This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Hi Dianna. Thanks for helping with the daily updates to the drive page and for taking on the lion's shre of checking people's copy edits. It was greatly appreciated. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad to help. -- Dianna (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Deletion request
Do you think you could delete Neccesary and proper clause? It seems like a highly unlikely misspelling, and nothing links to it. I can't quite find a CSD reason that fits, but it seems like taking it to AfD would be overkill. —Torchiesttalkedits 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Nah, server space is cheap, and it's getting hits every day. I think it should stay. -- Dianna (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh, but the misspelling is hurting my brain! *ahem* As you say, m'lady. *bowing my way out* —Torchiesttalkedits 19:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
To edit is to suffer. Worse could happen -- Dianna (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Signatures and moved discussions
Hi Dianna, when you move a thread from one board to another (ANI to AN, for example), make sure that you sign the "moved to" notice on the former board. MiszaBot does not archive any sections without timestamps in them. When you moved the section "About Niemti" from ANI to AN some time ago, you didn't sign the move notice message, so the section has been lingering on the board for five and a half days, far longer than it should, since ANI threads are usually archived after 24 hours of inactivity. My addition of an unsigned notice should allow the thread to be automatically archived soon. Graham87 02:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh! Thank you for the advice. -- Dianna (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Admin noticboards
Hi Diannaa. Re: User talk:Electriccatfish2 #WP:AIV. One of the reasons why I don't participate as an admin on these boards is because I feel they have become too much of a playground for wannabe admins. I sometimes look in, and I see the backlog waiting for an admin comment, but I leave well alone although I know I ought to participate. I therefore prefer to work on general help desks that are less contentious. Other admins I know share the same position. Is there anything that can be done about it? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I dunno. I was seriously thinking of patrolling this board more often myself, though it's not my preferred activity on-wiki. Perhaps something as simple as an edit notice or a set of instructions for non-admin clerking would help, for starters. --
I've been doing some more checking. There seems to be a lot of NAC on admin boards. Not all of it good by any means. Perhaps you're right that for starters an edit notice might do the trick. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got a message!
Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at Chip123456's talk page. Message added 07:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for declining my nomination for someone else to have autopatrolled status. Your thoroughness showed problems that I did not spot, perhaps because I was overly impressed by a PhD. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to have to do it. I hope it does not cost us the editor :( -- Dianna (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Why did you delete my page and saying i didnt prove it doesn't countGeorgeT2008 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
If you you redo it i can add my proof he existed but only if its undone deletionGeorgeT2008 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked for proof, as did several other people. All our articles have to have verifiable reliable sources, and there doesn't seem to be any for this footballer. So what this means is that he is not notable enough, by Wikipedia standards, for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa
First of all, sorry for spending your precious time.
Upon the following problem weighed on my mind, I decided to offer a solution for Turkish people page, which is semi-protected by you. I also mentioned the matter on Talk page and informed my solution to the related users. I've just removed the two genetic-related paragraphs in the origin section of Turkish people because there is already a page called Genetic history of the Turkish people which is about the genetic studies of Turkish related people, and there is no need to mention the same or similar contributions repetitively in the Turkish people page. So it would be better to go on genetic-related contributions on the another page. If you think my solution and action is wrong, I can revert back the deletion. Sorry for this. Thanks. BozokluAdam (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the update. I will read over the material. -- Dianna (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Seemingly Inexaustible Courteous And Civil Patience
I am awarding you one of these, although there is no evidence that they exist and I haven't got the time to make one, but I am confident that you will bear with me until I do. If I do. pablo 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It's the thought that counts. Thank you very much! -- Dianna (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I second the motion as to this barnstar to you, Diannaa. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Dianna (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Me too! -- Somebody better start making the barnstar. Is there a request page? --Greenmaven (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Jack G! -- Dianna (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I have helped my friend with some guidelines on how to clean his article from copied materials, and only include text that he wrote (based on the relevant subject mater). The result is quite rough, but might be a decent start for this article.
If you believe this is a reasonable draft, I will put it up live, after wikifying it a bit more.
With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have done some pretty thorough spot-checks and this version does not appear to have any copyright concerns. The language used is a lot more technical than is typically seen in Wikipedia articles. Footnotes throughout would be better than a list of sources at the bottom of the article. Checking new articles is not an activity that I normally pursue on Wikipedia, so I don't know how much my opinion is worth, but I think it would be okay to put it into the encyclopedia. I have taken the liberty of filling in details of the citations for you. Thanks for asking for my input. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello dear Diannaa,
This has been wonderfully quick of you, thank you!
I agree with your comments fully. Since this article relates to a highly technical term, it would require much more work before it could reach the level needed in order to be extensively clear (even for people who studies statistics). But I guess we have to start somewhere.
I will proceed in getting the article up, and hope my friend (or someone else) would continue developing the article at later stages.
With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at Electriccatfish2's talk page. Message added 23:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It's all good :). ElectricCatfish 23:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I read it! Welcome back. Do you want your user-page undeleted? -- Dianna (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm really glad to be back here and accepted. I just wanted people to read the part about the warnings. Thanks for the offer to undelete my user page. WTT offered to do it, but can you please do me a favor and do it now? Thanks so much, ElectricCatfish 23:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC).
Now you just have to pick the revision you wish to display. Worm is the best! You are wise to team up with him. -- Dianna (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Who knows, one day, I might have an RFA! ElectricCatfish 23:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
For all of your great work at WP: AIV this evening! ElectricCatfish 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Dianna (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Another one from the same IP range as the 3 you blocked yesterday
Done The proxy check came back negative. I checked the range contributions and worthwhile edits are still being done from the range, so I am not gonna range block. Please continue to report individual IPs and I will block until he tires of the game. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Done I think their posts should be removed. Blocked users don't get to edit. -- Dianna (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC) And
That would be about half the talk page for that article then, lol.(that might be hyperbole, but I don't think so, go take a quick read) He has been socking there for several years under multiple IPs and and with virtually the same BS argument. This current range is only the latest bout with Marburg72 (talk·contribs).Heiro 02:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have semi'd the talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, should slow him down til next time. Heiro 02:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I will watch-list your talk and the talk pages of the other interested editors in case he changes targets. We an use a short range-block as a last resort as well if need be. See you tomorrow. -- Dianna (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
Thanks. I'll leave you a note if he pops up again, but maybe things will quite down for awhile.Heiro 03:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
And 166.147.120.29(talk·contribs·WHOIS) is back again [3], block must have expired. Notice that the edit made inserts uncited WP:FRINGE nonsense about ancient Europeans coming to North American and extracting billions of tons of copper from the Great Lakes. Heiro 22:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Those other people on the range are still busily editing articles about airports and other topics, so I will be blocking just the one IP again. -- Dianna (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me, that is all I assumed would be needed, until he happens to hop again. As I notice them, I will bring them here. I'm not sure if the other IP on that article who originally inserted the material is him or if he is just checking my contribs to mess with me. Heiro 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not able to geolocate the 166 series with the usual tools, so I can't say. The other one was in Virginia. I will jot it down and we can watch for more edits from that area/range. -- Dianna (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It might be, it might not be, no way to tell. Judging from past IPs, the IRL person behind Marburg hops around geographically sometimes, including the St Louis area and the New Orleans area, but I dont remember a Virginia IP being used before. Like I said, if they pop up again I'll bring it here. Thanks for the help, Veritas Busti-rapus, Veritas Benefacere, cheers! Heiro 23:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
And also as 166.147.120.25(talk·contribs·WHOIS) here [5] where they removed a named accounts edit from their own talk page because they admitted the information in the above mentioned Adena culture article did not pass RS. Heiro 05:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Done Sorry I missed your message before I went to work. -- Dianna (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but you missed one, see the message above my last one. Cheers, Heiro 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I got fed up and laid down a 2-day range block on 166.147.120.0/24. The airport article edits will have to wait. -- Dianna (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at WP:PERM/C. Message added 02:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello! Please remember to upload a Commons image to Wikipedia (and tag it {{uploaded from Commons}}) before transcluding it on the main page. Our cascading protection doesn't extend to Commons, so a vandal can replace the file there (which has occurred on multiple occasions). As a fallback (not a first-line measure), a bot cascade-protects our main page images at Commons, but this is neither immediate nor fully reliable (due to outages). Thank you! —David Levy 02:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll get right on it. -- Dianna (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Never mind; I see you have reverted me. The primary author of the article made a post on Wehwalt's page, asking for a different image. I will alert him. -- Dianna (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. To be clear, I reverted not because the image was unprotected, but because it was extremely difficult to discern at thumbnail size. —David Levy 02:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I do understand. You can review Ealdgyth's concerns directly on Wehwalt's page. I am bowing out now. -- Dianna (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I've modified the text to explicitly indicate that the portrait was painted in the 1620s (and noted this in the discussion). —David Levy 02:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully that will assuage Ealdgyth's concerns. -- Dianna (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
July GOCE drive awards.
Hello, Diannaa. I'm here to inquire about the award distribution for our most recent copyediting drive. I've posted a similar question on the talkpage for the drive, but I thought it'd be better to ask one of the coordinators in person. Usually the GOCE drive awards for each participant in a drive are determined and handed out within the first ten days following the drive's closure. Is there something holding up distributing the awards for July? It's been ten days now, and the page for evaluating editors' contributions and assessing what they've earned does not appear to have even been created yet. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! As you probably know, I am no longer one of the main coordinators, so I am no longer directly responsible for the awards any more. I will ask user:Stfg. -- Dianna (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: A script is being developed that would have done the calculations for us, but it won't be ready anytime soon. Perhaps we can use it for our next drive. Stfg is now doing the calculations manually, and barnstars will be delivered ASAP after that. -- Dianna (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dianaa - I checked the appropriateness of the Barnstar Awards and the New Rollover Word numbers, and all of these were correct. There were, however, considerable inconsistencies between the leaderboard numbers that Simon used to assign Leaderboard Awards and Simon's spreadsheet-compiled numbers, so I did a recheck and made a manual list of the Top 6 in the Total Articles and Total Words categories for award purposes. All the numbers are on Simons talk page. Let me know what else you need. TTYL :-)
Okay, thanks, Cliff. I will check it out. -- Dianna (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
GOCE July 2012 drive barnstars!
Copy Editor's Barnstar
For churning out more than 40,000 words in the July 2012 drive, I present you with the official GOCE Award. Excellent work! —Torchiesttalkedits 02:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Leaderboard Award—5th place, 5k+ Articles
For completing one 5k article in the July 2012 drive, you have earned the GOCE Silver Star Award. Thanks for your efforts! —Torchiesttalkedits 02:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
And another
The Teamwork Barnstar
Hi Dianna, thanks for helping with the barnstar preparations yesterday. It's so easy to make mistakes in that task , and I appreciated the checks. Thank you! Simon. --Stfg (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently Great Minds Do Think Alike
The Teamwork Barnstar
On behalf of the entire Wikipedia Community, this award is hereby presented jointly to the team of Stfg, Diannaa, Torchiest, and Allens for their hard work and superb cooperation in planning and executing the highly successful July 2012 Wikipedia Backlog Reduction Drive for the Guild of Copy Editors. With very best regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Dianna (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Unprotect
Hi! You were one of the admins on the recent changes so I'm here to ask you to unprotect this page (she won a silver medal at the Olympics so she meets notability criteria). --Edgars2007(talk/contribs) 23:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw your note at WP:AIV; see the note I left at User talk:Stefan64#Ruckearly about more possible sockpuppets here and on other projects. --A. B.(talk • contribs) 01:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the information. -- Dianna (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect it? The day falls tomorrow and I'm pretty sure that the vandalism I just reverted will be back as more people start viewing the article. At least, protect it for 3 days. Thanks :) TheSpecialUserTSU 07:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dianna. Would you like to chair the reviewers' group again? --Stfg (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, please take a look at the new drive page, with Torchiest's improvements to the signup procedure. You like? --Stfg (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, so technical! I love it. Yes, I can chair the reviewer's group again, no problem. -- Dianna (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Joan Juliet Buck
Thanks for putting that temporary lock on this article. I just wondered, what did you mean about sourcing from blogs? World Affairs I don't think is a blog but there's a pretty aggressive editor who insists on adding a critique by Michael Totten whom I don't believe to be much of an objective source. I will bring this up to other administrators when I bring this issue up as a dispute but in the meantime if you could clarify how you rationalized the first semi-protected status, I'd appreciate it.--Aichikawa (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The third one in particular (Totten) has some really negative things to say about the subject of the article. WP:BLP calls for a higher standard of sourcing, particularly for negative material added to the BLP. The material was re-added to the article the moment protection wore off and should be removed, again, in my opinion. Reliable sources such as the NY Times and Washington Post have sections of their websites that are actually blogs, so one needs to be cautious when drawing material even from reliable publishers. -- Dianna (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Problems with this edit
I made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geraldine_Page&diff=507372092&oldid=506822337 during a recent copy edit drive. I have since learned, by researching other biographical articles at WP, that I wrote the lede incorrectly. I have since made the correction. This correction is not reflected in the enclosed link, as I wanted to show my final edit during the CE drive. As I have been told by an admin any further edits by me would be considered an edit war, I could be banned. I would like your input as I did not remove any references but I did remove some extraneous words. Here is the talk page comments I left with the corresponding comments left by the contributor who disputed my edits. See: [[7]] What is the goal of CE if there will be no support given. As to NPOV, I did nothing to change POV. Based on my extensive writing experience, I have approximately 10 years of paid writing experience and have written two books, I do believe the edits I made were relevant and professional. Please advise what my role in CE as a part of the CE drives is supposed to be. Thank you! Quill and Pen (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Quill and Pen. I am unable to comment effectively because your link above doesn't work. If you could fix that so I am looking at the version of the article you are trying to show me, I will have a look later when I get back from banking and the gym. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. It looks like at least some of your changes have been retained, so that's good. They seem to have their hearts stuck on including that she failed to show up for her performances because she was dead :( I'm agreeing with you that this might be better off omitted, but meh. I am pretty sure I would not edit war over it. You did a lot of good things for the article, so no harm no foul. -- Dianna (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Dianna for the support. I'm not sure how tightening the sentences and removing unneeded information is not NPOV but it is...personally when I edit I edit for good writing and DO attempt to incorporate all edits, if possible. I know what it feels like to lose some hard-earned writing as it's happened to me :-) Thanks again! Quill and Pen (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It's happened to me too, and it's hard to walk away. But I do it all the time. Best wishes, -- Dianna (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a wiki; anyone can edit; the normal state of the universe is chaos. Systems tend to get more chaotic over time. Stupid arrow of time :) If you invest a lot of effort into an article, just put it on your watch-list. Edits that are egregiously bad can and should be reverted. But don't expect stability on this wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Diannaa I understand what you are writing about as I've contributed at other wikis. It just seems fruitless to spend hours bring an article up-to-speed and then be threatened with a ban. I have read some information shared by another Admin, and I will make sure to post any comments on the talk page every time I make an edit. I had posted comments on most pages edited, but not all. It just doesn't seem right that I have to step back as I was threatened with a ban. That's all. Quill and Pen (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry you had a bad experience. There's a big difference between a "block" and a "ban". An edit war would likely get you a 24-hour block for a first offence, not a permanent ban. If someone reverts your edit, don't restore it; go immediately to the talk page - per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I often check the article history and have a look at the talk page before commencing copy edits on an article if I think there might be issues, but it's not necessary to clear reasonable edits beforehand when doing routine copy edits on articles that are tagged for copy edit with the {{copyedit}} template. -- Dianna (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa. I do believe used the CE template when working on the article. To me it seems like a fruitless waste of time if CEs are done during the CE drive and later reverted. I am watching another article I worked on, the Desilu one, being slowly reverted back to poor sentences (in fact the same badly written ones as it seems all the edits are being rolled back) so it does make me wonder if there is a need for CE drives. It seems like the edits are ignored. I am not saying I am perfect and my work is perfect, but some of that work should be respected an left in place. Thanks for "listening". I will have to rethink whether it's worth the effort to participate in the GOCE drives as it does not seem to help. Quill and Pen (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You would be best starting by reading about what Wikipedia is. As it is you seem to be approaching it as a dream version of Wikipedia that only exists in your head. You don't own the articles, even the ones you contribute to, so stop reverting other contributors edits! It is disrespectful of you to presume that others are unable to improve on your work, especially as it is not of that high a standard. 194.83.172.131 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a matter of ownership it's a matter of why bother to spend time participating in a copy edit drive when those edits will be reverted. I do believe there was a study done by WP addressing this issue and the loss of quality contributors based on this difficult quandary. Respect and scholarship runs both ways. Quill and Pen (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you take the article from the backlog, or from the requests page, to copy-edit it? My personal approach is to always take articles from the requests page, and I have never had any problem with it. (Except for widely-viewed articles often getting small spurious annoying additions, but that's part of how Wikipedia works really.) I guess it works out that way because if something appears on the requests page, it probably means that one of the main editors of that article genuinely wants outside help with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not fully understand your question but I will try to answer it any way. I selected articles of interest from the CE Drive list of pages needing editing. I tried to find neutral articles to edit to prevent conflict. I hope that answers your question. Thanks for asking. Quill and Pen (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What Demiurge1000 is talking about is our Requests page, where editors can request a copy edit of a particular article. This is generally done as part of preparing an article for a Good Article or Featured Article nomination. -- Dianna (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Q & P - I agree wholeheartedly with Diannaa and Demiurge1000 regarding copyediting articles from the Requests page. I try to do several from there during the drives myself. The Requested articles are typically of much higher quality than 95% or more of those on the Backlog pages (most of which are in terrible shape). Given your high level of education, experience, and expertise, I think you'd likely find the Requests more enjoyable and rewarding - and the editors are usually extremely grateful for your help. Look them over and let me know what you think.
Another thing I personally like to do is scan around the project looking for articles in my field, check the Edit History to see who the major contributors are to those articles, and leave the major contributors Talk Page messages telling them I love to copy edit, and offer my services. Most will want your "fresh eyes" to work on/with them. The ones that don't want my services, I just leave alone - of course you can edit anything you want to here, but I choose to generally respect their wishes if they have a lot of work on it and I haven't ... unless of course there are accuracy issues - those I will fix regardless of what others think :-O
I'm not sure how to report uncivil behavior at WP, but I am asking you to investigate, if appropriate, and take needed action, if appropriate concerning the responses by this unregistered contributor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.83.172.131 Grandpallima (hope that's spelled right) gave a civil response and I am thankful for it. My comments were not meant to be uncivil, but more of questioning nature, as I am trying to figure out if it is worth participating in CE drives based on this past experience. Thank you for "listening" and trying to help. Quill and Pen (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to tell people not to criticise your copy editing. That's beyond the scope of what an administrator should do. The remarks are not very civil, but they're not wildly uncivil either, not even enough to warrant a warning, IMO. What I would do if someone criticised my copy editing is ask for some examples of where my work could be improved. If the criticisms proved to be valid, I could take that info on board to improve my skills. If not valid, then, meh. Also, take into consideration the source of the criticism. Is it coming from someone whose work you respect? or from some random person on the Internet? and then decide how much credence to place in their remarks. Tired now, logging off, -- Dianna (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree there's no need for any administrator action here... but the IP is pushing their luck with comments like "Your writing shows no evidence of you being qualified to do it as a profession". GOCE does not require participants to have specific qualifications, nor to earn their living from writing or copyediting. Quill and Pen should ignore the IP, whose comments seem to be wildly and unnecessarily provocative. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Featured article process and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Replied on your Talk. -- Dianna (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Need your assistance
I reverted an ip edit to the Pussy Riot article about a week ago. The edit, which was pov, unreffed, etc, was made again and reverted again by another user. The ip has been warned several times. After I reverted him he left a message on my talk (User talk:INeverCry) saying I was pro-Putin etc. I removed it. He replaced it a few days later. I reverted this, and the ip has now reverted me on my own talkpage to replace that same message. Can you help me with this? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 17:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, INeverCry. I've removed the message from your Talk and placed a note on the IP's talk page. If the problem persists we can explore other options. -- Dianna (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. INeverCry 17:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I was answering some questions on the AfC help desk, where a lost editor questioned some edits you made to Eli Broad. For the most part, I was able (I think) to answer the editor's question. I appreciate the detailed edit summaries you listed, as it made things easy for me. I was curious about your edit, where you eliminated information because it was unsupported by one source, and the other was a dead link. WP:DEADREF says to let dead links sit for around 24 months (this was tagged as approx. 12 months old). Did you remove it before the full 24 months due to BLP concerns? -- Ever trying to learn, Nouniquenames (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Nouniquenames. I thought of leaving it for the full 24 months, but since some of the other defamatory material was not backed up by the quoted sources, and this particular defamatory snippet was not backed up by the one quoted source and the other was a dead link, I thought it best to err on the side of caution and take it out. The article still needs a lot of work, but I am going to first go through the rest of the editor's contributions to about twenty different articles and remove things he added that are immediate BLP concerns. It will likely take me a couple of days to clean everything up. I have already lost the opportunity to act as an administrator in this case (other than giving warnings, which any editor is able to do) as I am the person who brought Sean Combs to GA and the editor user:Scholarlyarticles and I have had a run-in there. Thank you for your interest; I don't know if you agree with what I did but I thought it was what was best for the wiki. I have to go to work now and will not be able to work on-wiki for a few hours. -- Dianna (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What you did made sense. I was just making sure I understood correctly so that I did not misinterpret for the other editor. Thanks! --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for all of the help you have given me, from undeleting my userpage, to the guidance you have given me on anti-vandalism, especially the IP tools. I greatly appreciate it! ElectricCatfish 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much, EC2. You (and any other interested users) can browse the collection of tools and links at the top of my userpage in the "quick links" section. -- Dianna (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Diannaa, I'm not sure it this is the right place to discuss it but I noticed you've removed all nearly all of my correct citations of the last many months in just a day or two following your edit war with me on the Sean Combs page. In reviewing your history the only thread that is common to you edits in the past 24-48 hours is that they all involve my work. You err in a number of places. For instance, the original citation for the MIlli Vanelli article, and Girl you know it's True was to the LA Times. It was inappropriate for you to remove this. You also removed citations on Jimmy Henchman that are US court citations and that are well documented in other articles. You removed an addition to the Don Simpson page, changed the Hilburn page etc. The only commonality of all these pages is that I contributed to them. I believe that my understanding of the history and the references of each of these pages are correct. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that you have become an expert in each of these areas within 24 house. It appears an effort to rewrite history. I think you should reconsider your edits as they leave each page with a less accurate impression and also call into question your judgment and neutrality. I also think that another editor should be involved the in the Sean Combs page as it's had a few complaints of non-neutrality. I hope we can resolve this problem.Scholarlyarticles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Scholarlyarticles. You are correct that I have spent the last day reviewing—and in most cases removing—your edits to various Wikipedia articles. I am almost finished, and have two articles left to check. While you are correct that I am not an expert in the subject matter that you have been editing, I am a Wikipedia administrator, and knowledgeable about the standards here regarding our policy on the biographies of living people and our need to protect ourselves from lawsuits filed by the subjects of our articles. Another important concern is copyright law; all of the material on the internet is copyright, unless it has specifically been released under license. My intention in undertaking these edits is to protect Wikipedia from violations of our policy on the biographies of living people and violations of copyright law.
First I want to talk about the Sean Combs article. Your edit added a lot of material on the Tupac incident. Your edit added 280 words on the incident, in an article of 3122 words, increasing the coverage of this one incident to 8% of the total article. That gives the incident undue weight; giving this incident so much coverage in an article of this size damages the neutrality of the article. So I removed it for that reason. The addition of the fact that someone had confessed to the shooting was added, as this was new material I was not aware of before. Now I want to comment about what you said about the neutrality of the article being questioned. The post you saw at the top of the talk page is dated May 7, 2012. Since May, the article has seen extensive improvement, including its promotion to Good Article status. I was one of a team of editors who did that work, which involved hundreds of edits to the article. So I am very familiar with the Combs article, its sources, and the coverage that was selected for inclusion the article. The complaint that the article was written like an advertisement is no longer valid, if it was ever valid at all. The final point about the Combs article is that your addition implied that Combs was directly or indirectly involved in the attack on Tupac. We can't include that; we could get sued. It cannot be included unless and until there's evidence from reliable sources showing that he was involved in that crime. So that's why the material had to be removed as part of my duties as an administrator on this wiki.
The edits I performed on the other articles you edited were for similar reasons. Some of the material you added has been deleted as copyright violations:
There is no fair-use policy for prose, as there is a readily-available free alternative—prose that you write yourself. The photo was deleted because there's no evidence that we have permission of the original photographer, as is required by copyright law. By the way, these three people are likely not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to qualify for Wikipedia articles.
I will give a couple of other representative examples of edits that were removed or altered, and give you a detailed rationale. Eli Broad: Here is one of your additions. Some of this material was retained, but some was not. Blogs are not considered a reliable source, particularly for defamatory material. Other sources said that the money form the parking garage was not "earmarked for charities", but came from a neighbourhood development fund, which is not at all the same thing. When seen in this light, the fact that a parking garage was built across from the facility using public funds no longer seems remarkable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. So I took it out. Other material about finanicial difficulties and personnel shake-ups was retained, though in an altered form, as some of it had been copied verbatim from the source, in violation of copyright law.
Michael Hiltzik: Here's a case where a large chunk of material was removed from a biography. The material was sourced to reliable newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. An IP geolocating to Los Angeles removed the material on August 11. I visited the article yesterday and made the decision to re-add the content as the sources in actuality are top-of-the-line. Now you have re-removed the content. Why did you do that? These sources are the best.
In conclusion, my overall assessment is that your edits so far are violating some of Wikipedia's core policies on neutrality and are in violation of our requirements for sourcing on biographies of living persons and in violation of copyright law. If you wish to get more input or an independent assessment of my actions, please post at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. -- Dianna (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Diannaa - If you look at the article on the Tupac attack, Dexter admitted to doing so on Henchman's orders. You edited out that part and it clearly makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the ahh article was that Henchman set it up. I think you should reed the article before you delete key pieces. I'm not sure what you're referring to on Hiltzig. I only took out the "unethical behavior" section as it appeared defamatory and a small even in the life of a celebrated and talented writer- I've looked at your contributions in the last 48 hours. You siimply undid everything I did. I do know a lot about Tupac, and have the articles at my disposal. Many of your reasons for erasing items seem not to actually be justified by the material you erased. You clearly have a point of view when it comes to Sean Combs and it is not becoming of a Wikipedia editor. I've asked that your work be checked. Someone needs to actually read the source material. You seem to have a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, until this conflict can be resolved by other editors (I'm requesting three at this time) I must ask you to refrain from stalking my contributions. I will match my knowledge with yours on any subject I've written about. There was no need to delete that Hilburn had been with the lA times 36 years, delete Osborne's entire page, and worst of all your deletions on Jimmy Henchman's page corrupts the entire import of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed to the shooting ON ORDERS FROM HENCHMAN. I it's impossible for someone to do such contend editing if you are unaware of this basic fart. Also your edit on Broad, stating that the article hadn't supported the content was in error. You need to read the entire article - the art of a billionaire by C. Bruck Dec 6 2010 which you can only do by buying the article from the New Yorker. Clearly you hadn't had time to do so when you erased the content. I understand that you are a higher up here but that doesn't give you the right to re-write history. You and I both know there was no copyright violation in anything I wrote on Henchman's page. To the contrary the PACEr reference to the trial is entirely appropriate. I think the fact this maelstrom occurred on yur part in response to one edit on the Sean Comb page says quite a bit. I believe that your work should be checked. Please refrain from further assaults on pages I have written on until this can be resolved in dispute resolution``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"it's impossible for someone to do such contend editing if you are unaware of this basic fart." Nice Freudian slip there. MalleusFatuorum 21:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I just had a good laugh at that one. Glad this page was still on my watchlist. Thanks Malleus. INeverCry 21:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've spent a long time unaware of that basic fart. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Template {{fart}} doesn't exist yet. How has everyone managed without it? --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It was silly and served no purpose. I did it before I'd seen what was going on at the Combs talk page. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I wonder if you could look over the John Cornell article for any glaring GA faults? The article is my first GAN. Cheers. GFHandel♬ 11:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have done a bit of copy editing and re-ordered the sections. The urls are all in good health (no dead links), and there's no links to dabs. We will need to know what a "ratbag" is; I am not familiar with this expression. I'm not wild about the use of brackets, but that's a personal preference. Spotchecks on sources reveal no copy vio or too-close paraphrasing. Citations all look to be reliable sources, but I would re-format them all as "cite news"; place the name of the newspaper in the "newspaper" field and the name of the publisher in the "publisher" field. For example, the publisher of the Daily Telegraph (Australia) is News Corporation. Wikilink all these newspapers and the publishers, too, if there's articles to link to. The citatons I checked support the content. The article is a bit short for a GA but it's got a good shot. -- Dianna (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"ratbag" is a despicable person. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah so desu. From the context I would not get that. It could be linked; -- Dianna (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Dianna. I have implemented your suggestions. I'm still not sure how to layout Notes and References (e.g. I don't know when to combine them as you did for the Bob Hope article). Yes, the article is a bit short, and if that kills GA, then so be it (and I'm just satisfied to have improved it).
Regarding "ratbag": the definition of "despicable person" does not match common usage in Australia. As an example, it's quite common for a parent to say something like "why, you little ratbag!" to their child (after they have wreaked havoc in, say, a shopping centre). In that sense, it is non-offensive and even borders on a term of affection. When used amongst equals it does have a meaning of "trouble-maker", but in a fairly gentle sense. The term is often used in conjunction with a grin (which softens its effect).
Bob Hope uses a combination of books and websites; there's lots of websites, so I did not put them in {{sfn}} templates. For a large and complex article you might consider listing books separately from online sources, like we did at Adolf Hitler. Hitler uses only a few websites, so they have all been placed in {sfn} templates. Kafka has separate sections for books, journal articles, newspaper articles, and websites. It'll vary depending on the subject matter and the types of sources used for the article. John Cornell uses websites exclusively, so a separate section for the sources is not needed. Good luck with your nomination! -- Dianna (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll study your examples. GFHandel♬ 21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I do have a book I would like to use as a source. It is a (signed!) edition of Dennis Lillee's autobiography; and Cornell is mentioned in a number of places. Here's the Cite Book template I would use:
{{cite book |title=Lillee An Autobiography |last=Lillee |first=Dennis |authorlink=[[Dennis Lillee]] |year=2003 |publisher=Headline Book Publishing |location=London |isbn={{ISBN-10|0-7553-1231-7}} |edition=1st |page=128 |pages=342 |accessdate=24 August 2012}}
I used page=128 because that's the location that supports the "1976" entry I just made in the article text, however I would eventually like to use information from other pages in the book. I can probably muddle through the use of "cite book" and "sfn" (?), but I would like to ask you to confirm the layout you would recommend for References/Notes/Sources (based on adding one book source to the article).
As always, thanks for your thorough help. GFHandel♬ 23:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's how I would do it: I would place it down below in a "sources" section, which would at this point contain just the one book. The guy will always be notable, and there may be addtional book resources available in the future. Add |ref = harv to the cite book template and omit the page number in the down-below and put the cite in an {sfn} template. -- Dianna (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have made some additional edits. I forgot to say: normally we omit the "Publishing" or "Co. Ltd" stuff from the publishing house. So "Headline Book Publishing" becomes "Headline". You don't need the access date; it does not display. There's a new template for explanatory notes, so I have put that in instead of the ref-group-note. Sources go below the footnotes. -- Dianna (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It's all neat now, and I guess that I have to play the waiting game (re. GAN). GFHandel♬ 02:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Albert Speer & Holocaust Knowledge
Dianna, you commented on the talk page for Speer, "If Sereny doesn't know for sure, after her many years of interviews and research, we likely will never know for sure either." Where did you get that idea? Gitta Sereny believed that Speer definitely knew about the death camps no later than the 10/43 Posen speech by Himmler. Also, Speer biographers, Erich Goldhagen, Dan van der Vat, and Matthias Schmidt all believe Speer was at Posen during Himmler's speech.TL36 (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What I meant is that she can't prove it for sure. -- Dianna (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Sereny has written, "There is simply no way Speer can have failed to know about Himmler's speech, whether or not he actually sat through it." This indicates surety to me. My actual concern is with the article's introduction being worded as if there was an excellent chance Speer didn't know about the Holocaust. This is contrary to all of his biographers' opinions on the matter.TL36 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Please post any futher discussion about this article at the article talk page. It's a Featured Article, and I am in no position to make unilateral changes, regardless of my personal beliefs about Speer. -- Dianna (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I first posted a reply to you on the article's talk page but after getting no response, I concluded it had not been seen. It was sort of hidden. Sorry to have bothered you.TL36 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
59th NFA
Hi. Recently me and Animeshkulkarni pushed 59th National Film Awards for Featured list candidates. PR and FLC comments suggested that article requires copy-editing. Per suggestions, we had requested a copy editing help here but then we never got any reply. I would appreciate if you can take some time out of your busy schedule and take a look at it as reviewers are suggesting FLC withdrawal because of the copy-editing issues. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hello Vivvt. Your request is in the GOCE queue and will be served in due course. We currently have a backlog of around 5½ weeks. We have a target to complete all requests made before the end of August by the end of September, but yours is likely to be done sooner than that. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
@Stfg: Thanks for your reply. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Vivvt. I am no longer taking copy edit requests unless they're in my current field of interest, military history topics and biographies, so it would be unlikely that I would select your particular article. But I will be drawing articles from the Requests Page as part of my activities during our upcoming copy edit drive. With fewer articles in the queue, the chances of yours getting copy edited soon will go up. Good luck in your quest for FL status. -- Dianna (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
@Dianna. That would be good. Thanks. - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
How can you tell Amazing Grace has been scheduled? I don't see mention of it on the TFA page. Nonspecific 2 column is empty though Nonspecific 1 has an article in the column. Is there a secret way of knowing? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
much thanks! The community is shut out of TFA and I don't know why that should be. After all 99% of the WP community writes the other content, and FAs and TFA wouldn't exist without the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (theoretically), and most do it without seeking prizes and awards. And the FA process wonders why more editors don't review there, when TFA (the grand prize) seems to be a closed circuit which hardly anyone knows about. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Late comment: the community should not be shut out TFA, the list for the current month is no secret but easily accessible from the Main page, and the request page should be better known, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If you believe that TFA is any kind of a reward then I'm afraid you're very much mistaken. MalleusFatuorum 22:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but some people are quite interested in getting their articles as TFA. Now that I'm an admin, I'll just full protect my articles whenever they're on the main page. Problem solved. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Then why even have it. The FA writers don't like it, they say (though why do they bother going through the FA process, just to get the "star" which they claim they don't care about?) Usually the readership is low. The topics are very narrow and repetitious. What's the point of having it then? If a few people are interested, then let them have it. I don't think many readers are interested and the blurbs are usually horrible and a turn off. A wall of text. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The topics are repetitious because it's the same few editors taking their stuff to FA. Did you ever read TCO's manifesto, MathewTownsend? Here is a link File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf. It touches on that very subject. It changed the way I edit Wikipedia. -- Dianna (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
yes I did. I thought he put a lot of work into it and there were many good ideas and suggestions. I think he meant to be helpful and to open up discussion. Instead I think he was unfairly stomped on for it. Apparently, the FA people took his suggestions as an attack and tried to smash him. They feel FA processes must be preserved "as is" at any cost. Suggestions for improvements aren't allowed. No wonder everyone is afraid to suggest improvements to anything FA. That's my opinion. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken on many counts Matthew, as was TCO. MalleusFatuorum 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) A lot of us still feel pretty smashed up over it, on both sides. Reform at some sectors of the FA system is still needful, in my opinion, and a revamp of the main page is long overdue. We need to drag it kicking and screaming out of the 1990s. I'd be very interested to hear more of your opinion on the manifesto, Malleus. What aspects did you think were incorrect? -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Maybe I am and maybe TCO was. But there should have been a civil discussion and consideration of his ideas and suggestions. Maybe other editors' responses would have been helpful. What's wrong with discussion? Instead TCO was attacked and smashed down. To me, the fact that the FA processes is so defensive and can't tolerate discussion of new ideas shows how fragile it is. That's how I see it. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that a lot of FA contributors have gotten (or had gotten) a feeling of superiority to some extent. Not everyone of course, but there's been an element of that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's an element of that at all. And as for TCOs observations, he would have done better to have started out on a civil footing, not by accusing FA writers, including myself, of being star collectors. MalleusFatuorum 03:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Re-reading TCO's presentation there are many points I agree with, but not the page views mean prizes idea, nor the notion that all of the so-called vital articles such as "family" are actually vital at all. I was also reminded that one of the examples he used was information technology, an article I attempted to improve during the ongoing Core Article Contest, until I got bogged down with so much jerrymandering argument about trivia that I gave up on it. MalleusFatuorum 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw that! What a pity. The same thing happened to me when I tried to do Nazi Germany for the first contest back in March. If you showed up on an article of interest to me, you would have gotten a very different reception, believe me. -- Dianna (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC) My plan is to out-live the guy, and sneak back and edit it in 20 years. he he. - Dianna (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I may sneak back to IT again one day as well, who knows, but I just became so frustrated with all the bollocks it was better for my blood pressure to walk away. I'm reminded of one more point about the "page views = value" concept though. A couple of years ago Parrot of Doom and I worked an article about a series of child murders that happened here in the UK during the 1960s. It got to FA and bobbled along with maybe an average of 30,000–50,000 page views a month, which isn't bad, but because of press coverage this month it's rocketed to something approaching half a million for August.[8] Part of the reason we did it was because we knew that the press would inevitably become interested in the case again at the very least when the surviving murderer died, and we wanted people to see something decent. So what's "vital", and when? MalleusFatuorum 04:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You're smart to take the long view like that, and to keep the needs of the reader in mind. There's seasonal variations on Hitler; it gets way more views in the springtime. That must be when they study WWII at the schools. See, that's the kind of double-whammy that I am focusing on right now; plenty of page views and also an important historical topic. That's very satisfying useful work. Much more fun than copy-editing some pop star's discography. That's how TCO's paper changed the way I edit. -- Dianna (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If you come across an article on an important historical topic with plenty of page views and no ... [fill in the blanks] then let me know. Rather curiously, I see that the IT article hasn't been edited at all since I abandoned it to its fate, so I think the motivations are very clear. MalleusFatuorum 05:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably that's because his dates of birth and death were both in the spring, as well as Germany's surrender. —Torchiesttalkedits 05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a form of trolling, a very annoying form of trolling. It wastes your time, the editing time of a valuable contributor, time that could be better spent elsewhere, doing something productive. That's why lots of times I don't worry about looking like a chicken; I just walk away from a fight rather than get sucked in to spending all my time arguing rather than working. I am logging off now. See you tomorrow (whatever that means; it's already tomorrow where you live). -- Dianna (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't notice your comment about copy editing pop discographies earlier. Having recently done that exact thing, I definitely agree about the level of satisfaction, i.e. none. I've been trying to do more "important" work lately myself. —Torchiesttalkedits 16:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
And even worse, you do a good job of it, and they ask you to do another one! until there's no time left to work on things of interest to yourself. That's why I had to stop taking requests. It was sucking all the fun out of editing. -- Dianna (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It's been a while, so I may not be doing him justice, but I felt TCO wasn't terribly receptive to methodological criticism, even apart from the firestorm over categorizing FA writers. Seeing the number of requests in the new Article Feedback thingy for information outside the scope of an encyclopedia makes it clear, to me at least, that any pageview-based ranking is highly suspect. Nor did it acknowledge the structural factors within Wikipedia that make it much easier to polish up articles of narrow scope rather than broad ones. Trying to remedy that by fiddling with incentives for authors is like trying to beat your horse until it levitates. The report was interesting, and it did make me think about where an online massively collaborative encyclopedia is best suited to add value, though. Choess (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit of the month
Hi Diannaa, I was wondering, is this only for guild members, or can anyone submit an entry? ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Gabe! It is open to everybody. -- Dianna (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
see also the user's talk p., where Dennis Brown has offered mentorship. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, DGG. -- Dianna (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
50,000!
All Around Amazing Barnstar
Dianna, I award you this barnstar for clocking up 50,000 edits on the English Wikipedia. --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Popups and the toolserver tool give slightly different counts, but today they both exceed 50K. Congratulations! --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! -- Dianna (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you try and Reason with a User?
Hi Fellow editor, this, keeps adding stuff and deleting refrences to various articles. I've tried to engage him on the actual pages but I don't think he/she understands that this is an encyclopedia. He/she keeps adding vast swathes of text from Sikh Holy books. Please could you have a word with that user. Thanks SH 14:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. I hope it helps. -- Dianna (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That IP is harassing me again. If you have the time, can you please page protect Pink Floydand my talk page from IPs. Thanks. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
User: Bbb23 has semi'd your talk page for a month. I was having a nap! I have protected Pink Floyd for a week. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Dispicable person is too strong. I suggest 'rascal' or 'scallywag' is closer. Regards. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I got it from the wiktionary entry. From what we see there, the antipodean uses may be milder than some others. In the UK, scumbag is more common (in meaning 2 only -- I didn't even know meaning 1 existed). Here, both words would be quite strong, unless used jocularly. --Stfg (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have looked at the article that sparked this discussion (above) and at some wictionary entries. I add "ne'er-do-well", "non-conformist", "scoundrel" to my 'Australian usages' of the word. I think it is used over a range of meanings in Australia depending on the tone of voice, all the way from 'dispicable person' to 'lovable scallywag'. --Greenmaven (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have edited John Cornell to reflect my understanding of the word 'ratbag' in an Australian context. --Greenmaven (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Adventure novel with last few pages missing
Apologies for my curiosity here. I am just another editor who spends/wastes a long time reading discussions. Can you please tell me what happened then here? Has WMF given any importance or they have concluded it is just a meaningless spam (as it seems, I did not understand what is emergency in that post, since the Church is in Columbus, Ohio, US and that IP address editor is in Perth, Australia... they need long travel... airport security checks.. so on.. lots of barriers before him! --Tito Dutta✉ 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that! But we are told to take all threats seriously. I guess Wikipedia is sometimes like working in the emergency room or being a cop ... we don't always find out how the story turned out. -- Dianna (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Referencing help at Turlington
Hi Dianna. I've been going through the Christy Turlington article to improve the referencing, however I've become stuck when faced with a reference to a (now defunct) magazine. The reference in the article is named "Cookie" and is used in two places. I wanted to add a Sources section and then use something like "cite journal" so that I could then use sfn to provide a two-way link. Unfortunately, I don't know how to set the parameters in the "cite journal" template so that it will be picked up by sfn (e.g. I don't know the author's name, and I don't know how to use the Periodical parameter). I'm happy to continue with the work at the article if you could get me over this hurdle. Thanks in advance. GFHandel♬ 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi GFHandel! What you need to do is call the ref using the {{sfnRef}} template. This can be used to create sfn templates for sources where we're missing the author name or there's a large group of authors or other unusual situations. I will have a look at it right now so don't edit there or we'll have an edit conflict :) -- Dianna (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it's done. You can see that an sfn template is used in the body of the article and the sfnRef is used down below in the sources section. Since the source is a magazine, we want it to display in italics. Since the sfnRef template does not recognise or accept the single quotation mark as the way to create italics, the italics have to be created using HTML (.27.27). This I nicknamed "italics the hard way". It was User:Br'er Rabbit who figured this out when he was working on Ernest Shackleton and there were multiple sources from the same author from the same year that had to be distinguished. -- Dianna (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Easy when you know how I guess. Thanks for your help. GFHandel♬ 23:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you try and Reason with a User
Hi Fellow editor, User:Nasir Ghobar this user keeps adding stuff and deleting refrences to various articles. Especially Ranjit Singh. No other user had agree with this user on Talk:Ranjit Singh. Still, this user removing information without any valid reason. Can you try to stop this. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You need to try to talk this out on the talk page with the other editors. You have only made one post at Talk:Ranjit Singh. I don't know anything about the subject matter, and would be of limited help at this time. Sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what is Theman244 talking about. Everytime that I add Ranjit Singh being the governor of Lahore from 1799 to 1801 Theman244 decides to remove this, which is what all historians say and is mentioned in every source that deals with Ranjit Singh. In the Early life section I wrote: "Rangit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 in Gujranwala (present-day Pakistan). He belonged to a Sikh clan of Northern India.[7][8]" This is the standard way but he changes it to: "Rangit Singh was born to Maha Singh and Raj Kaur on 13 November 1780, in Gujranwala, Punjab, into a Sikh family.[7][8]" Ordinary English speaking people can't follow this because they don't know who is Maha Singh or Raj Kaur, so I believe that my version is better although I missed adding his parents which can be written like this: "Rangit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 in Gujranwala (present-day Pakistan). He was the son of Maha Singh and Raj Kaur who were Sikhs.[7][8]".--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Working on India topics is always problematic, because so much of the history is difficult to source. Please continue to post your proposed edits at the talk page and say what your sources are. I have tried to encourage the other user to discuss the issue on the talk page too, which is something he hasn't done much of so far. -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of these Indian editors forget that this version of Wikipedia is specifically for English speaking people, mainly North Americans. The English used in India is little different.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Weird copyvio situation
Hey, you're fairly experienced dealing with copyvio situations, right? I've got a strange one, in that I can't tell if it's a problem or not, or how to proceed with my editing. Look here for a detailed explanation. The essence of it is that I thought text in the cellular automaton article was a copyright violation, but now it looks like the book may have plagiarized Wikipedia without attribution. Any suggestions on what, if anything, needs to be done about this, or perhaps who or where I could ask? I also posted at WT:CP with no response yet. Thanks! —Torchiesttalkedits 03:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
For difficult ones like that, I always go to User talk:Moonriddengirl. She is very quick to respond, and several watchers of that page are also very helpful and clued up. I don't think I've had to wait as long as 24 hours for help yet. --Stfg (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the tips. —Torchiesttalkedits 14:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Lpinsivy. The article has been deleted four times, and that's why it's been protected from being re-created. The article was deleted in 2007 as a result of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centreon; at which time the editors determined that there was not adequate coverage of the company in reliable third-party sources to establish notability. So leaving the issues of copyright law and promotional language aside, I would have to say no, as I was unable today to find any coverage of this company with a Google search. So the company is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time. Sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleting old revisions
Hi Diannaa. When deleting old revisions of images, you're supposed to remove the {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} notice from the file page too. Film Fan (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the top of the page, it says there is a bot that automatically removes the template once the old revisions of a file have been deleted. I didn't realise it at the time, but the bot has not edited since August 4, so I guess the templates will have to be removed manually for the time being. I will do that myself until the bot resumes its work. I will contact the bot operator and find out what's up. Sorry about the misunderstanding. -- Dianna (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I have gone back and removed the template from the huge batch I did yesterday, and now have a sore neck. Some days the glamourous life of an admin is not all it's cracked up to be. - Dianna (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Wrongful speedy deletion
When someone contests a speedy deletion, you need to wait for some discussion on it. In this case, we can add a fair-use rational, but I'm waiting for explicit permission. Please restore the Aral Sea images pending resolution. Otherwise we waste our time reloading the same images over and over. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Kwamikagami. Sorry to have to do that. The files File:Aral Sea 2006-2009 L.gif and File:Aral Sea 2009.jpg are both copyright violations. The source website clearly says the material is copyright, so it would have been better to have sought permission at the time of upload in 2009. We've had this copyright material on the site for three years. If and when you receive permission from the copyright holder, you will need to re-upload the images and get an OTRS ticket in place using the instructions found here. -- Dianna (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The files would not qualify for fair-use as they fail the WP:Non-free content criteria#1: non-free content cannot be used when a free alternative could be created and uploaded. There was a free alternative available on the Commons that conveys the same information and I inserted it into the article. -- Dianna (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No, you did not. You evidently don't even know what the topic is. The map you inserted is obsolete and not even of the South Aral Sea. Please let someone who knows what they're doing handle this. — kwami (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The image I put in the article, File:Aralsee.gif, covers the same land area as the copyright image, and covers the period from 1960 to 2010. It's a Featured Image on the German Wikipedia, and an apt replacement for the copyright image which I deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. The animation did not kick in; I thought it was simply an img of the old Aral Sea. There is an OR problem with it, however, and the 2009 map is wrong, so it's not really an appropriate image for WP. — kwami (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I've posted some comments, there are a few more to follow, but hopefully the initial ones will be helpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Mark. I will try to get started on your feedback later today. I have a list of RL stuff to do as well. -- Dianna (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I just asked the one South Asian woman I worked with if she was familiar with Mayawati, her response was "Oh her? She's a horrible woman!" Thankfully the article seems to avoid that kind of bias :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Dr.K and I have been tending the article for a long time :) You wouldn't believe some of the stuff we've seen come and go. Things have calmed down lately, though; so much so that a GA bid could be attempted. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Thanks so much, Mathew. I will get busy on it after supper. -- Dianna (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about my slowness here - got distracted - but you seem busy too! Haven't forgotten! Please forgive. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No worries; I work at the library so my late fees are waived, heh heh -- Dianna (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit war wasting GOCE time
Hi Dianna. Please would you take a look at Dilazak, where two SPAs and some others are edit warring and wasting GOCE copy editors' time in the process? The history shows that GOCE member User:Tdslk copy edited it on 27 July 2012, but on 30 July User:Dilazak1 did this partial reversion, which includes a restoration of the c/e tag. On that day, User:Asarjan123 did some edits, until at 15:39 User:Dilazak1 reverted back to a version of 25 July, conceivably to undo Asarjan123's work. The revert and the version reverted to are those with size 10,303 bytes. User:Lfstevens then copy edited again later that day. The edit war then chuntered along merrily until 29 August at 05:14, when User:Dilazak1 reverted to a version that has existed at least twice before, on 10 and 11 July (the file sizes are 10,081).
I was about to remove the c/e tag on the basis that we aren't offering yet another, but just now GOCE member User:MrX has done a new copy edit and removed the tag. One wonders how long it will be before this gets swallowed by the edit war and the tag reappears. I wasn't going to put GOCEreviewed on the talk page of that one in case it provoked escalation, but we do need to limit the number of GOCE editors whose time is wasted on this. Is there any was for the long arm of the law to help achieve this, please? --Stfg (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
We can create a page notice that will be seen by potential copy editors warning them to check the article history before undertaking a copy edit. Not sure if creation of these is restricted to admins or if anyone can add them. Let's sort out what we want it to say. How about something like this: "This article has been the subject of edit wars that have resulted in a previous version of the article being restored. The restored version has a copy edit tag dated July 2011, and several editors have undertaken the work, only to have it all reverted. Before undertaking a copy edit of this article, please check its history and determine whether or not it is worth your while to undertake another copy edit." What do you think? -- Dianna (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. If that's the same as an editnotice, we can create them on our own talk pages, but only admins and account creators can put them anywhere else. It's the witching hour here now and I'm not thinking straight any more. Will sleep on it and ttyl. --Stfg (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Morning Dianna. I think the idea of an edit notice is great. Copy editors will be warned, and the regulars at the article will also see it and may be inspired to be more careful. I'm going to put a note on Dilazak1's talk page too. At this stage it will be friendly and simply request care without mentioning edit warring. I'll keep the page on my watchlist too. Thanks for your help. --Stfg (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Done I have set the edit notice to expire in a year. --Dianna (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the accidental Rollback - was scrolling though my watchlist on my iPhone while logged in. It was not my little brother ;> Doctalk 17:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Little brother? Duh, I assumed it was Big Brother. No worries -- Dianna (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Big Bash League Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Big Bash League Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Final push
The Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 CCI is down to its final 25 articles. If we can tackle one a day each we can get it done in a week, and two a day will get it closed by the end of the weekend. Let's see if we can get this done and cut down a bit on the CCI backlog, we've been doing great so far. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 18:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay! I will help. -- Dianna (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Lennon article
I have a few ideas, but I was wondering if you had anything in mind. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 05:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the sources that are available. Which one(s) have the interesting stories to tell and the multiple reliable sources that are required to push to FA? There's the question. All right, for personal preference, I would like nothing better than for us to show Imagine (song) on December 8. -- Dianna (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Thanks so much for considering taking on this work. -- Dianna (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Diligence and Teamwork
The Barnstar of Diligence
You helped in so many ways on these two CCIs, I can't begin to reiterate them; and CCI work is super boring, to most users, and thankless. Well, on this occasion here's a huge THANK YOU for you. Many helped out and this was a great example of wiki teamwork, especially this last several weeks where many got together to wrap this up. PumpkinSkytalk 11:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, PS. It was an honour to help clear your name so you can get on with your life. -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
AIV
Hi Dianna! I see that you're online. Would you mind helping out with the backlog at AIV? Thanks, ElectricCatfish 18:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
Okay, I can spare 30 minutes or so, but I have RL stuff that needs doing this afternoon as well. Few admins are around on the weekends, unfortunately. -- Dianna (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, regarding FinkFarm (talk·contribs), Swatjester's dealing with them. I tagged their article for speedy deletion and they kept on removing the templates and made personal attacks on a few editors on the article's deleted talk page. Swatjester's trying to lean away from a block, but we'll see how it goes. Thanks, ElectricCatfish 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
I was just about to post something on FinkFarm's talk page. Your remarks there were a little too aggressive in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I try to avoid biting at all costs, but keep in mind that they removed the speedy deletion templates after a final warning and they also recreated the article. Also, they made personal attacks against Swatjester, so although it may have been too harsh (and I apologize), something needed to have been said. Best, ElectricCatfish 18:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
My message on their Talk has now been posted. Please have a look and you will see some big differences between what I said and what you said. Mine focuses exclusively on content rather than behaviour. Doing this tends to keep discussions calm. Explaining why a different decision was made on their article from the Kansas City Barbeque Society article will help them understand what's going on. Notice I said the article does not meet out guidelines at this time, which implies that once the event gets some media coverage they can come back and create an article. The odds are pretty good that they are only interested in creating this one article and have no intention of becoming a long-term contributor. -- Dianna (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw your message. One of the things that influenced my decision to give them that harsh message was that odds are they are not interested in helping build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote this club. Thank you for the tip about resolving disputes. At DRN, we never comment on user behavior (it's the noticeboard policy there). Thanks, ElectricCatfish 18:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
I have to go do some real-life stuff right now so the other reports will have to wait. TTYL -- Dianna (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The best thing to do would have been to find out what he meant by the "KCBS" and how it related to his article. It's the Kansas City Barbeque Society, which does have an article. He was repeatedly complaining about that fact but nobody explained to him why that orgainisation qualifies for an article whilst his does not. -- Dianna (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Rollback
Hey, can you remove my rollback right? I have this new cell phone and I keep hitting it on accident with my fat fingers, and it's going to get me into trouble. Thanks. —Torchiesttalkedits 23:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Done -- Dianna (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you were active in this article because the topic interests you or if you were patrolling against vandalism (etc). If the topic interests you, please consider my thoughts on its talk page about the way the article gives undue weight to the unpleasant side of the man;s life and almost none to his business achievements (if any). I feel at present that the man has borderline notability at best. There are plenty of citations to his nefarious dealings, but they seem to me to be 'bit player, wannabe gangster' single incident stuff, and I am doubtful about his genuine ability to pass WP:GNG. If you have an interest in the article other than simply patrolling it, please consider fleshing it out to whatever extent you feel appropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not interested in extending my involvement into the Henchman affair any further. Thank you for notifying me. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I blame you :). Henchman seems to be a cult topic, as do the other articles in this sector. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Hi Fellow editor could I ask a favour and ask you to intervene here. There appears to be a lot of WP:LAWYER and WP:PETTIFOG going on here. To top it of Nasir is just plain rude. Thanks SH 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
How am I rude?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's some examples of rude remarks made by Nasir Ghobar:
"I feel like I'm explaining this to 10 year old kids"
"Are you obsessed with me? If not then please go away and leave me alone, and stop following me"
"This discussion is for editors who know what's going on here."
" This is an encyclopedia and not the place to play silly games"
Calling people "desperate" and "disruptive"
These remarks directed at other editors and comments about their behavior seem designed to drive the other editors away or to cause them to feel bad about themselves. Please focus your remarks strictly on the content and things might still get heated up but people will not get so upset. Please continue discussing the proposed edits on the article talk page and if you are not able to resolve the dispute, then I would suggest taking the matter to dispute resolution. -- Dianna (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Dianna, I feel that you're wrong and I disagree with your extreme view. Let me explain:
"I feel like I'm explaining this to 10 year old kids" is NOT directed at any editor or any person, it is me writing to MY self. It is EXPRESSING my thought to MY self and this is just a figure of speech in American English.
There is NOTHING wrong with me asking Kansas Bear if he/she is obessessed with me because obviously he began following me everywhere.
Yes, discussions on talk pages are NOT forums but specifically designed for editors who are familiar with the subject to explain their edits (changes, corrections, additions, or removal of content). For example, things like this Talk:Ivanka Trump#Hi Ivanka are not allowed.
"This is an encyclopedia and not the place to play silly games" was again NOT directed at any particular person but just a reminder to everyone who reads. Did you even notice that Theman244 was just busted for abusing multiple accounts? He/she was pretending on the talk pages as being more than one editor. Now, would that be games or being a serious productive editor?
I did NOT call anyone "desperate". I simply said that what Theman244 was doing is disruptive and annoying TO me. Abusing multiple accounts during a consensus is not disruptive to you? In addition to all that, I showed him almost a dozen published books which clearly state that King Zaman Shah appointed Ranjit Singh as governor but Theman244 still refuses to accept this. That my friend is disruptive whether some one agrees or not. Earlier you wrote to me something like you're not familiar with Ranjit Singh or you don't feel like getting involved. You need to check the facts before supporting those who wronglfully accuse me. The main thing you need to understand is that the dispute is NOT over me but over the fact that King Zaman Shah appointed Ranjit Singh as governor in 1799. Everyone should focus on that. Just like you or anyone else don't like to be wrongfully accused, I also don't like it. You did not write anything positive about me and that suggests that something is wrong here. It's better that you recognize the problem, which is that I improved the Ranjit Singh article[9] and a month later Theman244 began vandalising/POV-pushing [10][11], including using sockpuppets [12]. Now, about SH, he tried to defend Theman244 by telling admins "By all means check these accounts and you will find no link" [13] but later it was confirmed that Theman244 was abusing socks.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to argue these points with you. The fact that you feel your poor behaviour is justified on every count speaks volumes, believe me. -- Dianna (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't want you to argue with me, I wanted to show you the bad judgement that you made and I'd appreciate it if you don't do it again. If I did anything wrong I would have recieved a warning from admins on my talk. This is how it works.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
There's four million articles and only 1500 administrators, so actually you are wrong about how things work. Administrators don't go around randomly patrolling talk pages. Sikh-History came to lodge a complaint here on my talk page about your behavior, because I am an administrator, and I gave you my opinion of your behaviour: I think it's unacceptable for you to act that way. I will post a warning on your talk right now if that's what it takes for you to take this matter seriously. -- Dianna (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears that you may be frustrated, sorry if you feel that way and I want you to cheer up :) My behaviour is fine. I said that your opinion was incorrect because you were misinformed by SH. The choosing of which words to use in comments may not be satisfactory to others because we are not only from different locations around the world but also from diverse groups. We must understand this and accept our differences. You are from Canada, SH is Indian living in the UK, and I'm American of unknown origin. When I said no admin has warned me, I was obviously refering to those involved in the dispute at Talk:Ranjit Singh. You and SH have a long history of knowing each other. SH started this section by falsely accusing me of WP:LAWYER and WP:PETTIFOGGING. You ignored that and decided to focus on my behavior. SH also stated that I'm being rude but she forgot to mention who was I rude to? If I was rude to her then she should have posted the link so that I can see where I went wrong. You randomly selected words out of context and listed them here, and such an extreme measure is unnessary for a minor complaint that SH made. Anyway, all I want is to add in Ranjit Singh article the fact that King Zaman Shah appointed Ranjit Singh as governor, which is not only supported by the Library of Congress in the United States but also by dozens of published books and other encyclopedias.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Since Nasir decided to bring up my name, "Are you obsessed with me? If not then please go away and leave me alone. My last comment was not to you but someone else. You're ignoring the topic here and wrongly accusing me of being anti-Persian. I know Americans and they do not behave like this.". I am very tired of his accusations. Nasir no sooner arrived on Wikipedia than he started removing "Persianate" from articles with either misleading or no edit summaries and quickly reported me by stating, "Kansas Bear whom I believe is Iranian"[14]. Followed by his intentional misrepresentation of an online C.E.Bosworth source which in the second paragraph supported exactly what I had been saying.[15] By that time I had run out of assuming good faith. Also, IF Nasir cares to continue to insinuate that I am NOT from the U.S. and am NOT an American and that I am sockpuppeting, I would suggest he PUT UP or SHUT UP! Oh, and I don't buy the "I'm a new editor" tripe neither did EdJohnston[16], his 36th edit was to report me for 3RR! --Defensor Ursa 05:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Reading through Nasir's replies I think there maybe an element of WP:COMPETENCE. Thanks SH 16:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
He is behaving very defensively and refuses to take my advice into consideration. I am not getting through to him and am not helping much, so sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
You tried, at least thanks. It maybe an idea to keep an idea on his edits as he seems to be in conflict on other pages. Thanks SH 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up the stuff I missed! All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It was on the whole very good. These articles are tricky -- Dianna (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Help pls
Hey diana can u pls delete the previous versions of the images i uploaded?--Vuvuzuela (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you have some edit wars going on regarding these images so no, I am not interested in getting involved. -- Dianna (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Done The proxy check came back negative. I checked the range contributions and worthwhile edits are still being done from the range, so I am not gonna range block. Please continue to report individual IPs and I will block until he tires of the game. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you TheSpecialUser TSU 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
--Tito Dutta ✉ 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Big Bash League Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
