeat singer and songwriter. Jesubamise Afolayan (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New version of CopyPatrol is now live

Please see meta:Talk:CopyPatrol#New CopyPatrol is live for details. One thing of note is that the number of daily reports has pretty much tripled, so please stop by whenever you get a chance and clear some cases. Thanks! — Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too, not sure how sustainable it will be or if some kind of adjustment will be needed (e.g., the number of false positives seems to have gone up, wherein someone just changes one or two words in a paragraph and it flags a match for the remaining text in the paragraph). DanCherek (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just saw your comments at Meta and that you already brought this up! DanCherek (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geddy Lee

Morning Diannaa, not sure if the lyric's at the bottom of this section is a copy vio, could you have a look when you're able, much appreciated. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short quotations from lyrics are okay. — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx, that's why I was on a fence with that. Thank you for all you do here. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I had to think about it for a minute too :) — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick III, Elector of Saxony

Cornelius Benedictus has added a lot to this article. Do you use Who wrote that? Anyway, see [1], Some of that is his. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the overlap is a giant quotation from a public domain source. — Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which is the public source? And are you saying there is no copyvio? Doug Weller talk 07:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This document is public domain, being from 1883. I don't see any copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

A recent edit of mine on Jean-Rodolphe Perronet removed by you in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. I can't accress my edits on the article as they are locked somehow.I cannot see the changes I made that triggered this warning, so I am somewhat disadvantaged in responding to your complaint.

I take pride in the number of my contributions to Wikipedia over the past eleven years. I searched my talk page to find my last "Warning". I couldn't find it. I remember somewhere in the past, 2017, 2018?... I got a copyright warning. This "third warning" seems draconian... Risk Engineer (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more. There was a paragraph starting "He was responsible for a number of canals, ..." that matches content on page 133 this document. — Diannaa (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon and hello Diannaa

Hello Diannaa, I made a mistake for quoting An AllKPop report regarding Limited quotation and Paraphrasing, sincerely yours, Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Copyright

Can you explain me why you literally removed all of the content for “copyright” ??? Prady1 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added was a match for material in this document. The photos you uploaded were also present in that paper. Copying someone else's work is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Hi, I saw that you removed literally all quotes from Ancient North Eurasians, but I am not sure if that is correct. These quotes were used to verify the content. Is the main problem based on the respective copyright of the papers or something else? Because for example this paper is[2] 'Open Access' and "licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source". As such I want to ask for the exact reason. Thanks! Regards – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) From what I can see, theres both non-free and cc licensed sources where the quotes were taken from (more non-free ones, then cc ones). The quotes for the correctly licensed ones can probably be readded (if Diannaa agrees), but the non-free ones should stay removed. Nobody (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Than I will later reinclude the correctly licensed ones (if Dianna agrees). Regards – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations inside citations are allowed, but this example seemed excessive to me, particularly since your edits seem unlikely to be challenged. I have no objection to adding back the compatibly licensed ones. The remainder will still be there in the page history if you ever need to refer back to them. — Diannaa (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for the clarification! Regards – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyvio

Hi Diannaa, I am seeking your advice on a specific copyright infridgement issue. I have just delisted Crusading movement (a GA nominated by Norfolkbigfish) for several reasons, including repeated copyright violations. Close paraphrasing and plagiarism were detected in almost every version of the article. As far as I can remember, first time I indicated close paraphrasing two years ago ([3]). AirshipJungleman29 also detected such issues: [4]. During the FAC review AirshipJungleman29 specifically raised copyright issues, and Norfolkbigfish said that he was "expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue" [5]. Unfortunatelly, Norfolkbigfish proved wrong as during the FAC review I found several examples of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, and an other reviewer Jens Lallensack confirmed some of my finds [6]. The FAC was closed, I opened a GAR, and during the process I realised that even texts revised by Norfolkbigfish contain close paraphrasing ([7]). I turned to you because I do not know what to do. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly common piece of WP bullying from @Borsoka. His standard MO for articles he doesn't like is to bombard them with comments/changes/tags until all other editors lose the will to live. While he has commendable engagement and energy he seems unable or unwilling to work in a consensual way if anyone disagrees. I was working through the article amending any violations that were identified, as he knows well. But because he and I disagreed on some content he nominated at GAR solely and then failed it himself.
Any violations identified will be rectified immediately It was obvious how this would end so I raised at WP:ANI, now closed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not comment on Norfolkbigfish ad personam remarks here. They know they may be in big trouble for persistent plagiarism. I also suggested them that they should also review "their" other articles, such as House of Plantagenet and House of Lancaster from copyright perspective. Borsoka (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Borsoka. My suggestion is to list the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems where the article would be examined and further copyright cleanup can take place if necessary.
Hey @Norfolkbigfish, please don't come to my talk page to diss people. I ignore such remarks and form my own opinions based on my own observations. — Diannaa (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies @Diannaa, won't happen again Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic views on sin

Is this version ok?[8]. I will be taking this editor to ANI at some point, still doesn't understand the need to source their text despite multiple warnings. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been lightly paraphrased, but still shows the same content in the same order. So my opinion is that it's still copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was afraid of. I've been reviewing their edits and find it hard to find any good ones. And they seem to be doing a lot of editing. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CopyPatrol has stopped, but..

CopyPatrol has stopped, because Turnitin is down for maintenance. Check https://turnitin.statuspage.io/ for updates. — Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Service has resumed — Diannaa (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism vs Antisemitism

Hi there. It is now more accepted to use Antisemitism instead of the outdated 'Anti-semitism'. The latter was a term created as a pseudo-scientific explanation for the hatred of Jews, often associated with the Nazi ideology of racial classification (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/spelling-antisemitism / https://www.adl.org/spelling-antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism). Additionally, due to antisemitic vandalism, it is often locked pages (such as the Hitler page) in which this correction is needed. Thanks. 81.108.69.245 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our WWII articles use British spelling and words (petrol, lorry for example). The British spelling variant is anti-Semitism. Preferences like this are impossible to enforce site-wide, so please consider opening a talk page discussion on any page you would like to see changed and try to gain consensus for that individual page. — Diannaa (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa. Whilst i appreciate the sentiment, this is incorrect. The accepted spelling in the UK is now antisemitism. It is not a preference, it is correcting the historic practice of justifying jew hatred as a scientific practice. Please see an article in the Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-the-way-we-spell-antisemitism-is-as-important-as-how-we-define-it-0j3txpc02) and from a UK Jewish charity (https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2021/04/22/antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism-why-we-dont-include-a-hyphen). I understand its not possible to enforce sitewide but I update it whenever i come across it, but obviously cant do that for the Hitler page. 81.108.69.245 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider opening a talk page discussion on any page you would like to see changed and try to gain consensus for that individual page. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next time please ask

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

You could have asked me, and I could have simply removed the verbiage. I was trying to save a work by someone else. Again ... you should have asked first. It would have been easier. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical. There's still 50 reports remaining to assess from yesterday (April 20) and there's no time or policy based reason to ask permission before removal of copyright takes place. — Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the good thing about Wikipedia is that we can revert mistakes. The article has been restored. I now have an "In use" notice at the top, and am working on a revision in my personal space. I'm determined to get this article into decent shape. And on we march ... — Maile (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to see that at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship that you say I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either; there's no such thing as "personal space" on Wikipedia; it's all public, available to be viewed by anyone anywhere in the world, and our copyright policy applies there, just like it does in mainspace. I am surprised that you, an administrator since 2016, do not seem to be aware of these facts. — Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know why you say the article has been restored; it was never deleted. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to some existing articles and drafts are red at CopyPatrol

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T363089
Resolved

Patrollers please be aware that some drafts and articles are redlinked at CopyPatrol even though they exist. Please don't automatically mark as "No action needed"; check them in the usual way. This problem is likely due to replication lag, whatever that means! Tracked at Phab report T363089. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish in Britain Representation Group

Please reinstate our page forthwith. As we made clear on the page ALL the material on the page is our copyright and taken from our archives, most of which are in paper form; minutes, reports, etc , and have been deposited in archives eg Working Class Movement Library. . The page on the Anarchist Federation blog was copied from IBRG articles.. https://www.anarchistfederation.net/40th-anniversary-of-radical-irish-community-organisation-the-irish-in-britain-representation-group/ These are the originals posted by Bernadette Hyland - IBRG member- on her blog Lipstick Socialist. https://lipsticksocialist.com/history-of-the-irish-in-britain-representation-group/ She also wrote the Wikipedia page. We hope that that this makes the position on this page clear. BFCHyland (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nobody was paid for writing the page. 2. If we don't write about our organsation , who else is going to? Are we supposed to wait for 20 or 30 years until some academic deigns to notice us? We think not... 3. The whole point of the page is to share knowledge, which we thought was the point of Wikipedia 4. How we can contravene copyright by publishing our own material. This makes no sense whatsover. 5. Please reinstate our page today. 6 If not please escalate our complaint to whatever is the next level..
BFCHyland (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
While Wikipedia's purpose is indeed to share knowledge, we have guidelines and policies in place that determine what we publish. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which will help you determine whether or not the organization qualifies for a Wikipedia article. — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa&oldid=1220436562"