User talk: Diannaa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Lake Minnewanka 2008.JPG

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is 5:39 AM where this user lives in Alberta. (Purge)

Role models
Kamakura-buddha-2.jpg Leonard Nimoy NASA interview.jpg Anne frank memorial bergen belsen.jpg Wgretz3.jpg
Non-attachment Logic Courage Class


Could you be so kind to explain to me, in laymen's terms, what an article that's categorized as an "Orphan" means? Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria. What it means is that no other articles in the encyclopedia contain a link to the orphan article. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, friend. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:KitchenerJellicoe French.jpg[edit]

I added the information asked for, yet some moron still deleted it.Rodolph (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Rodolph. File:Amiralissime Jellicoe.jpg is the 1916 postcard. File:KitchenerJellicoe French.jpg is a watercolor of Kitchener, Jellicoe, and French that included a copy of the image on the postcard as one of three images. The reason why I nominated it for deletion is because it looks like a scan of a 1960s-era book illustration, not a copy of an old postcard. I am not going to restore it. The deleting administrator, user:Ronhjones, might feel differently, so you might like to speak to him. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Rodolph You claim it was old - probably not old enough. It's either a painting or a watercoloured photo (no colour photos in those days). So you claim 1916, it's a European image, so we probably have it in copyright until 70 years post the artist &/or photgrapher death - more than likely it's still in copyright - unless you can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the image was made in 1916 (and not just a later painting of an 1916 photo) and that the artist identity is impossible to find (OR (s)he has been deceased for over 70 years). On the basis of the data seen, I see no need to undelete. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The original images from which this was made are out of copyright. Is not a copy of an out of date image itself without copy-right-able virtue and therefore alongside the original images out of copyright too, besides the fact that the copy is doubtless pre-1923 anyway? Rodolph (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The image is a watercolor based on the postcard, plus images of French and Kitchener, of unknown provenance. The picture looked like the one here. It's original enough to have generated a new copyright in my opinion. If you wish to pursue this further, the place to go is Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the image of French/Jellicoe/Kitchener you sent a link to came from Wikipedia rather than the other way round. The images of French & Kitchener would also be 1916 or earlier as Kitchener died in 1916.Rodolph (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Horrid people, ok not horrid just annoyingly human. Why so ever so over protective of anonymous and certainly by long dead people, which with any normal sense of benefit of the doubt would be ok for free use, YET happy to steal photographic intellectual property from David Slater, whose photo of the monkey has been appropriated by Wikipedia? Rodolph (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The review[edit]

I'm sorry. Please read my entry at Talk:Trial of Erich von Manstein/GA1. Boeing720 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what it takes to nominate an article for Good Article status. What has to be done is follow the procedure as shown at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. For Trial of Erich von Manstein, a Good Article nomination was already underway when you posted on User:John's page asking him to have a look at the article. Sturmvogel was the reviewer who undertook the review. I withdrew the nomination on 27 July. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm still indeed sorry. I asked User:John if he possibly could help me (as he ,like You, is an administartor). Apart from reading "Trial of..", I had also before my request made comparissions with a few other "good reading" articles. And I thought that the article very well could be reviwed atleast. I then used following phrase
"Hello John! I would like to have the Trial of Erich von Manstein article examined for "good reading" atleast, if possible. I've only made one tiny contibution (changing the word "lawyer" to "barrister, KC, and Labour MP"). I happened to read it during discussions and changes to the article Erich von Manstein, some weeks ago. I'm unaware of how to, or where, to make such proposals. I presume an administrator or similar needs to be involved (?).". It was honnestly made with the best of intensions, and was partly made as a question, explaining that I was unaware of such procedures.
How was I supposed to know that it already was under reviewal ? (I even had missed the old one). I then notified You about it. Anyhow later I felt like I perhaps stressed you - perhaps to make the request to Sturmvogel (what do I know). However if that already was in progress, I still feel stupid. And I'm honnestly sorry for any possible inconvenience my clumsyness may have caused You. Can we put this behind us, please ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Diannaa, sorry to bother you. I'd previously reported Judywalton to ANI for copypasting episode syposes, and you stepped in to encourage her to edit to our norms. Despite both our efforts the user has again copypasted episode summaries in these edits. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


In this edit, you said in your edit remark that you were paraphrasing copyright material from the NYT and CBS. I think you've changed the meaning in both cases. In the first case, "nearly word-for-word" is a pretty common phrase, so I think it's hard to claim a copyright on that. Further, it appears almost in many, many accounts of the story (c.f., this Google search). You've changed it to "directly copied", which is not the same. Directly copied means, I believe, without any changes, which is not what was claimed.

In the second case, Walsh did not say he believed his career in the National Guard should be viewed in its entirety and not defined by the missing citations. The actual quote CBS reported was: "I admit that I made a mistake," he said. "My record will be defined by (Walsh's service in) the National Guard, not by a few citations that were unintentionally left out in a term paper." Since this is his own statement in his own defense, I don't think this is a copyright issue so much as it is one of staying very close to what he actually said and leaving it to reader to figure out what he meant, which (by my reading) did not include anything about viewing his service in entirety. I thought he was reminding us that he'd spent his career as a National Guardsman, not an academic, and that the standards are different. But again, I'm not a mind-reader, which is why I preferred to stay as close as possible to his original quote.

I would have liked to have used full original quote but was not able to find any source that fills in the missing words (c.f., here) suggesting to me that was a statement given only to CBS. Since I couldn't find the missing words, I reported that statement in my edit as "CBS News reported that Walsh stated, "I admit that I made a mistake", but that he believed his record was defined by his service in the National Guard, "not by few citations that were unintentionally left out of a term paper".

I'm more in agreement with you on this edit, though I hasten to add, in this case, you're editing something Montanabw wrote, not what I contributed.

The original Flathead Beacon statement I relied on was, "The war college’s normal sanction for plagiarism is the rescinding of the former student’s degree and his name grinded from a plaque of the graduating class at the college, Betros said." I reported that as, "Betros stated that the normal sanction for plagiarism is rescinding the former student's degree and grinding his name from a plaque of the graduating class." Again, because I was dealing with a specific statement by an identified source (albeit not a direct quote), I felt it was important to stay pretty close to the original wording to avoid any change in meaning. Also, it seems possible that "rescind" may actually be their preferred term for it, c.f., this statement in the NYT: "Its current student handbook states that plagiarism will result in disenrollment and that discoveries of academic violations have led to degrees’ being rescinded and names’ being scraped off the bronze plaques honoring graduates on campus."

Apparently relying on the next paragraph in the FB story, "Lesser disciplinary actions, such as verbal counseling, are also an option, but stripping the degree is typical in plagiarism cases, he said.", Montanabw replaced that with, "The normal penalty for plagiarism is rescinding the former student's degree, although lesser disciplinary actions are an option." Because Montanabw wasn't trying to represent this as a specific statement by a specific source, I agree that more paraphrasing of the distinctive "lesser disciplinary actions ... are also an option" would be helpful.

But you also made another change in that edit, deleting the "roughly" from "the New York Times alleged that Walsh plagiarized roughly two-thirds". They genuinely weren't that precise. The original text I relied on (and quoted in my citation) was, "About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks. ..." I added "about a third" + "another third" to get "roughly two-thirds".

Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of amendments to the article belong on the article talk page, not here. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Msnicki (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Msnicki, sorry to be so abrupt. I will address the close paraphrasing concerns here on this page so that you can see my thought processes. Just so you know, for about the last 6 months I have been working on copyright clean-up as an administrative activity, and have quite a bit of experience in this area on this wiki. The three things I changed for copyright reasons were as follows:
  1. New York Times article said: "taken nearly word-for-word without attribution". Our article said: " taken nearly word-for-word without attribution" (five words in a row that are identical; that's too much). I changed this to read "some material directly copied without attribution", which is true. If you view at the accompanying graphic, all the passages marked in pink and yellow were copied directly from the sources.
  2. CBS News said: "My record will be defined by (Walsh's service in) the National Guard, not by a few citations that were unintentionally left out in a term paper." our article said: "He said he believed his record should be defined by his entire career in the National Guard, 'not by a few citations that were unintentionally left out of a term paper.'" Again it's far too similar by Wikipedia standards; you're using the quotation, but failing to put it in quotation marks. The unwary reader will think that it's orginal prose, and actually it's not. I changed it to read "He said he believed his career in the National Guard should be viewed in its entirety and not defined 'by a few citations that were unintentionally left out of a term paper.'"
  3. The Flathead newspaper said: "The war college’s normal sanction for plagiarism is the rescinding of the former student’s degree and his name grinded from a plaque of the graduating class at the college, Betros said. That has been done six times since 1990. Lesser disciplinary actions, such as verbal counseling, are also an option..." The article said: " The normal penalty for plagiarism is rescinding the former student's degree, although lesser disciplinary actions are an option." This is far too close paraphrasing, trust me on this. It doesn't matter who added it. I changed this to read: "While lesser penalties are possible, usually the War College rescinds the degree in cases of plagiarism." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's okay to delete the word "roughly" because people will assume that the number "two-thirds" is already an approximation. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

These are pretty good answers. I agree, the NYT does say some material is indeed copied directly. Somehow, I just misread your intent. I still don't agree with you on the CBS source; that was actually a direct quote from Walsh, not a paraphrasing by CBS and I believe you have changed the meaning. I was already in agreement on the Flathead source, but perhaps for different reasons, namely, that we no longer identify a specific individual as having made a specific statement. Had we continued to identify the specific individual and the specific statement, then I would have continued to argue that very close phrasing would be appropriate. Re: "roughly", okay, I was nit-picking. Thanks, Msnicki (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Msnicki, on this wiki, it's best to write the material in your own words, and judiciously use short quotations only when absolutely necessary. It's more compliant with copyright law, and it makes for more interesting, better-written articles. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I've read that and I think I understand it. But I don't think it addresses the question of how to report specific statements from specific individuals, identifying them as such. When we do that, I think we have a more definite responsibility to avoid putting words in their mouths they didn't actually say.
As an example, I thought about how to report the correction Walsh's campaign issued re: their misstatement about Walsh having survived hundreds of IED attacks. In their correction, they said he'd survived "an" IED attack. That certainly sounds singular but it doesn't completely rule out the possibility there might have been another, given the imprecision of English in ordinary usage. It occurred to me they might even have deliberately said "an" not "single" precisely to avoid resolving that ambiguity and to avoid being quoted as saying single. I went with "single" only after verifying there were other sources (and citing one of them) that also reported that as an admission it was single.
But coming back to Walsh's statement re: his career, I genuinely think you changed the set of possible meanings and I don't think that was fair to him. Btw, no need to tag me each time; I follow a talk page if I post there, at least until the conversation clearly concludes. Msnicki (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that I changed the meaning of his statement, so sorry. I think I paraphrased it adequately. You are free to disagree, of course, but I am done defending my actions. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. I respect your opinion even though mine is different. Thank you discussing. I won't be seeking a change in the article. Msnicki (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct template for copying[edit]

{{Copied}}: For an example of how it was used, see Talk:CongressEdits. Tutelary (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tutelary and thanks for your interest. However, according to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, the template is optional, while the edit summary is not. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another question :)[edit]

Is it possible to get an article to FA-status if it's not first a GA-article? Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. Attaining GA is not a prerequisite for FA. WP:Peer review is highly recommended. Here is a table showing the different requirements for FA versus GA: Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured--Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed 'pedia has articles related to the expression Every Man for Himself, but would u say the expression itself deserves an article itself? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandal has returned[edit]

Greetings, once again it is Special:Contributions/ Also, they have a new IP at Special:Contributions/ - Hoops gza (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to block; it was blocked for a week on July 24 by another andmin, and he hasn't used it since. But I will add it to the list. Thanks for your help. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This one is a bit stale, but yet another one to keep an eye on: Special:Contributions/ - Hoops gza (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay -- Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another one to add to the list: Special:Contributions/ - Hoops gza (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not as blatant as usual, but disruptive editing continues from Special:Contributions/ - Hoops gza (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the same guy, if you look at July (The Doors were a boy band, lol). I will add it to the list, but I am not blocking as he has not edited for two days from this IP. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a block now: Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ - Hoops gza (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Can you report users for harassment? Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but first read this policy page on how Wikipedia defines harassment: Wikipedia:Harassment. If what you have been experiencing fits any of the descriptions on that page, the place to file your report is at WP:ANI -- Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore requests[edit]

Please restore the image File:Minesweeper Icon.png. I would like to add it back to the article from which I initially removed it myself. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, but now the article has four non-free images, which is too many in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I forgot to mention another image in the same situation: File:Mahjong Titans Vista Icon.png Could you please restore this one as well (with the exact same reasoning)?
I'll think about the point you brought up regarding the number of images in the first case, but I'm not sure what can be done as all of those different versions seem to be specifically discussed in the text of the article... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
If you can justify their use, there should be no problem. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection Level 1[edit]

kindly please help. i think the page Kick (2014 film) should be protected with page protection level 1. i dont know how to send ar request for protection. help. with regards Harirajmohanhrm (talk)‎ 05:18, 8 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Kick (2014 film). I have semi-protected the page for two days for the sudden vandalism. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and regards Harirajmohanhrm (talk)‎ 05:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for unprotection[edit]


Two years ago, you protected Altoona Central Catholic School, which is a redirect, after some edit-warring by its creator.

The target of the redirect has now been moved, and as I was going through the redirects to update their targets, I was not able to update this oen, due to it being protected.

Could you please unprotect it, so it can be updated?


HandsomeFella (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Suggestion[edit]

What you think which book is best for studying child physiology and that can be found in India? CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cutest Penguin! Sorry but I don't know anything about this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A problem with "English Patriot Man" and his sockpuppets[edit]

Hi. Lately I've seen you blocking some sockpuppets of a user named "English Patriot Man". I see that this man is nearly obsessed with Polish people. He seems to spread his anti-Polish propaganda by distorting the historical truth concerning World War II, nazism in Europe and racism against Poles. He is totally denying the sufferings of the Polish nation. Thank you so much for taking care of him, and taking care of the articles that are his main targets. However, now he might create another sock and log in from some other computer or place, so that his personal data and IP address would be totally different. This is why I suggest us to patrol the articles that are his main targets like:

This guy is using multiple sockpuppet accounts to delete all the information about Poles being percieved as "subhumans" or "non-Aryans" by the nazis. In fact the only "Aryan-looking" Poles that were accepted by Nazi Germany at the time, were kidnapped as children and underwent "Germanisation", they were like 0.05% of the whole nation. The rest of the Poles were "insufficient" to be a part of the nazi-ruled nation, and were treated only slightly better that the Jews. This guy, he spreads lies all across Wikipedia, therefore I thank you for your quick and effective actions Diannaa. If you'd need any kind of help in restoring the data which "English Patriot Man" destroyed, just tell me. I will also try to patrol the articles about Poles. Yatzhek (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yatzhek. Thank you for your interest in this case. I already have many of these articles on my watch-list as they are his favourite targets. If you think you spot him, please let me know here on my talk page or by email if there's details you'd prefer not to reveal on-wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks once again. Lately the anti-Polish man that goes by the name "English Patriot Man" woke up again and started to ruin Wikipedia. Take a look at the changes provided by the IP address: "" what are all here: Could you check if the damages performed by this IP address were all fixed by User:Discospinster? As you can see the English "Patriot" Man (this time as an undercover IP) once again deleted all the information about the prejudice against Poles, and I don't know how to restore the version that was right before his numerous contribustions. Yatzhek (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

All the edits by that IP were reversed. I don't think it was English Patriot Man, though. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again. Well, I thought this time it could also be the "English Patriot Man", as the person hiding behind this IP address edited exclusively the data involving Poland, deleted everything, and even dared to edit the original title of the source. Yatzhek (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Guatemalan vandal[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Widening range block to and blocking for one month. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Got him in just under 40 minutes. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Userpage designing assistance[edit]

I would like to display my username just like yours on my user page but in this look CutestPenguin. Please help me with this I would be very thankful of yours. CutestPenguin (Talk) 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Since the user name has a space between the two words, the display title must do so also. But otherwise it's what you wanted. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your intention[edit]

Not to be confrontational but what is the intent to just revert all the issues brought forth with WP articles? That does not seem much in the "community" spirit of WP. It seems that this approach treats me more as an irritant than contributor? (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles on Wiesenthal and Mengele are both on my watch-list because I am the person who recently did extensive re-writes and brought them both to WP:GA status. I am reversing your edits because you are changing the meaning of the prose so that it no longer agrees with the cited sources, is no longer grammatically correct, or is no longer as informative as before. I respect that you have a right to edit, but in instances where a change makes the article worse rather than better, I will restore the previous version. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unilaterally reverting is one thing but then when thereafter changes occur to the text that seem to be prompted by the work of the person that was reverted then a less optimistic use of reverting is anticipated. I would not be so possessive as to how article text is expressed especially if claims are made that they have made extensive rewrites and yet questions can arise when reviewed by others. One of the ways by which an administrator's value can be determined is what questions they can ask about a change in order to understand if what they wrote is what they wanted to be conveyed. Again, I am not being confrontational and not questioning your skills. But has it occurred that changes have been made to test just what happens and what reactions there are and by whom? Some people seem to have a propensity to call that with which they disagree as to quality as vandalism; some the use of reverting and some the manner by which they view others through edit summaries. These qualities are just as significant as being "correct". (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for helping me! CutestPenguin (Talk) 13:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


You recently changed the protection level on Nicky Hager, could you please take a look at the history since then and maybe consider raising the protection level? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been edit warring on Nicky Hager is should really have been protected with a {{disputed}} tag put it. The protected version of the page does not have a consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's appropriate, as the tag mentions "factual accuracy". The content dispute is more about whether or not the sources are high enough quality. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Protected Version of Nicky_Hager in the ' Dirty Politics ' section contains an unsubstantiated opinion by one player. This unsubstantiated opinion [by J.Key] would be better posted onto john key's wiki page, if warranted. If unsubstantiated opinions are considered worthy of posting to Nicky_Hager's wiki page, shouldn't unsubstantiated opinions by other people also be posted to provide balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHSinclair (talkcontribs) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to discuss this on the article talk page, not here. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the best way to manage this is to remove the disputed content as a possible BLP violation. I have gone ahead and done that. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The "opinion", or rather assessment, is that of respected New Zealand political historian and ex-Labour MP Michael Bassett and the passage is perfectly referenced. The only possible BLP violation is in the minds of the POV pushers on this article. Here is the text they are wikilawyering about - by all means everyone should check it and the citations. You'll see that is a short and spare statement attributed directly to the historian:

Diannaa I request that you reinstate the text. Edgespath24 (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What you should do is try to get consensus for its inclusion on the article talk page. I am not re-adding it. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicky Hager's book, 'Dirty Politics', & the material that it contains (damning evidence on major players in our current ruling regime), is proving to be a bombshell, coming just a month before New Zealand's General Elections on 2014/09/20. [I'm not writing a summary of its contents here, because I believe that that is readily available.] The media is running it almost non-stop in some cases; the book sold out within 24 hours (to the best of my knowledge), & the printing presses are already working on extra print runs. Regardless of our attitude, postive or negative, to Nicky Hager, or his books, undeniably his latest book, 'Dirty Politics', has changed the course of the elections, already (although probably not enough to topple the current ruling regime, in itself); & it is probable that it will cause, or precipitate, legal actions. Given the importance of this issue to New Zealand in the leadup to a crucial General Election, could an appropriate Protection Level, & Moderation Policy, be maintained for both Nicky Hager's page, & the 'Dirty Politics' Book's page ? (& possibly the 'talk' pages, as well ?) - at least until after the NZ General Election on 2014/09/20. We can already see political apparatchiki targeting these pages, sometimes under the guise of their IP addresses [real or proxied].

GHSinclair (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A link to the preface of 'Dirty Politics': . GHSinclair (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've just undone as vandalism a IP edit on Judith Collins, someone covered in the book. The complex edit introducing previously removed politician-bashing was the first edit ever from that IP which suggests to me someone trying to cover their tracks. You may or may not want to consider this part of the same situation. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

Hermann Fegelein[edit]

Hi, you may want to have a look into this book. Zeiten für Helden - Zeiten für Berühmtheiten im Sport talks about Fegelein's equestrian years and achievements. I find page 80 noteworthy, apparently he was forced to leave the police service in 1929 because he was caught steeling solutions to an exams. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Bee, that's really interesting. Unfortunately I don't read German well enough to make much use of it! -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you mind if I add a bit of info from this source? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't mind, please go ahead. -- Diannaa (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay thanks, started MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I've trimmed it a bit, please check and make sure it's okay. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks okay. The only debatable item is that the book says stolen from the room, not office (I assume they would have used the word Büro which is German for office). I made another addition. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they mean the documents were taken from a classroom, not an office. The location of the documents is not important, so I took it out. We have something on the Olympics in the following paragraph, so I re-ordered the content. Please check my work again of you would. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Small change needed. He did not participate in the Games themselves. He was invited to the pre-Games selections. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I am done for the day, more to come MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, see you later. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "On 23 April 1941 Fegelein and his unit were caught stealing money and luxury goods intended for transportation back to Germany. A court-martial ordered for Fegelein was quashed by direct order of Himmler." The book tells a slightly different story (page 84 and 85). In this account the "stealing of money and luxury goods" which was transported to the SS Cavalry School took place in 1940 and the court martial was quashed by Himmler. (Starting on page 85 the book states) The 1941 event is linked to another crime. In 1941 he was accused of further "greedy murder conducted in custody and firing squads in the Warsaw jail". He was also accused of having a sexual relationship with a Polish woman, who became pregnant and he then forced her to have an abortion. Again Himmler helped him to get out of this mess although Reinhard Heydrich had requested a thorough investigation more than once. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The info currently in the article is sourced to Miller, Michael (2006). Leaders of the SS and German Police, Vol. 1, which I think User:Kierzek owns. Perhaps he can double check that source? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Gladly. I have found that Miller's book is an excellent, detailed RS source. I don't believe there is any great difference here. The time of the first action could have been earlier and the sentence can be tweaked to reflect that; in rechecking Miller's book it states: "23/4/41: nearly court-martialed after he and his regiment had stolen money and luxury goods being transported to München from Warshaw; court-martial Himmler. 16/5/41: Brought before an SS court accused of having sexual relations with a Polish woman in Krakow. She became pregnant and was induced to have an abortion. The case was dismissed on Himmler's orders on 30/6/41." Miller, page 309. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and tweaked it, per the two sources; see what you think and check the page cite, MisterBee in your book. Kierzek (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"bloodiest battle"[edit]

Could you glance at recent changes to Battle of the Bulge and Operation Overlord to see if the issue of "bloodiest battle" can be clarified? I suspect that a technical difference between a battle and a campaign might be somehow relevant, but don't know enough to argue the point either way. 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Operation Overlord was not a battle per se; it was an operation or campaign.
  2. None of the sources I used to prepare the article called it the "bloodiest battle", hence the claim is unsourced. I will remove it. Thanks for your help with this important article. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends[edit]

Example Related Articles[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Hi I just don't know what to do. Numerous IP addresses keep vandalising these pages High level of IP vandalism. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please report these at WP:RFPP? I am too tired to assess them right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have just reported it to WP:RFPP and again I'm sorry. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeking advice[edit]

Hello there, Diannna. I noticed that you are a respected admin here, so I was wondering if you would be willing to give me some pointers and advice regarding CSD, AfD, FFD, and the like. I am trying to learn the ropes by using page curator, but I am afraid that if I don't get good advice from a helpful person I might not learn what I need to. I also don't want to get bitten over a mistake or two, so I need a patient person to help me. If you are too busy I totally understand, but I sure would appreciate the help. Thanks! TinaG (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tina, and thanks for your interest in helping out here on Wikipedia. My advice is that a person such as yourself who has been editing less than a month should not get involved in page curation and deletion nominations. You are not experienced enough to do a good job in these areas. Please find a different way to contribute. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've been editing Wikipedia off and on as an IP since 2005. I made this account so I could further develop. Did you look at my curation edits? TinaG (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The best place to go is the WP:Teahouse, where people who specialise in assisting new users can help you. Good luck, and happy editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've posted there. Thanks for your help! TinaG (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 keeps vandalizing 808s & Heartbreak[edit]

Can you sort out both the page and Dan56 who keeps vandalizing the page and starts genre wars on it too T.Wells kid (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dianna, T.Wells kid appears to be a sock of MariaJaydHicky, like Kiddulthood and Vanillagreek, who used the same original research with the same sources to make the same edits to 808s & Heartbreak ([1], [2]), which were addressed at Talk:808s_&_Heartbreak#Recent_additions. Dan56 (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Kww sockpuppet T.Wells kid just now. Why don't you ask to change protection level to ‘allow only admin’ and indefinite. Just like Arthur Kemp page. (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Kww has blocked the new sock. I have semi-protected the article for another three months. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler - FA preb[edit]

I left a long FA-preb message on Hitler's talk page; I'd like your thoughts on the points I mentioned. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been mentioned[edit]

here. Regards, Samsara (FA  FP) 09:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)