User talk:Diannaa/Archive 102

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Diannaa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 95

←

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Hi @Diannaa, I see you have given final warning to user TeenX808. But he has done copy right violations for many articles. I will list down those now Draft:Uposathaghara, Draft:Osariya, Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya, Draft:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136) , Invasion of Anuradhapura by Rastrakuta empire . Can you check those in his talk page and also could you block or temporary block him from editing as he is doing violation in wikipedia? 106.51.26.28 (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

These have all been checked and cleaned where appropriate. The user has not edited since his last warning, so a block is not appropriate at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Greetings dear Dianna I kindly request an explanation to as why my recent edits on Bid'ah were removed. The reason in the edit summary was: "https://islamqa.info/en/answers/160876/bidah-(innovation)-and-maslahah-mursalah-(consideration-of-public-interest)-and-the-similarities-and-differences-between-them or elsewhere" However, I cannot recall using that source. I would not use it as it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR. However, as my edits are crossed out, I cannot check what was done wrong. I am pretty confident at that I added just one source, and it was not IslamQA. The rest of edits removed primary research. Maybe there was a mistake or you confused something? Or is there something I overlooked. Thank you in advance! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That's the source that was cited for the content I removed, The content was not identical to the source, but was similar enough to be a copyright violation. The prose was in the sectionn titled "Difference with maslaha", and was six bullet points.

The content was not added by yourself but by an IP. In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. Your edits were not removed though. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, wondering if you want to look at this edit by a user (Prosnu) whom you just gave a third warning about copyvios earlier today ([1]). The first part of this edit is a word-for-word translation from the cited French source (via Google Translate). Here is the text in question from the edit:

It may have been repaired by Nur al-Din, after the earthquake of 1158, which wreaked great havoc in Baalbek, and then under the Ayyubids and the Mamluks, according to some inscriptions engraved on its walls. Most of these texts are administrative decrees, unrelated to the history of the building; they at least prove that the great Mosque remained prosperous until the end of the Mamluk dynasty. In 1318, it was seriously compromised by a flood.

And here is the text from the French source (here; see p.336, footnote 2):

Il a peut-être été réparé par Nur al-din, après le sisme de 1158, qui fit de grands ravages à Baalbek, puis sous les Ayyoubides et les Mamlouks, suivant quelques inscriptions gravées sur ses murs. La plupart de ces textes sont des décrets administratifs, sans rapport avec l'histoire de l'édifice; ils prouvent du moins que la grande Mosquée est restée prospère jusqu'à la fine de la dynastie des Mamlouks. En 1318, elle fut gravement compromise par une inondation;

I don't know how severe that is, but they've had multiple warnings from multiple editors (including myself here in addition to talk page warnings) and have not responded to any of them so far. R Prazeres (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The source book was published in 1913, and is therefore in the public domain. I will add the required attribution template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thankfully. I forgot about checking the date for PD. Thank you for checking and clarifying. R Prazeres (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, Does this mean I now can finally resubmit my draft? The subject is actually simple, so there's not much more to say or restructure the sentences, and given the simple subject, I'given enough independant references, and I don't know what more I can do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ΨΨΨ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be better to ask the three people who have declined the draft whether or not it is ready now. Or just resubmit and see what happens. Sorry I don't assess drafts so I have no comment on what the result might be. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Most of its content was removed due to copyright edit, I hope the current version can satisfy you, if there’s any changes required please let me know thanks TeenX808 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorrym, I don't assess drafts. Please submit your draft using the link on the tempalte at the top of the draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: here you go Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya#History TeenX808 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to assess the draft. Look at the top of the draft. There's a link that says "Submit this draft for review!" Click on that link to get your draft in the queue for review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: oh no I’m not asking you to publish the draft, most of its content was removed by you previously due to copyright edit I’m just asking you to check so I can keep on editing the article. TeenX808 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, now I understand. The current version looks ok from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: thank you so much also in the future will it be okay if i ask you to review my drafts. TeenX808 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: i have finally completed the draft can you please check the article for any violations so i can paraphrase it further. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The draft is okay from a copyright point of view. There's a lot of quotations though. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: yes I was trying to cap on the quotations but they are quite important and thank you so much for all the help, also can I ask help in future. Again thank you so much. TeenX808 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes I can help with copyright related questions. Due to health issues I am tryting to limit my time online, so please visit the WP:Teahouse with general questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: sure and is there anyway for me to reset the copy right violation,thank you for all the help and I hope you have speedy recoveryTeenX808 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I’m on my last warning and I’m quite paranoid about, is there a way for me to reset the violations or am I stuck.TeenX808 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think all the copyvio has been cleaned up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: so if I make a mistake will I be timed out or do I get warnings again, thanks TeenX808 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You have already had four warnings, so a block would be next. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to Earwig, Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya is 68.8% copyright violation. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The overlappingcontent is from books published in 1895 and 1905. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: permanent ? TeenX808 (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

We call it an indefinite block, which means it has no fixed duration. You would have to convince administrators that you understand copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing, and show a thorough understanding of our copyright policy before I would unblock you.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Damm, thanks for the help. TeenX808 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Even after receiving final approval, the user TeenX808 has once again committed a copyright violation in the article "Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya," specifically in the newly added "Vandalizing of the Viharaya" section. Despite User has told you to review the copyright violation for the article after you gave approval user has done the violation by copying the entire content of this section from the Amazing Lanka website. This behavior has occurred repeatedly, and the user has continued to violate copyright laws after being warned. Given the ongoing nature of these violations, I request that this user be banned from further edits to prevent further disruptions to the article. 2409:40F4:2:B079:C0D6:2FF:FEED:3492 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya. I see some quotations in that section, but no copyvio. It's okay to use short quotations. Also, both of the sources quoted are in the public domain, with one being published in 1895 and the other in 1905. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: how am I supposed to edit without any copyright violations also the web amazing Lanka directly sourced from the book, so the text is gonna look similar, is there a tool which I could use.Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The draft is 68.8% quotation! Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I already know that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: if you free please feel free to check this Draft:Vega Innovations, I hope the paraphrasing is strong. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Paraphrased from where? You haven't any citations, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: used google from random websites, tomorrow I will add the citations and remind you. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I have completed, you can check now TeenX808 (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I found no issues using Earwig's tool.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The User TeenX808 has already done 4 copyright violations and got the last warning. It appears that the user has also committed the same violation in the Draft:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136), specifically in the "Legend or a Real Event" section. In this section he has copied and pasted the content those are from private source not public. The user already have accumulated four copyright violations,Including this latest instance, which could lead to an indefinite block on edits.

Also this user is not allowed to make edit in the articles related to Indian military history as user is not extended confirmed user but user edited and created draft and articles related to it.

Could you kindly review the situation and take appropriate action, such as blocking the user, to prevent further issues on Wikipedia? 2409:40F4:1019:438B:E4DB:E5FF:FE21:1F78 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The user TeenX808 has done copyvio again in Devanampiya tissa article by pasting the content from Senaveratna, John M. (1997). The Story of the Sinhalese from the Most Ancient Times Up to the End of "the Mahavansa" Or Great Dynasty: Vijaya to Maha Sena, B.C. 543 to A.D.302. Asian Educational Services. pp. 46–74 book. This book is not public domain and it is private. The User MCE89 also found this as copyvio and removed that content from the article. You can find those details here in the below link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devanampiya_Tissa&diff=prev&oldid=1312371973 Could you now give them indefinite block as they are doing again and again and they are not following the proper rules? 2409:40F4:1001:C45A:D48E:1FFF:FED2:83AB (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

This issue is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright violation done on Draft:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136) draft by User Teenx808. Please don't open threads in multiple places.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa, this is new. This is not yet discussed and user MCE89 considered this as copyvio. The user TeenX808 has done copyvio again in Devanampiya tissa article by pasting the content from Senaveratna, John M. (1997). The Story of the Sinhalese from the Most Ancient Times Up to the End of "the Mahavansa" Or Great Dynasty: Vijaya to Maha Sena, B.C. 543 to A.D.302. Asian Educational Services. pp. 46–74 book. This book is not public domain and it is private. The User MCE89 also found this as copyvio and removed that content from the article. You can find those details here in the below link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devanampiya_Tissa&diff=prev&oldid=1312371973 Could you now give them indefinite block as they are doing again and again and they are not following the proper rules? 2409:40F4:1001:C45A:D48E:1FFF:FED2:83AB (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that you have posted here so many times suggesting that I need to block this editor. Why are you doing this? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

They have doing the copyright violation again and again. Did you have a look at Devanampiya Tissa article. They have done the copyvio again. User MCE89 has found the copyvio on the article done by TeenX808. User MCE89 said they have no issue if Admin block TeenX808 as they have done copyvio again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_violation_done_on_Draft:Anuradhapura_invasion_of_Chola_Kingdom_(114-136)_draft_by_User_Teenx808

Could you pls review these and do the action? 2409:40F4:1013:980:340F:EAFF:FE48:261D (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

User TeenX808 have doing the copyright violation again and again. Did you have a look at Devanampiya Tissa article. They have done the copyvio again. User MCE89 has found the copyvio on the article done by TeenX808 and removed that content. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devanampiya_Tissa&diff=prev&oldid=1312371973 User MCE89 said they have no issue if Admin block TeenX808 as they have done copyvio again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_violation_done_on_Draft:Anuradhapura_invasion_of_Chola_Kingdom_(114-136)_draft_by_User_Teenx808 Could you give me the update on these? This will be my last comment regarding this issue, so I am expecting a reply from you. Thanks 2409:40F4:100E:C28D:DC64:32FF:FE38:2C88 (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The user is trying hard to become a good contributor so I am not going to block at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I’m loosing it at this point, this specific user has done a complain against me and is begging other users and admins to ban me. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright violation done on Draft:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136) draft by User Teenx808, even user MCE89 pointed out. I hope you can explain what’s happening. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, you complain to me about a copyright issue, and say you have removed edits, but I cannot see what particular edits or bits of text you are referring to. Generally I do quote only short pieces and note the source; a few quotes are a bit longer because this is necessary to explain something. If you can point me to what has gone wrong in your opinion, I would be grateful. DJJB621 (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The material was not in quotation marks, so there was no indication that you intended it to be a quotation. It was contained within ref tags. The part I remvoed was a match for material in this document, which is copyright. I will send you the removed material via email.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I have received your message, thank you very much, I saw what you had done, I have corrected things. I tried to write it too fast and got frustrated by the language used in the source. Sometimes I do not get the text exactly right, and when I go over it again afresh, I correct things and clean up mistakes. But it's better not to "draft" something which is a quotation or a paraphrase without referencing the source, I agree (there could in principle be legal implications). In general, there is not much of a copyright problem with quoting official statistics publications, but it is usually a requirement that you acknowledge the source properly, if you quote or use bits of information, yes.(talk), 23:48 23 September 2025 (UTC)

hello, recently I have removed copyvio material from the article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Purandar&action=history

But apparently some editor doesnt agree wyh me despite i already provided evidences Simple non combat (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not a copyright violation. Short properly attributed quotations are allowed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa,

I know you are a long-time administrator and experienced member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and I truly appreciate the dedication and care you have given to improving Wikipedia articles over the years.

I would be very grateful if you could spare a moment to help with a copyedit of Draft:Kratošija. The draft was recently moved to draftspace with the explanation "language/grammar problems". ( not clear what) All statements are supported by reliable references, so I kindly ask that the references not be altered — please leave them as they are. I only need help with grammar,language and encyclopedic tone, maybe...

Thank you very much for your time and support! VitisArchivum (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have tome to help with this project.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You made a recent edit on the 1954 Geneva Conference page that kept a lot of changes that were made by a user that was ignoring policy. Two specifics here: the statement "The CIA's efforts played a minimal role, as Catholic migrants were driven primarily by their own convictions and circumstances rather than external propaganda." has been removed, and is sourced to a peer reviewed, academic journal that I have personally verified. (I gave the page number in one of my edit summaries.) I can add more if necessary. Also, the statement "North Vietnam violated the Geneva Accords by failing to withdraw all Viet Minh troops from South Vietnam, stifling the movement of North Vietnamese refugees,...." has also been removed, and also appears to be well sourced. Is there a reason for this? Thanks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, these statements were in there as of this edit [2]. I don't think there is a copyright violation with either one of them. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't make those changes with my edit. That material was removed/changed by the other user. My edit removed copyright content copied from here, which read " These, coupled with the Final Declaration on Restoring Peace in Indochina, affirmed the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, prevented the deployment of military officers and personnel to Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and determined the temporary nature of military borders as well as the need for an eventual free general election, among others." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you take any issue with me restoring what I discuss above? Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

No, of course not, but if the other party objects you should discuss it on the talk page first to gain consensus. Please don't try to communicate with them via edit summaries, as this typically results in edit warring. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Diannaa, I know that you have collaborated with our friend Obenritter on some articles. He's feeling discouraged, as indicated by a message he's put at the top of his talk page, that he "may step back from Wikipedia, perhaps permanently." I and a couple of other editors have expressed our feelings there that WP needs editors like him. I was wondering if you could drop by and offer some moral support. It would be a tragedy to lose such a distinguished editor who has contributed so much to this great project. Carlstak (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Your assertion that Aplysia gilchristi contains content copied from the Wikipedia page at Aplysia extraordinaria is wrong. These two species are different. I copied this text (which is in the public domain) from the original description by Bergh, 1907. I only gave it some improvements and a more concise vocabulary and added a picture. I hope this settles this small dispute. JoJan (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. In the future, when copying from public domain sources, please include the template {{source-attribution}} (or {{PD-notice}}, which redirects there). {Source-attribution} is preferred, because it will place the article in a category and is visible to Earwig's tool, which will alert users that the material is public domain and is okay to copy. Thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, Aplysia gilchristi has a PD template. But Aplysia hooveri does not. The matching content is in the lead paragraph.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I have opened a ticket. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Diannaa! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 00:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 00:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! 16 years.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Diannaa! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1315740632 (reverted) was copied entirely from the Results section of this source. There may be other copyvios in this article or in the edits of new user, User talk:Weak-Efficiency5607, who has been warned.

Please check. As always, thanks for your work. Zefr (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The source article is released under a compatible Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Another patroller had already added the required attribution template and discussed it with the editor, so there was no need for you to have removed the copied content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There's the technical issue of the CCA 4.0 IL and the behavioral issue of word-for-word plagiarism, right? I felt it was appropriate to alert the editor that copying text, without trying to rethink or restate the message, is not good editing. Zefr (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's okay to copy compatibly licensed material; even copying it word for word is okay to do, as long as you give the required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

We've talked in the past about long quotes. I'm started a conversation with an editor about a 152 word quotation. The editor posted a response on the draft article talk page. Draft_talk:Protest_paradigm Would you be willing to weigh in? On the one hand, the editor makes the interesting point (probably with help from an LLM?) that the quote in question addresses all five primary characteristics of the protest paradigm, which makes it intriguing support for the draft article, but one could argue that it makes the Boston Globe article a great source to support the paradigm but doesn't necessarily mean the full long quote should be incorporated as a quote. What say you? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The draft is 25% quotes by word count; that's too much. I have commented at Draft talk:Protest paradigm. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank-you. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

hello Diannaa, While I did't summary and own work apologize for any copyright content should not happen again, please know that honesty use page without asking advice rest was done on my own work. Stride BRT Seattle I notes that it was removed from copyright© Myanmar and Laos sorry any inconvenience that cause Regards 102.223.58.5 (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I wondered if you had time to look at Johnny Rosenblatt. The text in the article dates to this 2012 revision, and is not well-sourced. It is very close to text at The Douglas County Historical Society, which gives a list of sources, not including Wikipedia. There is no date on the text, however, so I am unsure whether this is backwards copying from Wikipedia. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is a backwards copy.

1. The wording of the original addition is an even closer match to the source
2. An unsourced massive addition, added all at once

I think it needs to come out, but if we do that, the article will be reduced to a stub. I am listing at WP:CP which means any interested editors will have a chance to do a re-write before the article is subbified. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I usually rely on archived copies to try to establish which text came first, but there wasn't one in this case. Tacyarg (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

There's some at the Wayback Machine, but the oldest one is from 2019. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Dianna, could you please have a look if there are copyright right violations in NoontideDemon' recent edit [3] in the article Parthenon?

For details see here Talk:Parthenon#Fair_wiki,_sad_relic!.A.Cython (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access to the source books. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.A.Cython (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa - do you have time to look at Colm Kiernan? Specifically the included poem; I'm wondering if it is a copyvio. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Short quotations are allowed. The poem is properly attributed and is fairly short so I don't feel like it's excessive non-free content either. Note the interesting connection to the Kennedy family.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Wishing Diannaa a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)