...just because a naked talk page is sad to see. -- Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kittehpictar.jpg...and what would "unnecessary talk page filler" be without a "kitteh" picture?
...in case you are wondering, the picture on the left, is one of my three cats. Her name is Peppermint (Mom named her). I swear she is smiling for this picture. - NeutralHomerT:C 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Flyguy, that's all killer, no filler ;) And that cat does look very happy :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as well you both look like you were going for some record of sorts :( SatuSuro 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! And next time you want to thank someone for reverting userspace vandalism, feel free to use {{subst:vangel}} (shameless plug) — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 08:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same vandal as described here, probably from somewhere in the 91.108 block. I'd suggest asking a checkuser to find the new IP range to block, the war of attrition against socks is tedious. Sorry about your userpage, it's one of the dozen or so most popular lightning rods for this sort of thing. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise my comments on this MfD were intended as humorous? Both you and ^demon seem to have taken them somewhat too seriously - [2][3]. I wasn't trying to make editcount a big issue; it was a comment intended to lighten the mood in a somewhat contentious MfD (in which, incidentally, I didn't have a strong opinion). WaltonOne 09:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did I say something to offend you? If so, I didn't mean to, and my post certainly wasn't meant to be hostile. WaltonOne 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all! Sorry... I didn't meant to be curt, I just saw a message unreplied to and couldn't really think of what to say apart from that. 'I see'. lol... ~ Riana ⁂ 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem - I mistook the shortness of the reply for curtness. To clarify, I'm certainly not an advocate of editcountitis (at RfA or elsewhere); indeed, my comment was kind of intended to highlight the irony of judging people by editcount (since I'm a few places behind User:Terryeo, who has been community-banned). :-) WaltonOne 16:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I Just wanted to ask you about interwikis. If there is an available article on the Simple English Wikipedia, should it be linked in the interwiki section on articles. I have seen them linked in many articles before but another user has a different opinion (see here). Just wanted the opinion of an admin to avoid a possible edit war. Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do add interwiki links to Simple. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Would it be ok for me to link here in the my edit summary saying that we should add Interwikis to Simple? Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go for it :) ~ Riana ⁂ 12:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
then? Maybe you guys should change that, since Simple English is not a different language. I don't care if it says interwiki or whatever, it says DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, so someone should explain that to me, because Simple English is not a different language. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 15:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is a different language edition of Wikipedia. "Simple English" is written differently than "English". Cbrown1023talk 15:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The words displayed under that heading is the language's name in that language, which is why es: is "Español" (Spanish), ja: is "日本語" (Japanese), ru: is "Русский" (Russian), etc. "Simple English" is the name. EVula// talk // ☯ // 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dead Wrong, It may not be a different language, but it is a different version of a language. it is another edition of wikipedia and should therefore be linked. Where else would we link it? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, no need to jump to the defensive, I only thought that maybe you didn't understand seeing as you said that it should be changed. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, random Q - So I was mindlessly browsing Wikipedia and I somehow came across your Talk Page. To the point - How did you learn about formatting your page to look the way it does, with the borders and headers etc? I think it's a sweet layout, though it has that blatant hint of girlishness haha. Just curious - HOOK A FELLOW INDIAN UP!!! :) => Harish - 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riana, please kindly assist Mangwanani who has been working almost single handedly on Wiki Project Zimbabwe. Most of us lack technical ability like yours. Many thanks for your consideration.
You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe,
a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!
Hey, sure, sounds interesting. I'm not really on the English Wikipedia too much these days, but I'd be glad to help out where needed. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks!!! Part 12:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riana. You removed the {{db-c1}} tag from this category "for record keeping". However, the category contains no pages, someone manually added those users to the category text. Is it really necessary to preserve this empty category? His former alternate accounts are listed on his userpage anyway, so the category would appear redundant to me. Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not. Feel free to relist. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now exists as United Provinces Of Sergana. I nominated to AFD before noticing the subtle spelling difference. Feel free to work with the AFD or delete as before, if you have that right. - CobaltBlueTony 18:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I am not able to function this site properly. Is it all right if we contact by e-mail? Ulises Heureaux 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daily creep prescription... *sigh* Will(talk) 10:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's tamer than the ones Shanel used to (and might still do; I don't know) get; back when there were the attack user categories (you know, usernames like "Jimbo has a nigger 2 inch cock", etc) Will(talk) 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again, if you have a bit of time to spare please kindly make my user page sexy (I lack the technical prowess). I have confidence that whatever you decide will be sexy, just playing my part, if you see what I mean. Many thanks. Part 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the Tibetan/Chinese infoboxes have been affected by vandalism on a template or something see Dhingri -it blanks or ruined 800+ articles can you sort it thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your reversion on the Infobox Settlement template has fixed it... are any still showing up wrong? Pinball22 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riana! I've finally started working on RFPP again (I said I would in my RFA, read the policy, went over a few requests...and postponed it until now), but I was wondering if requests like this one (userpage requests by the user) should be protected or declined; it isn't specifically mentioned in WP:PPOL. Thanks! · AndonicOTalk 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, never mind, it's under semi-protection. Sorry to bother. · AndonicOTalk 21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to understand this username block[4]. I assume that you understand what the original reporting user meant by "The "Internet Coffee Phone" vandalism", so I'm just trying to get my head around how/why this username was a violation. SamBC(talk) 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Sam, the 'internet coffee phone' thing is a recent 4chan meme. There's been a bit of vandalism surrounding it lately and a few usernames created referencing it. Hope that helps ~ Riana ⁂ 17:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, CSCWEM blocked a name that was a blatant reference to the "So I Herd You Liek Mudkipz" meme last week on the same basis. -Jéské(v^_^vKacheek!) 19:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a 4chan meme. I was honestly confused at how exactly the username was bad (as per my note on UAA), especially given the odd warning placed with it. EVula// talk // ☯ // 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the reporter -- I realize it wasn't exactly descriptive, but I couldn't think of how to explain it, and hoped the admin that looked at it would know what I was talking about. What should I have said to explain better, in case something like this comes up in the future? Gscshoyru 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis fine, someone would have come along eventually - and judging by that user's unblock request, they were up to no good anyway ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, reporting it as being related to the meme (with a diff or a link) would have been nice. I wasn't aware of the vandalism being mentioned in the report[5], and the user's contribs (including deleted ones) were completely clean, which is why I was rather confused. Moot point now, but in the future, providing links rather than just mentioning things would be welcome; had I known it was tied to a stupid 4chan meme, I would have blocked immediately. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, I didn't even know about the meme-- all I knew is that a bunch of users were replacing parts of articles with INTERNET COFFEE PHONE. I couldn't think of a link to any explanation or previous user either -- I hadn't dealt with any for a while. So what I did was the best I could think of. Gscshoyru 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, fair enough. Obviously, the system still works, so it's all good. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for banning that vandal :) Now the vmk board does not have so much vandalism its annoying. Once again thank you :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacheatcode (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Riana! Someone using the IP address 125.26.56.63, vandalized my user page. Can you find about this IP? Thank you. 02:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
They vandalised yours and another around the same time and then stopped [6], so there's no need to block. You can find out about the IP by clicking on the Whois link on the bottom of the IP's talk page. The IP is in Thailand. -- Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. All the best. RS1900 03:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thailand...? Geez Riana, talking about multicultural Australia, your userpage has a continent of its own... --DarkFallstalk 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstood something there... --DarkFallstalk 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Riana. I'm a bit astonished to see you close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Asteraki/Pascha as "no consensus". The way I see it, there were four unambiguous "deletes" (including the nomination statement), one "keep" (by RucasHost (talk·contribs)) that was so poorly argued/worded that it wasn't even discernable what page he was talking about (the description "a well designed userpage with references to various historical figures" doesn't remotely match any of the five pages involved, let alone all of them, and he didn't respond to a request for clarification, so I'd have expected that vote to be discounted); and one opinion (by Geo Swan (talk·contribs)) who first said keep but then changed his mind to delete with respect to at least two of the pages (User:Asteraki/Pascha and User:Kamikazi2/Greek macedonian of german wiki). These two are GFDL violations anyway, because they mirror deleted content from de-wiki. (Okay, I admit I didn't bring forward that argument in the discussion.) Moreover, a third one turned out to have been a copyvio in most of its parts too.
Would you reconsider? Thanks, Fut.Perf.☼ 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh! Now how did that happen? I don't think I was concentrating at the time, I knew I was going to close that one as delete but something got rewired up there, apparently ;) Deleting. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, happens easily I suppose. :-) No problem. Perhaps you were mixing it up with another user-page MfD that's currently open, with partly the same people arguing on it? There's one where I actually can see it going towards a "no consensus". Fut.Perf.☼ 16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it must have been, I was trying to read them all at once. Bad idea. Hope it's all good now :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please unprotect my userpage so I can make a quick adjustment to it? I plan on making a revamped page in the future, but for now I want to swap out quotes for something more optimistic. Please protect the page when I'm done, OK? Thanks! --Kyoko 17:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done for now. We can maybe see if semi-protection is sufficient, or if full protection is again needed. Whaddya think of the new quote? :) --Kyoko 17:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this worked well as a general quote, and it was nicer than a lot of other things I could have picked. --Kyoko 17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's best not to let my page be moved to Wikipedia:Main Page. Oops, I spilled the beans! --Kyoko 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also one way to say "Please desysop me!" I don't even know if it's possible to move a userpage onto the main page. Maybe if both pages are unprotected. Better not try it out, though. --Kyoko 17:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to request if you could protect all of my userpages? I wont be editing as much and will therefore not be able to check them that regularly. Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can semiprotect your userpage and user subpages for you, but I'd rather not fully protect it - or your talk, just in case people leave messages for you that others can resolve even if you're not there to do so. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you fully protect my userpages but not my talk page. I would prefer my talk page to be left fully unprotected to allow me to receive messages from anon users. It is just my userpages that I am concerned about. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) ~ Riana ⁂ 17:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your help, but now I cant edit my userpage :(? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a protecttion which allow me and admins to edit my page but nobody else?. If not could you please leave it on semi-protection?. Thanks--¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didnt notice that you had already changed it :). Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this notice has been placed in error. That page was created by myself based on Sir John Sainty's lists of Vice Admirals of the Coasts placed online by the Institute of Historical Research and duly linked as a reference. The page referenced in the OTRS notice deals entirely with the history of one particular holder of the office, and, indeed, gives a date for his appointment (1632) conflicting with Sainty's information (apptd. 14 September1638 in succession to James Bagg, dec'd. 26 August1638). In short, the content from the page in question is not reflected in Vice-Admiral of Cornwall and the notice is not correct in asserting that it has been. Thanks, Choess 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Choess, the notice isn't for the content that is currently on it - the OTRS ticket is from another user requesting to use someone else's content, and they have given permission to use their text under the GFDL. I assume the editors have not placed this text in the article yet. Perhaps I can comment out the confirmation notice until the text is actually there? Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's OK, then. Sorry if I was a little curt; I thought that referred to the current content. If it refers to changes someone's going to make, that's no problem. Choess 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I should have stopped to think that it might look that way :) ~ Riana ⁂ 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? was updated. On 29 September, 2007, a fact from the article Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar?, which you recently wrote, uh nominated, uh, WROTE THE BRILLIANT HOOK FOR!, andhelped inspire (in the super secret cabal channel), was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, blah blah blah.
I just remembered something else about the song too - when we used to play it, when you're assigned numbers, if you forgot your number you were out of the game. Lots of variations possible here. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 18:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly. We're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 02:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SanFrancisco49ers 1000.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:SanFrancisco49ers 1000.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
I note that this user, or perhaps a group of users who share an ISP and a remarkably similar set of preoccupations, make similar edits to this set of articles on a fairly regular basis:
Have you any idea what the "docg" that appears in the user's edit summaries refers to? I'm fairly certain it's not this, even if the editor is in Italy :)
I've protected two of those articles for a month for repeated vandalism and certainly for preventing him of starting over again.--JForget 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that JForget. The range seems too wide for a range block so I suppose the best I can do at this point is file an abuse report with the ISP and semiprotect his targets as they come up. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the List of stuff article by the argument "The result was speedily deleted". I remind you that more people voted for Keep then for Delete (7 Keeps, 4 Deletes), so please restore it. The discussion can be found [here]. Thank you. M.V.E.i. 20:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you that AfD is not a vote count, to actually read the keep comments before mentioning them, and that deletion review is that-a-way. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent him several messages but he has removed them. I'm really not a sock puppet. Thanks, regards, --Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not ;) I saw 'behn chode' in the edit summary and left a final warning, but then I actually saw how ridiculous the sock tags were and just blocked anyway. ~ Riana ⁂ 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, just wanted to say we're both Indians from Australia (As one of the users who's supposed to be my sock puppet, Blofeld, told me). I'm currently living in Melbourne, so nice to meet you. Have a great day! --Shahid • Talk2me 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the above page for a suggestion on getting this article back on track.
Cordially, Drieux 03:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drieux, thanks for the note. I'll keep an eye on the discussion as it progresses, your note certainly seems, well, sane enough. Hopefully others will agree. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offended that you templated me. As you know, the three revert rule does not apply in cases of vandalism. I have attempted to use the talk pages for the Alcoholics Anonymous and Twelve-step program articles article to discuss these edits with the user to no avail. If you have other suggestions, I would appreciate them. If not, you should semi-protect the article. -- Craigtalbert 05:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that it is 'vandalism' is false, and you saidsoyourself. Directly quoting WP:VAND, What vandalism is not: "NPOV violations - The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned". Reverting what you claim to be POV-pushing is not an excuse for breaking the three-revert rule, contrary to what you claim above ("the three revert rule does not apply in cases of vandalism").
Furthermore, if the article was to be protected, it would be fully-protected, as this is a content dispute, not vandalism. Daniel 05:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those are fair points. I could have sworn I read that blatant POV edits were considered vandalism. If I did, I can't find the policy saying so now. But, be fair, not only did I ask 207.232.97.13 to stop reverting and discuss the matter on the talk page, he/she was also warned byTiptoety. 207.232.97.13 was reverting after being warned, and continued to post the blatant POV edits without discussing them on the talk page.
I did misinterpret the semi-protection policy. I thought it was appropriate to request semi-protection for all POV-pushing, but after reading it again, it's clear that it's just for biographies. I apologize for that. -- Craigtalbert 07:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, look, I hate to sound entitled. But being templated by an admin really rubs me the wrong way. I've spent hundreds of hours researching the articles I've written. I've done my level best to follow wikipedia policies and write good, neutral, well-researched, encyclopedic content. I'm at 3403 edits. I deserve to be treated a little better than a shared IP address. -- Craigtalbert 07:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IP address is not shared - take a look at the talkpage. I'm sorry if you felt offended by the 3RR template, but it conveys information that I would prefer not to make up on the spot for fear of leaving something out. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue is that when there is someone trying to do good work on an article, this kind of drive-by templating obscures what's actually going on. Now it looks like there's a sock-puppet address attempting to restore the same information [10], [11]. It's pretty clear what the score with this article is, if you take the time to look. Templates threating to block me doesn't solve any of these problems. -- Craigtalbert 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Templates threatening to block me" - No, I will block anyone who breaks 3RR past a warning. That includes you or anonymous users. The content is not my issue. The behaviour is. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user had been warned, I left a comment on the talk page, he/she ignored it, continued to revert, I asked for protection, you provided none, and templated me. What 207.232.97.13 did constituted vandalism, if on different grounds that I originally thought. I agree the content is not your issue, but following policies should be. Ignoring requests for help and drive-by templating/blocking doesn't make anything better - neither does insisting that it would after the fact. -- 07:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigtalbert (talk • contribs)
To my friend the tireless contributor, Riana, for all her hard work. :) Spawn Man 10:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been welcoming users for the last 20 mins, and during my travels, I've seen your name pop up so many times, it's not funny! You really are a tireless contributor Riana - I look up to you. :) See you around. Spawn Man 10:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, a spinny one! Thanks Spawny, haven't seen you around a whole lot lately. Take care! ~ Riana ⁂ 10:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I've been behind the scenes editing my FAC and Vampire with another editor - hopefully that'll be my next FA. Other than that, I've been voting on AfDs and keeping my nose out of trouble. No arguments for the last 6 months (Knock on wood). ;) Anyway, there's a possible impersonator of you I reported to UAA which you might want to take a gander at. See you around Riana. :) Sincerly, Spawn Man 11:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Riana. Can you check that an OTRS ticket is genuinely giving permission to use the images, such as Image:Sushmita_Sen.jpg. This one? Thanks! So, you were one of the mugsbrave editors who decided to nominate KM at RFA? Hmm, not sure what I think about that. Every time I start looking at Kelly's edits, esp. in wikispace, my blood pressure starts to rise. Not a good sign. Still, NYBrad said what I feel, only much better than I could, so I doubt if I will comment. Angus McLellan(Talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the OTRS ticked does indeed point to permission to license the image under CC by 3.0. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, like spookily fast! Thanks. I reckoned it did since Riana had edited half a dozen of the images. Angus McLellan(Talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Until1is2 and Angus. That was indeed a very generous offer on behalf of the blog. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riana, I am sorry to have to bring this matter to your attention. An anonymous user User talk:209.136.71.163 is repeatedly vandalising the Anna Anderson page and also resorting to personal abuse of other contributors via alteration of an external link -
You will notice 209.136.71.163 has been given repeated warnings of the consequences of their actions on many occasions and has not desisted. The Anna Anderson page has settled down considerably over the last number of months after being very unpleasant. It would appear that 209.136.71.163 needs to be blocked for a period. Can you investigate please? Thanks in advance, Finneganw 01.31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is really random, but I've heard you're a great wikipedian, so here goes- My adoptee is having trouble with her signature, but I'm completely lost on what to do for it. Her sig has the same bug that mine had awhile ago, but I'm not sure how mine went away. This is what it puts down when you check it on edit this page-
Do you know anything that I could do for this? Thanks in advance! --PolarWolf ( sign ) 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think she forgot to click off the 'raw signature' option. Tell her to put
[[User:Summerluvin|<span style="color:turquoise; font-family:'centurygothic';">'''Summer'''</span>]][[User talk:Summerluvin|<font color="teal" face="centurygothic">'''luvin'''</font>]] in again and have another go :) ~ Riana ⁂ 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! :) --PolarWolf ( sign ) 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A recent range hardblock is causing collateral damage here. I don't know the reasons behind the hardblock. I can leave it to you or I can help if you bring me up to speed.--Chaser - T 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chaser, a lot of sleeper sockpuppetry harassing The JPS from that range - and anyone who helps revert the vandalism. I will unblock Exxon's IPs as they pop up. I know it's not an ideal situation but I can't think of a better solution right now. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this a few times over the past couple days...what is OTRS? I tried to find out, but you need a password and whatever. I am just curious. Take Care...NeutralHomerT:C 05:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTRS. It is basically a group of highly experienced admins, such as Riana, who handle emails sent to the Wikimedia foundation, mainly concerning information, libel removal, copyright release, and other confidential work. --DarkFallstalk 08:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot I posted this question here :) I didn't actually know there was such a thing. Maybe she might be able to help me. I had sent in a request to use some information someone else created (and a email from that person saying it was OK) to Wikimedia. I heard second hand that, after three tries, it was denied but never heard anything else about it. The page is question was Stephens City, Virginia and the information was a detailed history created by the Newtown History Center (the historical society in Stephens City). Perhaps Riana could go back through and see why that was denied? I would appericate it. Take Care....NeutralHomerT:C 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete that. I gave that page as evidence to the police, and now it is deleted. Whether or not this is a hoax, is irrelevant. — Moeε 18:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just undeleted it. DGG (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The matter has been resolved with the police. The page contains personal information. I am surprised you do not see that. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete within a half an hour or so once this has blown over and it's confirmed finished over there. I believe it needs to be visible until then, please. — Moeε 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F has reported it to the police and reported back to the mailing list. Some kid playing a hoax. Can I re-delete now please, or do we have to be responsible for getting this kid in further trouble? ~ Riana ⁂ 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free, it appears he's back and editing. [12] — Moeε 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do have some idea of what I'm doing. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can never be too careful. — Moeε 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riana, I think you handled this the right way. Thanks. DurovaCharge! 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did fine :-) There's a decent discussion on wikimediauk-l as well. - David Gerard 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Idiots... wasting our time and the polices.... Nicely handled by the way Riana ;) --DarkFallstalk 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm always impressed by your calm, sensitive approach to teenagers who cause a bit of trouble. I'm thinking of one teenager in particular, as I'm sure you and Alison and Deskana will remember! ElinorD(talk) 23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riana - good call, BTW - Alison❤ 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call as it turned out, but without a detailed explanation at the time Moe's request was prudent, and so was my undelete. Protection of people comes first. DGG (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I read your e-mail and I was only just informed about the ANI posting. I received information about the page via e-mail (the mailing list). I'm very sorry if I made you guys feel foolish, or made it look in any way like you were doing the wrong thing - it was not my intention in the least. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with DGG. No harm, no foul. I, at the time, thought you had read AN/I and did that, which I was wrong in assuming so. I understand your position which you took and the comments you made afterwards were in good faith. — Moeε 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Archive 33! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers,hmwith talk 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For just being an all around great user, I award you The Barnstar (P.S. don't mind this guy; he just wanted to meet you *so* badly.) —[[Animum | talk]] 01:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst retrospectively I do agree with the decline decision at the moment, just to make you aware, that a similar article, The Troubles, with all the same editors, including One Night In Hackney (who commented on the RfPP) has gone all the way to RfAr, and continues to be a very very lengthy ongoing debate. These issues are contentious for the obvious reasons - just a heads up that Orange Institution may head in the same direction as it's the same teams of editors involved. Liverpool Scouse 15:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on anyone's team for the record, thanks for assuming good faith though.... One Night In Hackney303 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm. Keeping an eye on it. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For being able to be both totally serious and totally fun at the same time, and being able to recognize the best times for both, I hereby award you the Tactful LOL award...
Is this name okay? I've been blocked so many times trying to find a suitable one.I'ts a little dorky, but at least it's shorter, which was the main complaint.--Swing, Baby, Swing! 12:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, even if the edit was accidental, maintaining it would appear to be a violation of the sysop right to edit protected pages. Being a party to the mediation process, I would appreciate if you could restore the article to the state it was at the lock and inform admin Omegatron as to the impropriety of making such edits.
Is this something that needs to be brought up on WP:ANI?
Thank you. -- Avi 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note on Omegatron's talk and reverted the article. This should probably be at ANI, either as a continuation of the previous thread or a new one. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice the article was protected, though I don't see why my editing of a protected page would be bad anyway, as I am not involved in a content dispute or trying to "gain the upper hand" in one. What is that about?
I was editing to try to meet the concerns Avi made on my talk page (if I understand them correctly), as well as users on the article's talk page, and some comments I saw in the mediation discussion, which he pointed out to me.
Hi, You have, as I requested, semi-protected my userpage rather than fully protect. However, my sub-pages are still fully protected and I cant edit them. Could you please make all of my userpages/subpages semi-protected?. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you protected the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article, regardless of whether your action is justified or not, you forgot to put the "large" protection template. Cheers, --Pejman47 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the template to the larger one, so everyone's clear now - Alison❤ 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riana. User:Hindu-Boar has started questioning the license and has been tagging the images with factual accuracy disputed. Please can you set the record straight with him and confirm its verification- he is convices it is false. PLease respond to this thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 11:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commented at ANI. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you =D I have been contributing a lot on Norse Mythology articles, but my IPs changed randomly (^_^); I have accounts, but forgot the password, and my email's password too ;p This is the first time I see a nice person here, BTW 222.252.229.56 10:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for hijacking your user talk page, Riana. Anonymous IP user, why not consider posting under a registered name? Although we got off to a bad start, you've contributed a lot of good work to numerous articles I've focused on and it seems like you're getting the gist of things. Won't you consider making a permanent user account? :bloodofox: 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could probably unprotect John Stossel. We've been working on a section to replace the disputed area - discussion and example viewable under Example. Once unprotected, we'll replace the list under the section "Controversies" with the text offered under Example. At this point, there are no objections to replacing the text and disputes have been worked out, but not everyone has commented. So I hope that we'll be able to replace it without edit wars and then tweak as needed. If it becomes an issue again, we can always reprotect it. Thanks Morphh(talk)19:22, 06 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see the discussion has gone well. The protection has expired by now anyway, so I've removed the template from the page. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! OneCoolKid has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, OneCoolKid 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[13] *sniff*. First the Rugby World Cup loss to England and now this Your poor sock is feeling down... --DarkFallstalk 02:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Time rub it in your face after a rather embarassing Ashes... Will(talk) 09:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to find out where this user is located? I don't appericate the comments made in this diff or this diff as they are completely false and completely uncalled for. Since the website in question was operated by me (has since been taken offline) I have had to deal with problems, lies and other crap from whoever this person is on different websites and don't wish to have deal with them here. Personally I would like to press charges (as my email accounts, website accounts, and accounts for other websites were hacked). If possible, could a block also be placed on this user's account for the time being as well? I would appericate it. Take Care....NeutralHomerT:C 06:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... seems to have taken one helluva beating! I've semiprotected it, feel free to ask me or at RFPP if you want it lifted. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, and your talk too, for the next 3 hours. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed :) All it does is get him blocked (came in as sockpuppets from 4 accounts I know of) and it increases my "page vandalized" counter. I guess I must be doing something right. Thanks for your help. Let's keep it semi-prot for a while. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 12:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Rather than protecting a signature template like you did here, you may want to consider letting the user know that transcluding such templates is forbidden. Have a nice day. --PEJL 13:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know he was transcluding it. I'm only human 0:) You have a nice day too. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but why else would one want a signature template protected? --PEJL 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you all know, I am working on making the length of my signature less then I will replace all of the templates ones with the new one. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are allowed to place {{subst:User:Example/sig}} in the signature box. So if the template is changed it won't changed the existing substituted forms but it will change from then on. I was not protecting his signature page in particular, but his whole userspace, according to his request. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. (Out of curiosity, how does one tell that the protection request was for the entire userspace?) --PEJL 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could just quickly check the history of the subpages and then youll be able to tell if they have the same edit summary from the admin protecting. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 13:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, did you mean to protect homeopathy indefinitely? It seems like there's just one editor there who's insisting on adding a tag without adequate explanation or discussion; there appear to be a lot of other editors who are making reasonable, referenced edits to the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not indefinitely, but it's been hovering near the top of my watchlist for the past 4-5 days and I'm not sure what expiry time to set. Feel free to set an expiry time or suggest one to me. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind... set it for 1 day this time. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) I dare not set an expiry time – or worse, lift the protection – myself; I've occasionally commented on the various disputes there and someone would no doubt start crying 'OMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!' if I used my buttons.
I agree that there's been the odd heated comment and the last few days have seen some fairly active editing. It's a pretty contentious topic that has some dedicated adherents, and for whatever reason our article has attracted attention recently. Nevertheless, I wouldn't say that there's been any serious problem with edit warring until just the last couple of hours, and that's down to one editor (User:Whig) who's been repeatedly reverting to keep a POV template on the article. I know that sort of observation raises the "Yes, but it takes more than one editor to edit war" flag, but I do think that it applies here. I'm concerned that Whig's stubborn approach has resulted in a situation that prevents all the other editors from continuing to work productively.
Your call. I'd be inclined to go with a sternly-worded warning on the talk page before going to full-blown protection, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, twenty-four hours of cooling off probably won't hurt anyone there. Still, if Whig starts trying to game 3RR again tomorrow, I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye on him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(User:Whig) is arguing seriously and according to the rules . Some people from the other group too. But if you look at the talk page you will understand what it is going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is POV. Clearly. I tried to put a sign and it is reverted immediately. This group denies that there is another opinion in the forum.
If you look at the talk pages you will see that most of the references dont support what the article states.
Even the editors agreed with that.
[14][15]
best wishes
--Sm565 23:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
In homeopathy talk page we attempt to put all the studies together , evaluate what they say and report. some users they dont follow our kind requests and they write directly into the studies section in order to disrupt in my opinion ....can you protect the page? thanks--Sm565 16:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hellow please take a look at what the actuall request to Blyguyn was. He claimed more socks from the Toronto Tamil club which is a assumption based on no hard facts besides that the IP's were from Toronto. This is like saying that there such a club that edits wikipedia on certain basis. It is also like implying that "Tamils" are pov pushing. As such my request is proper. Thanks Watchdogb 05:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And were they not POV-pushing? ~ Riana ⁂ 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were they ? Maybe but were others editors ? Maybe. However, as editors we cannot decide if some one belongs to a certain ethnicity or not unless we have proof. So was that not a Personal attack or at least an attack towards a ethnicity saying that the "pov" pushers are Tamil ? Watchdogb 05:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are pushing a POV from a Tamil viewpoint they probably are Tamil, aren't they? Anyway, this could have been discussed in a reasonable manner rather than dropping a member of the arbitration comittee a templated warning. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am not trying to say my actions are right. If they are pushing a POV from a Tamil viewpoint they probably are Tamil, aren't they Really ? Who says that this is a Tamil POV ? Because it supports LTTE ? Again shouldn't an Arbcom member know better than not to assume that a certain ethnicity is doing something like that ? Watchdogb 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again - did you attempt to discuss this with him in a reasonable manner? ~ Riana ⁂ 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did not know that the first warning was going to be such a mess up. I though of asking to stop saying these comments even as a joke- thus the humor template warning. When I saw it came out wrong I myself deleted it and wrote a new request. However, there was an edit conflict which made me rewrite what I wrote. I am sure my comment on his page were reasonable the second time. Though, of course, the re revert of the second warning is wrong. What is your though ? Shouldn't an arbcom member at least be reasonable within his thoughts to not to assume things. Specially ones that would blame a ethnicity without proper proof ? Am I wrong to interpret something any way I can provided it is not limited to certain constraints ? Watchdogb 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he believes the trolls are being recruited, that is his belief and he will say so. I'm honestly not seeing the problem here. If you believe this is a major or ongoing issue take it to ANI. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to report Netmonger for a personal attack made against me here. This is not the first time this has happened. He has been blocked here about a week ago for posting a harassing message on my talk page here and sending me a vulgar harassing e-mail. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I realise it must have been pretty frustrating for you to watch it fall to pieces. Hope it goes better this time around and if you need a hand with anything, feel free to give me a yell ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 15:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Did you create the account m:User:Danzilgoes on Meta? (On the user page is claimed that it is your account. "Bot run by Riana from the English Wikipedia.", Majorly deleted it meanwhile.) I blocked it infinitely for vandalism, and I hope it was not you. --Thogo(Talk) 21:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if I say I'm Thogo I am Thogo? :P —DerHexer(Talk) 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I ask. :o) I don't really believe that this account is from Riana, but I think she should know that there are people impersonating her on Meta. --Thogo(Talk) 22:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol!!!! Anyone who knows me here knows that I (a) know nothing about bots and (b) hate vandalism with a fierce, burning, overriding, irrational vigor. I can't see any edits in the bot's contribs, have they been deleted? Anyway, thanks very much for taking care of it :) ~ Riana ⁂ 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a conflict of interest as the author, so if you wouldn't mind restoring it until it is transwikied I'd appreciate it. Thanks, —Doug Bell 05:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 08:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
to drop off this Smiley-faced Barnstar to say a templated thanks for considering the bathrobeclique. (Please do not rename this section header.) the_undertowtalk 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been putting up as many of these as I can, and getting complaints they're too ugly and obnoxious. Per the Village Pump discussion on the subject, I plan to upload versions with slightly softened colours. Is there any problem with this? It has in fact been discussed at length, with the one thing there is consensus on being that they're just a bit too crappy-looking ... - David Gerard 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Riana
Noel Hidalgo is coming to Adelaide on Friday October 12
He will be at the Central Market for breakfast at Lucias 8am
He is doing the http://luckofseven.com tour.
He is interested in meeting open source and free culture folk around the world.
Feel free to email me to check up about other times.
eg. Perhaps the Richmnd Hotel upstairs after 5pm on Friday evening for coffee drinks chat kinds of things.
Cheers Lucychili 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page User:Riana Test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mercury 04:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's where that sandbox page everyone's talking about is :x ~ Riana ⁂ 04:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm confused now. What exactly was that move all about? Why'd you do it? It has the same MO of a certain vandal... Gscshoyru 04:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol - I was testing to see whether the anti-vandal IRC bots would pick up my move. They didn't, which is a bit annoying. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. That's not good then... you mean that there are bots you can set up to pick up certain vandals' habits? Cool! Gscshoyru 04:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is! Join #cvn-wp-en and see the fun ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riana's being a rogue rouge admin today ;) --DarkFallstalk 05:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awww...Riana's in trouble!....OK, I thought I would jump in too :) - NeutralHomerT:C 06:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know... I've never joined an IRC channel in my life -- I don't know how. How would one do so -- what software, etc, would you suggest? Gscshoyru 12:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I use ChatZilla and sometimes XChat - they're both fairly easy programs for new users. We have our own IRC tutorial - the main things you need to do are get a good client (the software), and for WP channels join the freenode server. fter this you need to set up a nickname on the server and register it. Then you can join the IRC channels you want to - the main Wikipedia one is #wikipedia and the English Wikipedia one is #wikipedia-en. Hope that helps - those are the basics. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, a tutorial. Thanks! Gscshoyru 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make anyone else laugh that the only two "Master Editors" on Wikipedia are Riana and DarkFalls? No one else meets the criteria...they are the best (and congrats to them, by the way). Is it a good or bad thing when out of a "crapload" of editors and users only 2 of them can be considered "Master Editors"? Either way, congrats to Riana and DarkFalls, just wanted to give you all a rough time. :) - NeutralHomerT:C 06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol! Yes, we're good. And we know it. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they aren't necessarily the only two master editors. I created the service award categories in the past couple of days, and even more recently changed the service award instructions to non-subst code. Up until now, people were subst'ing the awards, and the categories weren't included in the templates, so anyone who added an award before then would not show up in the category. We really have no idea how many master editors there are out there.
Ah, this I did not know, Equazcion. Still cool though :) - NeutralHomerT:C 06:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no-one who meets the arbitary criteria would have added the category to their page even if the code was working. Have a look at the file links - no-one. Unless you're saying the image didn't substitute properly as well? Daniel 06:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually.... that's not the only image that would add someone to the master editors category. Although you could be right, as I haven't checked the other images' links.
I disagree with you deletion of noema. My judgement is based on the version of the entry show here (2nd section from the top), http://www.answers.com/topic/noema.
In deleting the entry you wrote, "concern was: not a philosophically significant concept outside of Husserl/phenomenology, and better treated in those articles. In addition, we've got a bunch of original research here":
2. Even if noema would be better treated in the phenomenology or Husserl entries it clearly isn't or at least not in the general way in which it was treated in the deleted entry. And in seeing how noema was treated in a general way in the deleted entry, it seems clear that such a general treatment, as is needed for an introduction to the concept of noema, would integrate poorly as part of another entry.
3. I can't say for sure but the deleted entry sure doesn't sound like original research.
Patrick Mhnin0 07:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were too many pop culture references in there for me but at least you have Tainted Love in my head for the rest of the night. Once I ran to you, now I run from you, this tainted love you've given... ~ Riana ⁂ 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the link is artists played in his episodes ("Last of the Time Lords", "End of the World" (twice), "The Sound of Drums"). And of course the bisexual fest that is Torchwood. Will(talk) 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing gay about the Rogue Traders! :o I even went to a concert of theirs and rocked out to Voodoo Child :p ~ Riana ⁂ 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the Voodoo Child montage was made of drugs and win. By the way, the soundtrack for series three is out in a month's time, yay (so's the ROTK score, and Bonfire night. Dammit.) Back to the point, I think RTD uses pop music too much. Was nice to hear "Abide with Me" in "Gridlock" though. Will(talk) 12:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Hey, can't seem to find it, do you have a link you could give me? ~ Riana ⁂ 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See here. He has only made a few edits but needs to be stopped under that user name before he goes any further. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riana, you've got mail! :) --Kyoko 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and what's this all about: "No drive-by barnstars. No smilies. No templated thank-yous. No attempts to affiliate me with your latest clique.", hmm? Just curious. --Kyoko 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kyoko - got your mail! I seem to be having some trouble sending mail myself though, half my recipients are receiving it and half aren't, but I'll see if you're one of the - ahem, lucky ones. :) And that message in my talk was me in a bad mood. Perhaps I should remove it - or maybe not :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my talk page has this notice: "Please be civil and respect that this is my talk page. That means avoiding excessive images (barnstars and smileys are fine, within reason), not treating my talk page as your personal chat room, and not altering your comments after the fact." All of this came in response to what other people did there, and I plan on keeping my notice. I'm not complaining about your one, BTW. As for cliques, my Love Cabal heart was more of a response to things you already know, rather than trying to belong to an elite group.
If you've sent me a message since last week, I haven't seen it. --Kyoko 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you were involved in the revert war that has been ongoing there, so thought I would ask for your input at Talk:United Kingdom#Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner. I hope we can take the matter forward there. Best wishes, --John 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one 'undo' and I'm involved. :) OK, I'll check it out. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Wikipedian Riana,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Thank you and good day.
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try adding me again (though you may have forgot that (for some reason) GTalk doesn't put you online on my contact list) :) Will(talk) 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Periodical invite sent :/ ~ Riana ⁂ 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
