User talk:Diannaa/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Thank you....

Thanks about Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Strategy. The same applies to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh/General. Apparently Wikipedia is becoming so numb that an editor cannot event rectify his/her mistakes without stumbling into red-tape stupidity. Please, have mercy, and see to the other pages as well. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

G7 does not apply, as others have edited the page. Someone has converted it to a redirect. I hope that is adequate. -- Dianna (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh/General now redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/General redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh. -- Dianna (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For protecting Leeds Trinity University College so promptly! PamD 19:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I started working at the top of the list! I would just like to note that the main account, Jharvey12, will be autoconfirmed in a couple of days, so I have added one of my boilerplate messages to their talk page in an attempt to get them schooled as to our expectations beforetimes. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For helping to clean up the backlog at WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Dianna (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rhino tank

Hi Thanks for the copyedit :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- Dianna (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

Hi Dianna. Thanks for reviewing that one -- it was very difficult to do especially because it's so speculative and the verb tenses needed to be adjusted to be clear about that. I do take issue with a few of your changes, which I've altered back in this edit. The edit summary ... um ... summarizes. Also, are you using a tool that insists unnecessarily on spaces in certain places? I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter whether section titles are spaced from their = signs, nor whether the # of a numbered list is spaced from its text. All best, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking my review. Some of the stuff I was just not entirely sure, tbh. But I think the subject of the sentence is not "phenomena"; it is "background". : "one must identify an artificial, coherent signal against a background (of various natural phenomena) that also produces radio waves." ?

The spacing habits are just personal preference that add to the readability of the page, and the section headers are made uniform using a script. No big deal; it adds nothing to load times. -- Dianna (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I always go through your reviews of my edits :) The intention was that the clause beginning with "that" qualified the phenomena, not the background. The parse is "one must identify an artificial, coherent signal against a background of various (natural phenomena that also produce radio waves)." --Stfg (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yah, I always check my reviews as well; it's a great way to learn. Okay, Mr Smartypants, you win this round. -- Dianna (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yay, I win!! I win!! Now why do I have this strange feeling like I threw a boomerang into the sun? --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple cite references to a book source

Hi Diannaa, could I please get some help regarding the strategy for using multiple cite references to a single book source? I would like to use multiple {{cite book}} citations to the same book in an article—the only difference between each reference being the page number. Do I simply create multiple Cite Book citations with distinct ref names (with the aim of using LDR one day), e.g. name="BookName 1999 p.34", name="BookName 1999 p.50", name="BookName 1999 p.101" etc., or is there a mechanism to tie different refs back to a single defining citation (so that all the parameters don't have to be recreated in each template)? Cheers. GFHandel ♬  00:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, GFHandel! The primo solution is the {{sfn}} template. What you do is place your books in a bibliography at the bottom, and then use the {sfn} template to place the citation into the notes section. The template also automatically creates clickable links down to the bibliography. The advantages of this system are that citations that are identical (including the page numbers) will automatically collate for you, and you don't have the problem of accidentally using the same name for two different citations. Make sure you include the | ref = harv parameter in your citation templates. Check out Eva Braun for a shortish article that uses this referencing system throughout. There's a script available for detecting errors in Harvard citations at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. A new wikiproject—just recently launched—will eventually be the place to go for this kind of advice: Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement. If there's anything you want me to do to help, please let me know. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a good look through all your suggestions. GFHandel ♬  00:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't got around to digesting it all yet (let alone implementing it), but there has been an unexpected development. The article in question is Talk:Bob Hope#Cite templates for referencing, and I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at what has recently happened? I really did try to help there, and will certainly abide by any consensus that develops—however I'm disappointed by the way that only a couple of cite templates have been removed (out of the 43 on the page; and in an inconsistent manner). Thanks for any guidance you can provide. GFHandel ♬  20:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Altoona Central Catholic School

You recently semi-protected the redirect Altoona Central Catholic School due to an IP undoing the deletion outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altoona Central Catholic School. As soon as this occured, Steelers628 (talk · contribs), who is an SPA with similar edits that participated in the AfD, began doing the same thing in the IP's stead. I don't know if requesting full-protection or reporting the account would be better, but since you were the admin that semi-protected the page I figured you'd know how to best handle that, could you please take a look at it? Thank you. - SudoGhost 00:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have full-protected it, but was tempted to delete and salt, as some of the content was copy-vio off the school's website. I have also put a note on the user's talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. - SudoGhost 01:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this sentence need a citation?

"However, he was interested in religion, and was much influenced by the work of C.G. Jung, who took religion seriously, if in an un-orthodox way." It is extracted from Chuck Fager. There are 3-4 assertions made in this sentence and it's not clear which one is considered to need a citation. WP is full of unsupported statements. We surely cannot put a citation on every sentence? An editor who failed to get this article speedily deleted, then proceeded to slap a 'citation needed' at the end of almost every para in the article. I suspect this editor has a POV prejudicial to the subject of the article (Fager). Your thoughts would be appreciated. I have done some editing of the article and removed some of the 'citation requests'. Now they are being put back on by an IP. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically it all should have sources, but so should all the articles, eh? It looks to me like someone is getting point-y with the tags, like you said. One way to go is to place a {{Refimprove BLP}} at the top of the article and remove most the "citation needed" tags. In my opinion the statements that most need sources are things that are likely to be challenged. Did he really share a jail cell with Martin Luther King? I would leave the inline "citation needed" tag at any of those kinds of statements, for sure. Will the IP go for that, do you think? -- Dianna (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I will work on it along the lines you suggest. He did leave alone all the citation requests I removed, for which I gave a precise reason. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahluwalia

Hi Dianna, sorry to bug you yet again, but me and user Sitush need your help. We are trying to clean the above article, but as you can see from these edits, there is a user who keeps reverting to non referenced stuff. Can you help? He won't even engage in a dialogue. Thanks SH 06:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sikh-history. The fellow had also added a large block of unformatted text to Kalwar, a disambiguation page. I have reversed his edits on both pages and will watch-list. I have placed a personal note on his talk page and a welcome template, though it is unlikely we will be able to teach them all the required skills; anyone who is prepared to leave pages in such a broken state likely does not have the mark-up and computer skills to contribute productively here. -- Dianna (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Many Thanks SH 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!

Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles.

Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on my potential involvement at ANI. I have posted there to explain my position. Incivility and battleground editing are a cancer to the project and there is far too much leniency given to repeat offenders IMHO. Thanks again and while I am here, let me give you a big pile of brownies in recognition of your amazing work on WP especially on the GOCE project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I thought you might have an opinion. I just started reading The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. I think if we can reach some kind of point where this kind of behaviour is no longer considered acceptable, we can build a better community and help retain editors. Well, a girl can dream, I guess. Thank you for the praise and for the brownies too. -- Dianna (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is an unfortunate tendency to go hard on new editors with all kinds of rules (including behavior) but go easy with prolific editors and allow them to slide on civility and behavior issues (sometimes for years) and I think that is a big mistake and shows a lack of vision by the community and the leadership of WP (if there is any leadership). Let's hope this changes. All the best to you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In New York City they saw huge drops in the crime rate by doing simple things like cleaning up the graffiti on the subway cars. A lot of our behaviour is situational. There's a bit of a movement underway to foster a better environment here by making small changes and modelling good behaviour. We all need to think about the environment we create here through our own actions. Not you specifically; this is just a broadcast message for the talk page watchers, whoever they may be. :) Happy editing! -- Dianna (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Imagine

For the complete list, see User:Diannaa/Soundtrack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7qZrXYtvk

ANI regarding Erin Burnett BLP issues

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! My first ANI notice. I feel like such a badass -- Dianna (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the club. It's totally exciting. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about the mediation bot

I've added a few editors who I think should be involved with the mediation. Will the bot make another round to notify them, or should I take action to that effect? Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, Gabe. Maybe you should ask User:WGFinley, the guy who is clerking the case. -- Dianna (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For helping the (at times) contentious article of Heinrich Himmler obtain GA status, I am buying a round of beers; so relax and drink up! Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I second Kierzek's compliments for your outstanding work that helped bring the Himmler entry to GA. I offer you a cup of coffee to counteract any lingering effects of the cliffhanger review and the beer. Congratulations! Malljaja (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for the treats, and for all your hard work on Himmler. -- Dianna (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about getting control of User:Jonex on en:wiki

Hi Diannaa,


Thanks for you attention.

I've tried the suggested unification procedure but I got "Login unification not complete!" message.

Besides the relation of attached Wikipedia sites, I got the following:

"The account 'Jonex' could not be automatically confirmed as belonging to you on the following sites; most likely they have a different password from your primary account: de.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org id.wikipedia.org pl.wikipedia.org sv.wikipedia.org"

At the bottom of the page, there is a "Finish merge" box which asks for a password: "If these accounts do belong to you, you can finish the login unification process simply by typing the passwords for the other accounts here:"

Could I possibly have made something wrong?

Thanks in advance, Portuguese Wikipedian Jonex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.175.180.13 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you will have to get a bureaucrat to "usurp" the account for you. Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations -- Dianna (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Pentathlon (film)

Somebody keeps vandalising the plot and image. Can you put it on your watchlist? I've also restored the plot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay! Glad to help. -- Dianna (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for copyediting Ombla article. I appreciate your effort very much. Tomobe03 (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yummy! Glad to help. What an interesting river. Croatia sounds like a really nice place! -- Dianna (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cite templates

See Bob Hope; I am not convinced that cite templates do anything but create a bother, as most editors do not even know what information to add and with the proliferation of numerous templates, seemingly a different one to fit a different source, how can these be better than simply making the citation by hand? Just curious, not looking for an argument, just information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Let's not scatter the discussion over several venues. Please discuss it on the article talk page, where I have already placed an opinion. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This query is derived from the article talk but I am asking more specifically about the cite templates anywhere and their value. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Citation templates add a level of organisation to the page; highly organised pages demonstrate to other editors and to potential vandals that someone is home and minding the store. High profile and frequently vandalised pages become more stable and less vandalised. I've seen this happen on several articles on which I've worked, most remarkably on Adolf Hitler, which I took to GA in December. All the citations use Harvard citations and cite web/cite book templates. The citations in the references section form clickable links down to the bibliography. It's a whole new ball game and a whole new level of organisation that gives a level of professionalism to the article that was not there when I started. I understand what you mean that many users do not know how to use the citation templates properly, but that's easily rectified by watch-listing articles that have been converted and making corrections if needed.

Once all the citations are in citation templates, they can be removed from their positions inline and placed down at the bottom; this system is called list-defined references. This system is good for articles that are pretty stable and use a lot of online sources. What happens is all the citations are brought down out of the prose and placed down-below in the references section. It makes editing the prose so much easier! but getting everything into templates is a necessary first step. Check out Reinhard Heydrich, which uses a combination of book and web citations with the web citations in list-defined references.

Okay, here's another thing: There's a script available for detecting errors in Harvard citations at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. Have a look at the documentation page at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors; you can see what it does: It highlights for the editor if there's a citation that does not align with any of the books in the bibliography, and highlights any books in the bibliography that are not actually cited. So there's an added level of verifiability; we don't have stuff cited to, say, "Smith (2004) p. 5" and there's no book by Smith listed in the sources. These arguments for citation templates are in addition to the technical advantages I already mentioned at Talk:Bob Hope. -- Dianna (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks for taking the time to spell this all out. I don't see the argument that "most editors do not even know what information to add" as being important because in my experience, most editors make no, little, or a mistaken attempt to follow the existing referencing style precisely—no matter what style is used. But so what? The point about WP is that other editors will come along and fix things. The benefits of the templates (neatly catalogued above) simply outweigh any supposed negatives (which is perhaps why they have over 1.5 million uses in articles—and growing). To be honest, I'm also tired of the WP:RETAIN argument. To me, that goes to the heart of the problem with some editors because I feel they sometimes lose sight of why we are here: to provide articles to readers. Using Cite may not be RETAIN to editors, but (if done properly) should not transgress RETAIN for readers. Thanks again Diannaa for your assistance, and for taking the time to educate us all. GFHandel ♬  01:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is starting to make some sense, although my initial major criticism of the templates was that only one style was accommodated, that being based on the American Psychological Association (APA) style while the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide was essentially ignored. I had asked many moons ago for some changes from the template designers and felt rebuffed by their admonition that if you didn't like to use the template system, no one forced you to use it. I considered the following as issues:

  1. Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
  2. Cite templates, despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they continue to output errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
  3. Cite templates were originally intended for neophytes and casual users to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
  4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not easily allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media, requiring an ever-growing number of specialized templates.
  5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
  6. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.

Once the debate on a recent talk page drew in other template warriors, I knew there would not be much more to say, except to someone that at least had a collegial and non-confrontational air about her comments. Thank you for that, and for the chat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

I don't actually see templates generating a lot of bad output or formatting errors, at least not in the templates that I most commonly use: cite book, cite web, cite journal. Most instances of bad output are wetware errors, not the fault of the templates. All of these templates will accept up to nine authors. There's also an all-purpose template, {{citation}}, but it's more expensive as far as post-expand include size, so I don't use it unless I have to. -- Dianna (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've tried migrating to the all-purpose citation template, but find comfort in using the oldies: cite book, news, web, journal. Oh yea, you've got email, Diannaa. : ). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet Another Edit War

Hi Dianna, please take a look at this article. There apppears to be an anon IP who is determined to addsome info. Thanks SH 12:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

to Tommy's tools

Most of you are well educated, with deep philosophies. Pete Townshend works for me.

Some elevate pinball to a religion, with a structured church. Been there, done that.

Some realize, sooner or later, that pinball is just a game, and is played by some seriously shady characters.

The numbers changed, I got bored. They will again, as will I.

Later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For standing up for an unpopular position, and for fighting group-think in general. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

-- Thanks! Love your wee joke -- Dianna (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. So that's why the admin logo is a mop... —Torchiest talkedits 22:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your'e welcome. I do lots of work with files, so this was right up my alley. -- Dianna (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Tabsor (1918)

Thanks for the pat on the back, and for tweaking The Mouse Comes to Dinner (whose plot summary is still longer than the cartoon, but I tried :-)). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines

Hi Dianna. Here's the history file of that article. You'll see that Lfstevens copy edited it on 13 July and another user made additions on 15 July. Then User:Tambolong26 reverted to the version before the copy edit. After asking them not to do this and to work more collaboratively, I restored the improved version. However, Tambolong26 has done it again today. Please would you do whatever is appropriate? I will make Tambolong26 aware that I have posted this message. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. When I saw that old month tag pop up, I went and updated it to July 2012, thinking the editor had simply copy pasted the month/year from the refimprove tag. —Torchiest talkedits 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about that, Torchiest. We can straighten out any tagging once Dianna has decided how best to handle the situation. --Stfg (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor's sole activity here has been to edit this one list, so I expect there are some ownership issues. I have reverted back to the IP's version and will watch-list. I also placed a note on Tambolong26's talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it. Thanks Dianna, that was very neat. --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Football in Canada?

Hi Dianna. I'm in the middle of copy editing an article about a Canadian secondary school that lists its sports teams, including soccer, rugby and "football". What sort of football would that mean, for a Canadian school? I've marked it {dn} for now, but it might be nice to put in the right one if poss. TIA. --Stfg (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Football means Canadian football, which is like American football but with a bigger field and three downs instead of four. "Soccer" means association football. -- Dianna (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never heard of Canadian football, and nor will most Brits have, so I've spelled it out and linked it. In the UK, "football" means soccer, but we may say soccer to make clear we don't mean rugby. I guess the unadorned word "football" should be avoided at all costs. --Stfg (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. and Tom Wilkinson shouldn't need disambiguation -- Dianna (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ahem, <cough>, well ... no, never mind. I s'pose it could be to distinguish from this one, d'you think? I mean, what else could it be, really? --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
O, I never heard of him. How many Grey Cup rings does he have? I see only one ring, hmm -- Dianna (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: July Newsletter and August Drive

EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Eletric monkey 1

Could you take a look at this guy's contributions please? He has vandalised several pages and is a brand new user. I think he needs to be blocked. He has ignored warnings. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here.

Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress).

Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Albert Speer

Currently, the Speer entry is based on "a handful of English-language biographies and histories . . . the kind of reading one would do if you were writing a historical novel". (The quote is from Richard Evans's scathing review of what he called "[p]ossibly the worst" biography of Hitler ever written). When you revert my edit, you restore a propagandistic portrait of Speer that contains untenable assertions based on information that is years, in some cases nearly a decade, out of date. Germans were susceptible to Nazi propaganda because the government was in total control; there is no excuse for you to be keeping the article like something out of Nazi propaganda organs.

Take one egregious example: Before my edit, the lede—the lede—contained this: "Speer was so successful that Germany's war production continued to increase despite massive and devastating Allied bombing." Turning to pp. 556–7 of Tooze's book, which was published six years ago, one discovers: "The German war economy after 1942 was limited by the same fundamental trade-offs that had restricted it since the first years of the war. And by the summer of 1943, these constraints, combined with the first systematic attack against German industry by Allied bombers, brought Speer's 'miracle' to a complete halt." And note Tooze refers to it as a 'miracle' rather than a miracle; you'd know why if you'd have read Tooze's book. It is your error-strewn, moth-eaten article that commits POV—a pro-Speer POV. The same point can be made about Speer's anti-destruction efforts and his purported concern for German civilians.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the fundamental problem is your arrogance not enjoying my correcting your outdated knowledge. You might like to think you know what you're talking about, but I would encourage you to extend your reading beyond standard popular works before involving yourself further. Worse, even if Schwendemann's article is locked away in JSTOR, Tooze's book is available in any major bookshop. Skirtsy My talkEdits 20:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to start a discussion on the talk page of the article, not here. I will copy your remarks over there. -- Dianna (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your review of Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner!

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Hawkeye! I loves kittens. <3 <3 -- Dianna (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Very brave

[1] You do know that Gimmeetoo is an administrator, with all those extra powers? Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We've been so short of drama lately, so I figured, why not? hee hee. -- Dianna (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed when I started this thread that you were also brave enough to take on the GA review of one of the most controversial English judges of the 20th century, so thanks for that. I've made a few tweaks that will hopefully address your concerns, so see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yea, since I'm nominating some I have to review some. This one was easy, as everything was so nicely done from the get-go. I will get over there shortly and review your amendments. -- Dianna (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Sean Combs GA review

There were some corrections over at the Sean Combs GA review. If you like I could help with the references and go through them myself. Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for tackling this review. I will have a look.-- Dianna (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I took care of the remaining problems myself and the article is now passed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much! See you around. -- Dianna (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Crown of Creation

For the complete list, see User:Diannaa/Soundtrack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_oJ64K-z2g

Sean Combs GA

Nice work! --John (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, John! -- Dianna (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Who'd have believed it, looking at the state of the article only a few months ago. Excellent job Diannaa. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Malleus. And thank you for your copy edits to the lede shortly after promotion to GA! Much appreciated :) -- Dianna (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Anything can be improved I suppose, but I hadn't actually noticed that the article had already been promoted. Duh! Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Diannaa. A testimony to hard work and perseverance. GFHandel ♬  21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Dianna (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries; you deserve it (and more). BTW, I mentioned you at a current ANEW action (but in a nice way). Oh, and thanks for the ongoing work at Bob Hope. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  07:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
For Bob Hope, I have two books here, one on intra-library loan, and I'm hoping to find enough material to clean up and source the whole article. That would be great; it's an important topic. Re;Sean Combs - I am posting something on the talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:10 8 composite.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading File:10 8 composite.jpeg. 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) 04:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

90.199.99.147

Hello D. I just want to let you know that this IP 90.199.99.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has returned to exactly the same editing pattern for which you blocked them. Whoever this person is they have edited from several IP addresses all locating to Burton-on-Trent and they have never responded to messages or changed the way they edit. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This particular IP has now been blocked by Ponyo. Please let me know if/when the activity resumes on a different IP, or file a report at WP:AIV. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_20&oldid=1144945723"