Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Well, as I said - I am tired. I have tried to be gender-neutral and did a mistake - my fault. I have not been edit warring, as one can see from . I also have the two last (in two months). Also, Kutsuit shouldn't be canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way - what is considered inappropriate, I think. --] (]) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
::Well, as I said - I am tired. I have tried to be gender-neutral and did a mistake - my fault. I have not been edit warring, as one can see from . I also have the two last (in two months). Also, Kutsuit shouldn't be canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way - what is considered inappropriate, I think. --] (]) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
:::That is not canvassing at all. How on Earth was I trying to intentionally influence the outcome of a discussion by asking another user for advice more than a week prior to today's dispute? Are you trying to be dishonest? There was no discussion on the 7th of April. Instead, there was unreasonably disruptive behavior by another user who was also deliberately omitting several countries from the article for no apparent reason, much like your own actions. I asked Bobcats 23 for advice because I noticed that he was previously subjected to the same kind of disruptive behavior that I had to endure last week. That does not constitute canvassing at all. Either you do not understand when this term actually applies or you're deliberately being dishonest.
:::Furthermore, you were clearly involved in edit warring with other users long before I even knew about this article's existence. A quick look at the history of the article would show that you were also contributing to the disturbance of the article by omitting countries for no sound reason as well. I brought this to your attention in the talk page of the article, where I also highlighted your inconsistencies, but to no avail on your part. I have started a discussion in the talk page so that we may resolve this issue, but instead you have evaded the discussion and resorted to other antics. That is not indicative of someone who wishes to resolve disputes. In any case, I am not interested in continuing this discussion here anymore. If you wish to resolve the dispute, you can continue the discussion in the article's talk page. If not, I will see to it that others are invited to join the discussion so that a consensus would be reached. Right now it is evident to me that you do not understand the purpose of that article, which is to outline the various cuisines of all European countries. Your selective omission of whichever country you deem not relevant to the article is, in fact, in contradiction to the accepted norm in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP and named account for two more weeks. Please review the edits and see if there's anything worth keeping. Thanks for reporting this problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. Diannaa, I hope the warning you left is enough to stop the whole genre warring. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk)
Hi Diannaa. When you get a chance, would you mind grabbing your mop and taking a look at this? I'm not going to edit war, but it's unsourced and makes no sense (the pronoun, I mean: "she" instead of "he") and the IP has added it in for the third time while ignoring my warning. Rivertorch (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! While we're at it, I wonder if you're aware of the situation at Zyklon B. There's an edit war brewing, and the discussion (such that it is) has spilled over onto my talk page. I know I'm not exactly being the poster boy for AGF, but honestly I just don't have the patience for that sort of bs today. Anyway, I'll be offline for the rest of the afternoon, so I leave it to others to extend as much rope as they like to the IP. Rivertorch (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Blocked again, one month. He has not used the other range since March, so I am leaving it unblocked for now. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! He's obviously been watching my talk page. Yay. "Go apply for admin, (you) waste-of-air-(that)-you-breathe disabled-hater!" I can't fully decipher the rest. "And go to , fuckhead!" Charming. Cheers :)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Overlord you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Precious again
support and questions
Thank you for living your goals of non-attachment, logic and class, treating editors as real people! I am attached and not logical, supporting the same ;) - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 November 2010)!
I send you no flowers: two years ago, you were the 93rd recipient of my PumpkinSkyPrize, now with inserted <br />. (Amazing that "Who decides what readers read" is it still in place. We do. It wasn't a question.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the courtesy of posting to my User talk page before removal of the "Orphaned non-free image File:Puerto Rico flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg". It is one of twelve. I have been able to answer every objection raised, but placing a USPS image in a topical philately article is dismissed. I am threatened with being banned for lack of understanding were I to try to upload USPS images again. Perhaps you could recast the argument for me, or I could just get back to work making other contributions...
My general understanding after a week of discussion, at WP:Media copyright questions and WP:Non-free content review titled "USPS template", is that there are editors in good faith who believe that use of a USPS stamp after 1978 is not generally allowed as fair use. However it may be appropriate (see WP:NFC#UUI) if the stamp itself is described in a passage (#8), alongside (#9), including sourced commentary (#7). The stamp must have been issued to the public (#5) or become controversial (#4), and it cannot also be used at the same time in its own article (#6), — unless the artwork reproduced on the stamp is already in the public domain, as in Currier and Ives prints used in Civil War battles commemoratives, for instance which an adversarial editor helped me out with (4 of the 12 images) -- the best of Misplaced Pages is collegial. Where images are successfully challenged, an image link from an online source such as Arago: people, postage & the post, can be used, which I do comply with --- lacking a change in policy.
Additional hurdles can be added requiring each stamp to be artistically significant according to journalistic notability in its own right sufficient to merit a separate article before it is included in a topical philately article, and that only tertiary critical commentary can be allowed, without recourse to either government sources or the Smithsonian Institute with a USPS partnership, my two primary sources. I place this objection as something to be ignored along with that to a stamp commemorating Julia de Burgos as being of a living person, as she is dead, or that she is not relevant to Puerto Rico on stamps although she is Puerto Rican born.
All twelve of my uploaded images had description of the non-free USPS licensed upload images in conformance with WP:NFCI (non-free content, images) 3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it. That seems to be backed up at WP:NFC#UUI 8. A baseball card (visual information) is not fair use to illustrate the article on a player unless "to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article." -- with descriptive narrative only, without critical commentary. That is, it seems to me that use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp has a passage describing the stamp itself alongside.
At WP:NFCC WP:NFC the concerns relate to #1, #3 and #8. However in answer, to #1, There is no free equivalent of a USPS stamp for a USPS stamp after 1978, #3. Minimal usage. By limiting Misplaced Pages’s use of each USPS image to one page, either an article on the stamp alone, or to topical philately articles, #8. Contextual significance. Non-free content of visual information found on the entire stamp image "significantly increases reader’s understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Showing USPS stamps of people from Puerto Rico increases understanding of Puerto Rico on stamps, omission of that visual information would take away from understanding how the USG has honored Puerto Ricans by Congressional Joint Resolution initiating the stamp commemorations.
Simply denigrating visual information as “pretty”, is reductio ad absurdum, without force or logic. Editors have suggested that if I do not like the implementation of the policy, I should write the Foundation. That just seems like so much "I can't hear you." I can't believe you've read this far if you've read this far. Thanks in advance for any explanation or guidance, even if it is unfavorable. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Virginia Historian. I have skimmed Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 49#USPS template and don't really have anything to add to that discussion. The way the non-free content guidelines are being interpreted on this wiki is such that multiple non-free images are for the most part not allowed in the same article. Gallery-type presentations of non-free images are not permitted, even with accompanying sourced commentary. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Planned Parenthood logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, Diannaa. I have noticed that an IP edit from 12:40, 18 February 2014 on the page Nazi Germany should be hidden. Could you please hide this when you have the chance?Hoops gza (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I do not believe that there is are any copyright or presumptive paraphrasing issues, as you have posted. Eurodog (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed your edit in File:Rosetta Stone.png and I am afraid I find it running afoul of both copyright and WP:NFCC. First, as a non-free image, you need to supply a source. True, I had earlier downsized the image and it didn't have a good source, but it was not an original upload. (One human can only fix so many problem as a time.) But yours was an original upload and the burden of the source lies with the contributor.
Second, WP:NFCC#3 requires images not to be uploaded any bigger than they are actually needed, so that high-resolution image (500 × 212) was overkill. 64 × 64 is enough.
Hi Codename Lisa. I am kinda confused here, as I did give a source, as can be seen in this diff. The file was oversize, so I tagged it for reduction. Normally the bot comes along and does this within the next day or so. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I am confused too because you are totally right! You have supplied an acceptable source and this edit did not show up on my scope when I reverted! (I'd add a direct link in front of it too because I am not seeing 500px immediately. I see a 147px × 63px.) I guess an ISP cache froze midway the same second that I came to it.
I guess I was fortunate that I dropped you a note. Still, never trust a bot to do the downsizing. I just come from a WebMatrix image and Leo's Little Bot had made the image an indistinguishable jumble. Also, I wouldn't go replacing logos without wordmarks with logos bearing wordmarks, per MOS:STABILITY, not to mention the net result has little worth.
Thanks for the tip, Lisa. The only reason I added the wordmark is because someone had orphaned the image and replaced it with a version from the Commons that included it. I won't do this again now that I know. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation
File:An angel presenting Mohammed with a town.jpg
Thanks for your information about copyright violation on talk:Islam. The following image is licensed under 'X' i.e., its authur is unknown. The image has severe copyright problems.
This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.
This applies only to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
But it does not applies to countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus more then 70 years. Some of these countries are:
Interestingly, the image is copied from a site www.zombietimes.com. Hence, we can't afford such an image whose copyright is disputed on this extremely important and vital article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs)
The website of Beltate University says that the image is early 14th century. I have added some information to the file description page and corrected the license. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The point that this image is from topkapi place is ridiculous. Ottomans were Sunnis Muslims and they strictly rejected iconoclasm. This may be from shia Iran(safavid empire) but it is obviously not from sunni ottoman empire. Someone may have easily misinformed us because as far as I know, no one of us is able to go to topkapi palace, turkey and confirm that this image is really from there. The name of the website from where this image has been copied is www.zombietimes.com, and its name clearly shows that it is not reliable. My suggestion would be to remove it from the article because we have a lot of other neutral copyrighted images available. Please pay attention.thanks.Septate (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The website does not say that the image is "from the Tokapi palace" but rather that it is now housed there in their library. The source from which the uploader got the image is not relevant, as we are able to confirm the copyright status of the image using the website of Beltate University here, which says that the image is from the 14th century. If you are concerned that the image is a copyright violation, please feel free to nominate it for deletion on the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Request for the Deletion of Orphaned revisions in Freely licensed files
Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
While closely following your edits, I feel as tho' I am being schooled. Would you like me to edit some that appear on your list? I think that I'm a better editor today. And, after seeing your edits, I'm getting a better grasp on how to avoid issues. With respect to possible copyright concerns, possible presumptions, over-linking, and other excess concerns, urging me to do the edits might go a long way towards helping me intuitively steer clear of that sort of stuff going forward. And, I was wondering ... would be possible for me to fix things without the fanfare of comments on the talk page? They leave sort of permanent "Scarlett Letter" affect or a scar — on me and on the articles.
All contributors evolve. And, unlike painters and craftsmen — who also improve over time, but whose earlier works are unchangeable — we have the ability to revisit and improve earlier contributions. All of us, as peers, can help each other without being punitive, even if being punitive is unintentional. — Eurodog (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that the clean-up is having an emotional impact for you. We record the reason for the removal/paraphrasing of material on the talk page is because it lets other future editors know why content was removed, and that it should not be re-added unless it's adequately paraphrased. In the example you gave, ICTUS Records, the majority of the content I removed (which was not added by you) was taken out because Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a place where businesses provide a catalogue of their items for sale or promote their business. And some of it appeared word for word on the company website.
For websites, it's necessary to use the Wayback Machine to try to determine whether or not material from the source website was there before it was added to Misplaced Pages. If the web page was not archived prior to its being used as a source, we have no way of knowing if the editor copied from the website or the other way around. I have to make assumptions, based on the quality of the prose (its promotional tone, level of professionalism, and so on) to try to determine who copied from who. For the articles I've looked at so far, it's pretty impossible to determine whether there's any copyright violations or not, because either the sources are not available online, or no sources were provided at the time the material was added. Normally what happens next, is I remove or paraphrase the material under the assumption that it is indeed copyright material copied from elsewhere. But since there's no way to access the sources you used, that would mean performing re-writes of all your additions to all the articles still on the list. I haven't yet found enough sourced examples of your work that I can tell which is which so I am quickly running out of articles that I can confidently evaluate. Here's an example to illustrate: Gifted Rating Scales (diffs to be checked: (+1093), (+229), (+1218), (+429), (+553)). None of these additions provided a source, and none of the material appears to have been copied verbatim from the two sources provided in the article. So I quickly hit a brick wall - I have no idea where this material came from or whether or not it's a copyright violation.
I am going to ping @Moonriddengirl: and @Wizardman:; hopefully one of them can answer your two questions: (1) Can the step of leaving a message on the talk page be omitted? The user is finding it a badge of shame; (2) Can Eurodog help out with the clean-up, and if so, what should he do? Thanks. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, I have always encouraged editors to assist with their own CCIs. However, it's best not to remove the diffs or "resolve" issues on the CCI subpage, but rather to place annotations beneath the article listing, like so:
Issues with the third diff with copying from ; I've rewritten,
That level of transparency allows a reviewer to verify, but also really speeds closure of these and can spare an article being blanked when problems are discovered, as it lets the reviewer know the problem has been address and check the link to make sure the rewrite resolves the problem. The {{cclean}} template on the talk page is not mandatory, but can be a good idea, especially if the article is not rev deleted. The purpose is not to be a mark of shame, but to help against inadvertent restoration of earlier versions of the article. There can be many reasons articles are rolled back. The {{CCI}} template serves to explain what often may seem like a very arbitrary change to an article and sometimes downright disruptive, when extensive content is removed. It's not intended as a badge of shame - just as an explanation of what happened and why and what can be done about it. :/ I think that information is generally important for large scale content changes, but I personally am open to other ideas. --Moonriddengirl00:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'll be offline over the long weekend, but will begin reviewing some of the articles next week. Understanding this problem, and knowing about the brick walls facing Diannaa helps me make better choices when constructing and editing articles. Eurodog (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Admin help needed - European cuisine
I feel personally attacked by some editors accusations and the editors refusal to alter the Talk:European cuisine#To IIIraute section heading. I told Kutsuit that if he wants to address me personally, please to do so on my talk page - here & here. I have addressed the editor regarding his continuous edit warring at the article European cuisinehere, before the editor started to address me personally on the article talk page - and I have even answered the editors agressive commentary. I think talk page headings should be addressed towards all editors. Your help is very much appreciated. --IIIraute (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You weren't being attacked. Also, I'm a woman so please address me by the correct gender-specific pronoun, my dear. By the way, speaking of edit wars, you've been involved in edit warring in this article since January, where you consistently failed to address any of the disputes in the talk page. Furthermore, your actions have been contradictory, as I've already stated to you. You have the opportunity to continue the dialogue that I began in the talk page, but you've instead resorted to different antics. Another Wiki user can testify to this once he/she is online. --Kutsuit (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I said - I am tired. I have tried to be gender-neutral and did a mistake - my fault. I have not been edit warring, as one can see from the article history. I also have explained the two last reverts I did (in two months). Also, Kutsuit shouldn't be canvassing fellow editors with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way - what is considered inappropriate, I think. --IIIraute (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That is not canvassing at all. How on Earth was I trying to intentionally influence the outcome of a discussion by asking another user for advice more than a week prior to today's dispute? Are you trying to be dishonest? There was no discussion on the 7th of April. Instead, there was unreasonably disruptive behavior by another user who was also deliberately omitting several countries from the article for no apparent reason, much like your own actions. I asked Bobcats 23 for advice because I noticed that he was previously subjected to the same kind of disruptive behavior that I had to endure last week. That does not constitute canvassing at all. Either you do not understand when this term actually applies or you're deliberately being dishonest.
Furthermore, you were clearly involved in edit warring with other users long before I even knew about this article's existence. A quick look at the history of the article would show that you were also contributing to the disturbance of the article by omitting countries for no sound reason as well. I brought this to your attention in the talk page of the article, where I also highlighted your inconsistencies, but to no avail on your part. I have started a discussion in the talk page so that we may resolve this issue, but instead you have evaded the discussion and resorted to other antics. That is not indicative of someone who wishes to resolve disputes. In any case, I am not interested in continuing this discussion here anymore. If you wish to resolve the dispute, you can continue the discussion in the article's talk page. If not, I will see to it that others are invited to join the discussion so that a consensus would be reached. Right now it is evident to me that you do not understand the purpose of that article, which is to outline the various cuisines of all European countries. Your selective omission of whichever country you deem not relevant to the article is, in fact, in contradiction to the accepted norm in Misplaced Pages. --Kutsuit (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Diannaa: Difference between revisions
Add topic
-- 
Done ~! -- 
