:There's no harm if it is very short. If not, we need to send a separate short note out to ALL our members. Members and past drive participants are eligible to vote. – '''[[User:SMasters|SMasters]]''' ([[User talk:SMasters#top|talk]]) 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:There's no harm if it is very short. If not, we need to send a separate short note out to ALL our members. Members and past drive participants are eligible to vote. – '''[[User:SMasters|SMasters]]''' ([[User talk:SMasters#top|talk]]) 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
::Sounds good to me too. --[[User:Diannaa|<span style="color:teal;">Diannaa</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Diannaa|Talk]])</sup> 01:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
::Sounds good to me too. --[[User:Diannaa|<span style="color:teal;">Diannaa</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Diannaa|Talk]])</sup> 01:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
== Vandalism from same person ==
Hi
I noticed an anonymous IP has been vandalising the [[McMaster University]] article during the past few days. I strongly suspect it is done by the same person using a dynamic IP as his/her edits are similar in nature. See this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMaster_University&action=historysubmit&diff=398560676&oldid=398481917 Evidence 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMaster_University&action=historysubmit&diff=398365945&oldid=397994433 Evidence 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMaster_University&action=historysubmit&diff=397994125&oldid=397977468 Evidence 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bean_pie&action=historysubmit&diff=398001822&oldid=395133766 Evidence 4]. All three IP addresses are from Bell Canada. TIA [[Special:Contributions/112.118.147.77|112.118.147.77]] ([[User talk:112.118.147.77|talk]]) 04:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I am hoping to open a dialogue here with you to get this figured out quickly without bothering you too much. This is our first Wikipedia entry so please forgive our mistakes. We have read the various pages cited about copyrights and so on, and we would like to do whatever is needed to clear it up. Here's a little background. NABCEP is a client of our agency, The Strategic Word, and we submitted this entry on their behalf. Do you need to see something from NABCEP that authorizes us to make this submission? And, even after reading the copyright guidelines, I'm unclear on why NABCEP itself would be violating their own copyright by referencing their own copyrighted materials on their Wiki page. Sorry if I'm missing something here, as I must be!
Since we need to get this Wikipedia page up as soon as possible for our client, we have deleted the footnote reference to the copyrighted document that lead to the the quick deletion, as you can see:
Is this sufficient to get the page up for now? Then we can deal with whatever we need to do to make it ok to post a link to the NABCEP copyrighted document.
Also, we mistakenly submitted this entry under the organization's acronym, NABCEP, when we meant to have the title be their full name, North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners. Is it possible to get this fixed at the same time we get the new page up sans the offending PDF link? If so, can we get 'NABCEP' Wiki searches redirected to the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Wiki page?
Thanks for your help on this, Diannaa, much appreciated.
Thank you for your interest in creating an article for this organisation for wikipedia. There are several problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see this policy Wikipedia:Copyrights which explains how it works. Removing the link will not remove the copyright problem, as the material was copied word for word from copyright material in violation of copyright law.
The second problem is notability. I am not sure the organisation is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. Typically we would require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newpapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organisations that are not notable are typically speedily deleted.
The third problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view.
So if you wish to add the copyrighted content to a Wikipedia article, the proper licenses and permissions will have to be in place. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how that would be done. Or, you could write a new article that does not closely paraphrase the material available on line. And you would have to avoid the conflict of interest guideline while doing so. Even then, chances are that the article would be speedily deleted as not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa. Could you please check this out? I'm not sure whether it's a genuine edit, spam, or vandalism. (leave a tb on my TP when you've done). Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kudpung. I read through the sources (both of which were blogs) and neither of them mentions a sexual manoeuvre. I have removed the paragraph from the article.
Hey, could you do me a favour too? Just a bit above your request here, you will see my reply on a copyright issue under the heading "new article deletion". It took me a while to research and compose this reply but I thought it turned out well, so I had a notion to use it as a starting point for responses to future questions on this topic. Since you have faced similar queries in your work at WP:EAR, I thought if you have a minute you could look it over for completeness and accuracy? Then I will move it to a sub-page at User:Diannaa/Copyright for future use. If you don't have time that's fine but it would be a big help. Thanks. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am done. I think there may be some over-linking that you should deal with yourself. It is a long article, and some links will need to appear more than once for that reason. It is close to FA for sure, and probably worth a try. I did notice one dead link marked by a bot that will have to be dealt with first --Diannaa(Talk)03:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I will go through the article soon, but will have to wait a bit until I nominate, as I won't be online for a while in the near future. Will probably nominate it around December or so. bamse (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
new entry deletion part two
Hello Diannaa,
Thx for the thorough response. I would like to take this another step or two, as I believe that we can satisfy your concerns with a little more work on our part. The three areas of concern:
1. Copyright
We can certainly rewrite the offending paragraph now that we understand how the whole copyright issue works. I hope this will work for now (assuming we can satisfy you on all three of these issues) while we work to get the requisite special licensing permissions in place.
2. Notability
While of course I cannot be certain, this being our first submission, I have little doubt that NABCEP is 'notable' enough to be included in Wikipedia. NABCEP is the primary certifying entity for renewable energy installers and sales people and is highly valued in this rapidly growing industry. As a mark of its importance and validity, the NABCEP certification is accredited by American National Standards Institute (ANSI). It functions much like these organizations, all of which are in Wiki:
American Academy of Financial Management
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
American Academy of Environmental Engineers
We can supply you with links to numerous articles in "reliable third party sources such as newpapers, magazines, or online publishers" that mention and discuss NABCEP, and are happy to do so.
3. Conflict of interest
I do see now that our relationship to NABCEP would 'red flag' us as potentially being in conflict, but it does look like this is not an iron clad rule, though it is 'discouraged'. We are professional writers, in fact the person who wrote this is a journalist by trade, and we were very careful to make sure our description was neutral, as I believe you would agree it does, in fact, read. If you see any areas that strike you as not neutral, we are happy to change them.
What do you think? I appreciate the extra time you've taken with us here.
The North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) is a nationally recognized credentialing body formed to set competency standards for professional practitioners in the fields of renewable and sustainable energy. Practitioners who choose to become certified must demonstrate their competence in the field and their commitment to upholding high standards of ethical and professional practice.
And now I quote from the pdf file:
NABCEP is a nationally recognized credentialing body formed to set competency standards for professional practitioners in the fields of renewable and sustainable energy. Practitioners who choose to become certified must demonstrate their competence in the field and their commitment to upholding high standards of ethical and professional practice.
The second question, notability, is answered here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Please read these guidelines carefully and you will see that the organsiation does not meet the notability guidelines as Wikipedia defines them; the organisation may be important but it has not to date attracted notice from reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. I am posting a question at the Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard to get other opinions on the notability question. However a decision made at that notice board is not a guarantee that the article will be accepted. Decision making is communal, and it is not up to me either.
Here is some more information about conflict of interest: Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. I personally don't think the COI problem is a big obstacle either, as the material does not seem promotional in tone. But the other two questions are still obstacles. That's it for now; I have to go to my "day job". --Diannaa(Talk)14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first GOCE drive
Doubtless you’re pretty busy these days, but I’d appreciate it if you could take a glance at my first effort of the backlog-elimination drive, Flag of Iran, and let me know if it’s not up to snuff (aside from the tagged OR / lack of references). I’m not very familiar with the ins & outs of citations: the “Content” section near the end puzzled me, but I left it in for fear of breaking some kind of link functionality. If you could point me somewhere that explains what’s going on there (and how to sort it out) I’d be grateful. And if it’s not too much trouble, please check to make sure I’ve also filled out my drive-contribution template properly in the Totals. Thanks in advance, and BTW congrats re the “mop”. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no worries, glad to help. Yeah, the citations are a mess throughout, with bare-links refs and that weird "Content" section. If you click on the section-header "Content" it just bumps you to the top of the article. And if you click on any of the refs in the "Content" section, it just bumps you down to the References section. I have fixed this stuff.
Copy editing points: Diagonal quotation marks and apostrophes do funny things to the indexing and should be replaced. I improved a few links. A bit of the punctuation was changed (other than the aforementioned diagonals, which I changed). The work you did was good in my opinion. And your tally sheet is properly filled out as well. Good luck for the drive. --Diannaa(Talk)19:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! From many years of setting type I've acquired the habit of using printers' punctuation marks; the vertical quotes on the keyboard are 'special codes' to me (and the marks figuratively shout "Composed by an amateur!" when I'm reading), while my fingers evoke the others more or less spontaneously. I'll have to work on that … Would it be acceptable to use HTML entities (& rsquo ; and so on) instead, or does Wikipedia's style require the 'dumb' quotes? (I hope dashes, ellipses &c. are OK—I use a lot of those as well.) —Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The info on the best punctuation to use is found at WP:PUNCT. "Wiki markup" is preferable to "HTML markup". See WP:Deviations. Best practice: Use Wikimarkup and CSS in preference to alternatives. More info can be found at Help:Wiki markup. Zoiks, there's so much to learn. My brain hurts. --Diannaa(Talk)22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. It seems weird to me that a system that supports hundreds of languages in dozens of scripts has problems with ordinary punctuation … but this is an inappropriate occasion for a rant: off to read those pages so I can whine with authority. ;) —Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
new entry deletion part 3
Diannaa, can we get the current NABCEP Wiki page taken down till we get this resolved?
I am not sure what you mean by "taken down". The page was deleted on October 30. It does not appear as being a Wikipedia article when I do a Google search. There is a page at User:Jerrysena/NABCEP as well; do you want that deleted also? --Diannaa(Talk)20:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on Samba for a lot of the day as part of the GoCE drive this month, and I found it was terrible. I am not certain whether it is actually cleaned up now or if that is just by comparison with what it was. So would you mind taking a quick look over it and telling me if it still has problems? (I did tag a few spots with {{clarify}} when I had no clue what the article was trying to say.) Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for tackling this complex article. I will say right off the top that I too sometimes remove incomprehensible content outright; it's pointless to leave it in, especially if it's been there for years and the original author is long gone. I will go over the whole article and report back to you what I find out. --Diannaa(Talk)22:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in fairly disastrous shape considering how important an article it is. I have done some further edits. What remains is beyond the scope of copy-editing, so I have removed the tags and called for expert help. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)00:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what's happening. I kept seeing the 'this page has been deleted' page, but I see now that's because I've been logged in. When I am not logged in and search for NABCEP, that info is not there. So all is well on that front. (Isn't it fun dealing with newbies? :-)
Not quite sure why you say NABCEP "has not to date attracted notice from reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines". It has received fairly extensive coverage in the renewable energy trade press. Maybe this does not count? Shall I send you a few links?
And as I said before, it will be easy to rewrite the parts that are too similar to the NABCEP-copyrighted material, now that we know that's a no-no.
Yes, it would be helpful if you included links to these sources in your new article. It is not necessary to send them to me personally for pre-approval or vetting (I am not the decider); what you need to do is re-write the article in "user space", that is, do a re-write of the article presently living at User:Jerrysena/NABCEP and include them there. Be sure to do a total re-write; even a close paraphrase is a copyright violation. This will be difficult given the material, which is kinda dry and list-like. You don't have to include everything, though; start with a description of who the organisation is and what they do, and for what territory. Include any awards they have won, and be sure to state why they are notable. Then, when you are sure it is ready, create the new "live" article in what we call "main space". Be sure to use your permanent title this time (though this can be fixed if need be). Then you will have to sit back and see what happens. Decision making is communal. Any editor can add the speedy deletion template, or propose the article be deleted using other more lengthy procedures as well. I will be happy to continue to help with this process as you go along, so feel free to keep contacting me. Good luck! Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
Merry meet, Diannaa! I offered to do a copyedit on am article from the Request Page, El Salvador national football team. It is a difficult article to copyedit, as it appears that the editors are not native English speakers. I spent a good deal of time on this article, even creating tables, but when I was checking for more information to clarify an unintelligible sentence, I noticed a copyright violation. I halted the copyedit and flagged an Admin. My question is, how do I count this article in my numbers? Thanks!! jsfouche ☽☾talk05:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator has already reveiwed and the appropriate experts are going to evaluate the copyright question. As far as counting the article, please count the article and use the word count up to the point you stopped editing. The article is still tagged for copy-edit though so if you would like to revisit it and finish that would be ok too. welcome, by the way, to the copy-editing team and I hope you are enjoying the drive so far. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Bordeleau
Diannaa,
I just noticed that there is an article about him on the French Wikipedia site. Is it possible to get that translated into English and posted? If so, how would one go about doing that?
I may run for adminship in January, Utahraptor, and Diannaa please remember to put your signature with four tildes like this: ~~~~ when you give a user or IP address a block template. WAYNEOLAJUWON21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I see that you deleted this with the reason "one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". I am the author of the article as it stood before deletion, having rewritten it to avoid a copyright violation, and I certainly did not request deletion. Also the subject clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the article was created by User:Hrach84, and it was they who blanked the page. However, since you had edited and improved the article in the meantime, it no longer qualifies for a speedy deletion using this criterion. I will restore the article and since it has sources it should not qualify for sppedy deletion under that criterion either. Sorry about the mistake. --Diannaa(Talk)20:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That;s just the provider (it's Carphone Warehouse broadband), although it does mean he's uk mainland based, not in ROI. Its gotta be one of the banned users from the not keen on British Isles side....who's been in the news recently.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your semiprotection. There were two parties to the edit wars, and the semiprotection just blocked one of them from editing. I understand the reasons for doing it, however the accusations of coatracking have only really been pushed by one editor (the other party), and were disputed by other editors who commented in Ani. As such I recommend either unprotecting it or moving back to the version before the edit war and full protecting. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this one for most of the day before I acted, and here is more information about why I did it the way I did.
The IPs are not engaging in discussion on the talk page; there are only three comments by IP editors in the last six months. My hope is that the semi-protection will force some discussion on the talk page.
The IPs are adding unencyclopedic content such as "linking the 1Malaysia and One Israel that was concocted by APCO"; "Anwar retaliated by producing the two documents to back up his statements"; "Currently the Malaysian government does not have any diplomatic relations with Israel due to its solidarity with a majority of Arab countries in the Middle East."
It is not appropriate for an administrator to look back through the history and choose which version to protect. The usual way is to protect the existing version of the article and not get involved in the actual editing. If you feel there are important sourced facts that are missing from the article, you are free to engage in talk page discussion and editing of the article. Thank you for your comments. If you like, you might get a different uninvolved administrator to review my decision. --Diannaa(Talk)15:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's content was badly written, but I think some should be there.
You are right; there are always two sides but they have to be presented more neutrally and not use loaded words. Now you and the other registered users can work on the article in peace for a while. Or whatever passes for peace here on the wiki ;) See you around. --Diannaa(Talk)02:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incorrect information!!
Iv'e said what i had to say on my title, lol
but yeah, my information is true, please bring me some proof that it's not!! and yeah i dont have any source proof, but it's been brought up the song is based on la bamba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorHawke (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact I was just checking this out on Babelfish and I still think you are wrong. Check it out yourself! The baby, the Captain, the ocean - "Twist and Shout" has none of these themes. --Diannaa(Talk)00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question
So, I have a question about the November drive. If we edit an article from the Requests Page, I know it's worth double word count, but do we add the double word count into our grand total word count? Like instead of adding 1000 to our grand total, we add 2000? Please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickie4 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not read explanation in edit summary? After you change first time I change back and write explanation. Why so many keep change again but not read explanation? I am not strong English but I think explanation well - please read!
I have now read it, and have removed the word "holy" from the article. Sorry, I put the warning on your talk page by mistake. It has now been removed. -Diannaa(Talk)02:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tk
Hi i was only saying sorry i dont understand how i vandalised sommeones page by saying sorry is it not the user talk page like this you're meant to say sorry? Thanks :)
I just have a question, when are we supposed to be reviewing each other's edits? I started reviewing some of yours (and they looked fine :] ), and I was wondering if or when I should start reviewing other peoples' edits. Is it typically done later in the month, or is it done throughout? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I just did a few whenever I had the time, throughout the month. I have done some already too for this drive. Thanks for helping, and thanks for checking a few of my articles. --Diannaa(Talk)03:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My edits for the November drive
Sure, it's under my "Contributions": Basically everything that I've copyedited since Nov. 1 has been for the drive. On a related note, how do I make a tag to show that I'm working on a piece? It's really hard to find in the manuals of the Copy Editors Guild. thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked both articles and fixed a few minor mistakes on the 2nd. Try reading them out loud (I do it softly to avoid annoying family members) to yourself and see what doesn't sound right. One mistake that I commonly see editors make is like the following: "There were people at the fair, including John Doe, Jane Doe, Jimbo Wales, and more." Since we already know that this is a partial list (from the word including), we do not need to have the and more at the end of the list. Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry for stalking your talk page![reply]
Au contraire, I am honoured to have people watching my page. I am so busy right now in RL it would make your head swim, so I am glad to have help. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)03:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just my 2¢ worth offered in passing and without checking the MoS: I don't think changing "children aged X to Y" to "children ages X–Y" makes an improvement, rather the opposite—although it may well be the case that the latter would sound better to British ears than it does to mine. "Children of ages X–Y" might be an acceptable compromise. I don't care for the verb tense in "In 1930 the school had moved …" either: I'd write "was moved" or even just "moved". OTOH "By 1930 the school had moved …" works OK in general, but wouldn't be very appropriate in this instance. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in each of those two cases, you would need a comma after the introductory prepositional phrase of adverbial usage. In your case (and in this sentence too!), you would write "In 1930, the school had moved..." or "By 1930, the school had moved..." Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made two edits to the page. In the first, I fixed the grammatical errors like missing commas and capitalization flaws which were left in it (see this diff). In the second, I reworded a clunky sentence to make it read more smoothly (see this diff). Sorry if this comes across as bitey—I'm not trying to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbi Pinto
Hello, Diannaa. Apologize for issues with other user. Person was weaving in one-off gossip rather than actual, valuable information regarding RP. For instance, "Rabbi to the stars" thing is established. He has seen LeBron James, etc. Comments added by 68.173.122.113 about RP only caring about "biggest contributor" is libelous and, given comments by 68.173.122.113, prejudiced (he has made offensive comments regarding those of the Jewish faith). Appreciate your help in resolving these matters. Thanks! -- Photodeck
Glad to help. All negative posts about living persons must have really good reliable sources, so some of that content had to go. I will watchlist the article for a while. --Diannaa(Talk)05:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to interject here everything cited in fact comes from sources that photodesk introduced. For example, he didnt simply see Lebron James, James paid him. There are countless media articles (in fact more than about his work) citing his involvement in an ugly fight with an individual in a mysterious death. Why remove them ? (and what "curse" thing or $30MM building thing ?) What makes those things ? And yes a price for a place of religious worship usually isnt mentioned... and thats because it may be the most expensive synagogue in NYC or the world. Thats relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very awesome of you. :) Hate to continue bugging you, but was wondering if it would be okay if I removed the "$30M" thing and the "curse" thing. The $30M thing seems irrelevant - 68.173.122.113 added it because he thought it was high "for a Rabbi" (it was maliciously added and the price for a place of religious worship generally isn't included in other articles) - and the two articles cited for the "curse" story never mention RP by name (the second article from Slam actually has nothing to do with the curse). You rock, Diannaa (sorry to be corny!). - Photocredit (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I could put up a building in NYC for that price I would be pleasantly surprised. I am not sure its relevant. The other thing about the curse etc can go as well, as the sources are a bit sketchy. Do you want me to do it? The IP seems to have stopped editing, so you can probably proceed on it yourself if you like. --Diannaa(Talk)05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of it. Just wanted to discuss with someone reasonable. Thanks :) - 06:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photocredit (talk • contribs)
Deanna why do you say that $30MM isnt accurate ? Its well sourced repeatedly ? Where is it ok for said sockpuppet to make edits without discussions ? and he's inaccurate factually - 3 articles mention the curse including the slam article ? What makes it ok fo r a single eidt user to make these changes ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@68.173.122.113: I just felt that $30M for a building in NYC would hardly be exceptional or remarkable. Perhaps you have heard that real estate is expensive there. Re: the curse- I felt the material was more like a rumour than anything else, and it was poorly sourced, so I did not object to its removal. As you may know, we have to be very careful what we put in biographies of living persons or there could be libellous statements and legal implications, which of course we want to avoid. @EdJohnston: Thanks for your help in wrapping this case up. --Diannaa(Talk)01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Re: lifted block
Hi. Someone of the name Bishonen (Talk: Communist terrorism) is disputing your assertion that the earlier block on me was lifted unconditionally. Any comments on that? Thanks. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, still struggling to overcome some recalcitrant and unreasonable opposition to the inclusion of (in my view, impeccable) sources in that article. All is fine apart from that. Many thanks for your response and apologies for dragging you into this. As you can see there seems to be a lot of confusion (even among veteran admins, let alone the likes of me) regarding various issues here. On a more humourous note, maybe Wikipedia itself needs some clean-up before we even get to editing articles? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I think one "final warning" and then block on the second edit is what I would do. Hey! You should run for adminship! I bet you'd be good at it. --Diannaa(Talk)05:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts to copyedit this article. FYI, I have made a minor tweak to hyphenate compass headings that you edited to be single words, per the Oxford Dictionary. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. First I wanted to apologize for essentially throwing away your copy-edit of the McClurg article.
But I thought it was necessary, because the starting point was really bad.
When you find an article in this state, it usually means that a lot of bad things have happened to it.
Indeed if you go through the history, you'll find
some good faith, but failed, attempts by someone to add an already existing link
one vandalism edit
mindless copy-pasting from the biography page of McClurg at the U of Memphis.
Well I thought that version was different for some reason, but you are right, and they are all copy vio right back to inception of the article in 2008. Good catch, sorry about the mistake. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)04:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your note at ANI and was slightly surprised because I hadn't realised you had the tools. So, a little digging around and I find that your RfA was during the week I took off recently. Oh well... please accept a belated support and my congratulations :) Best, EyeSerenetalk10:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
your edits over there seem to have ignored the content at hand. You said its protected for libelious content, yet the editor censored material and clearly doesnt grasp the matter as pertaining to the subcontinent (he reacts tot he arabic word, which, as explained in talk, is different from the subcontinental (read: Pakistani) expression.
I think we need to open it up now to all the membership now that we have the bones of it worked out. In fact SMasters wanted just to make sure you looked everything over before we did so. --Diannaa(Talk)22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have added the page to the tab-set, and put a blurb in the om box. Do you think we should send out a wee newsletter as well? That might be best. We could issue an update on the Drive at the same time.--Diannaa(Talk)22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. We don't want to spam :) It's already the 12th, so we can start preparing our mid-drive update and have it ready by the end of the weekend I betcha. --Diannaa(Talk)23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you recently deleted the image "ellekennedy.jpg" because of copyright concerns.
I actually took that picture myself (I am Elle Kennedy's assistant and webmaster) and so the copyright belongs to me.
I'd like to re-upload the picture, and I am wondering if there is something I can do to "prove" that I have the copyright?
Sorry for this confusion, I am new to wikipedia.
Hi, I am confused as to what to do about my copyedit of Summer of the Monkeys. Soon after my copyedit was completed, another editor reverted my copyedits (by reinstating the old version) and re-added the {{copyedit}} template. I want to fix the obvious issues in the article (one being "in the late 1800s, just before 1900," - redundant, should be "in the very late 1800s") and the use of informal contractions. However, I have no desire to become involved in an edit war by reverting his edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I noticed that the copy edit tag was once agian on the article, but I did not realise they had undone your edit, too! I left them a message on their talk page about an hour ago and they have not edited since. I will restore your version of the article and watch-list it to see what happens next. --Diannaa(Talk)02:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all when people improve upon what I've done (or revert it if it broke something or was a mistake, as long as they explain why). I went ahead and tagged the article as unreferenced, since there are no external links or citations of any sort. Thanks for the improvements! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presidental Limousine
Hi are you a admin? Also why did you redirect my new article and how does that affect me? I wanted to ask you this before I reverted the page since this is my first article. thanks.TucsonDavid (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hope my actions did not hurt you feelings, but it looks like we already have an article on this topic. You can find out if people are admins by going to their contributions page; go down to the bottom and click on "user rights". Regards, ---Diannaa(Talk)06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Keith Springer, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are underway to elect our inaugural group of GOCE Coordinators. Guild members and Drive participants are invited to have a look at the Coordinators page and join the discussion on its associated talk page.
Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join!
Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive.
Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
Diannaa, I am in the process of sending an e-mail for proper release to wikipedia. The form provided asks for the URL of the page. Is it okay to use Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual? I had plans to use subpages but was not sure how they would work "live". I would prefer to retain the same title for the article before deletion. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am glad you found my directions useable. You can re-use the original title for the article if you like. Good luck. Let me know if there are more questions! --Diannaa(Talk)22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent the e-mail. I cannot do any of the subpage things, inclusive to redirects for easy around reading, until that goes through. I'll watch for any predilection to improvement as regards music theory. Thank You. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have two other questions. I am not an administrator, but I am curious if you, as an administrator, have received any specific private messages not viewable to base level volunteers from wikipedia concerning difficulties with server space and a directive to deny as many articles as possible due to such difficulties?
In the course of discussion with RHaworth, who originally placed the speedy deletion nomination notification on "Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual", he is showing signs of emotional and mental breakdown based on prior personal difficulties in his early editing at wikipedia, and quite possibly due to overwork as well. User talk:RHaworth#Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual
You seem to me to be more stable in your favorability to include the originally posted article. Other than the fact that you saw the speedy deletion nomination notification, was(were) there any other reason(s) for your deleting the article? - Prophet of the Most High (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First question: No, I have not received any instructions to the effect that articles are to be debarred from Wikipedia due to a difficulty of server space or for any other reason. Second question: When I saw the speedy deletion template I verified that the information was indeed a copyright violation, as this is why it was tagged for deletion. I also noted that the article more resembled a music instruction guide rather than an encyclopedia article and thus might be declined for that reason. RHaworth is correct when he states that Wikipedia is a secular work and the religious content of your piece would probably have to be stripped from your article before it would be accepted for inclusion. When you are ready to re-submit your article, please do so at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Volunteers will check it in advance for its suitability for inclusion. My opinion is not important; I am not the decider. Decisions are made communally. Please do not speculate about the health issues of your fellow Wikipedia editors. Thanks. --Diannaa(Talk)04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You state that you verified that the information was indeed a copyright violation in total defiance of me donating the article to wikipedia as a volunteer without any copyright violation. I am not suing wikipedia, you, or RHaworth. I have further complied with the consent, but have shown the fallacy of the judgment based on that reason.
It is true that the Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual resembles a how to guide. Firstly, as can be seen in the word "Manual", 'man you all', it is something for everyone, this is deliberate because music has been called a universal language. At the level of inception to an on-line encyclopedia where the dissemination of the manual can be translated into all other languages, the writing needs to be inclusive to such a broad comprehension. Similarly, Tertian Harmony is only understood with full comprehension of all elements from root to 13th. Music notation has a limited alphabet, A through G. Though this may seem to make matters a little easier, their remains the necessity to present the 'how and why' such a limited alphabet works best, and to do so in a concise and orderly manner.
It can be seen in the English language that the development of Tertian Harmony has come as a direct response from God to a direct humility in prayer and reverence for Him by the devout of humankind. If there is to be any enjoyment of this delight, there is an equal necessity for us to remain steadfast in that same humility, reverence, and devotion. This seems to me to be the most important point - a gift for the future based on the excellence of the past.
In the formulation, not speculation, of the health issue as presented, it is due course in deriving the true reason for deletion. Unlike the Fifth Pillar of wikipedia which states that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules.", Tertain Harmony does have firm rules. It is understandable that such an 'etching in stone' may seem cold, but it is not meant to be.
If you support an error from another once, it is understandable that you will support an error again. The secular reason is only valid if we violate the First Pillar, which I am not willing to do as it allows for the inclusion of Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual as is. The article was given to you and RHaworth to share with everyone in abidance with the Third Pillar. This was not an invitation for either of you to violate the Fourth Pillar.
The inclusion of "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed" is the worst part of the Pillars in that the realm of possibility excludes such a blanket statement and that "in giving we receive". It is also disadvantageous to the community for one to think that conditions cannot improve. You state that your opinion is not important yet I treat it so. You state that you are not the decider yet you deleted the article. You state that decisions are made communally yet I did not authorize its deletion. I find you lacking in self-esteem which has caused you to do something you probably would not have normally done if this were not so. As your decision follows in the trail of another suffering under a poorly written Pillar, I understand and forgive you. As to the advice from both of you concerning its re-write and/or re-submission, that too follows under the same error of judgment.
It would be a waste of server space for me to continue with you without your support to the rest of the community, not only the wikipedia community, but the entire reading public. I understand that being an administrator carries with it further responsibility, but you are first and foremost an editor, and it is on your integrity as such that we rely. - Prophet of the Most High (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa, I admire your patience! Prophet: a) server space is absolutely not an issue - it seems infinitely expandable, b) I should have said this earlier: you may well find a completely different attitude if you submit your manual to Wikibooks, c) I have no objection to God-language in its proper place: every night next week you can hear me delivering Isaiah 7:14 and other religious matters with conviction in a church in the City of London. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk·contribs)16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete at once
I would strongly suggest that you undelete the page at once, before the whole unsavoury business escelates into major drama once more. I'm sure it was an unwitting error on your part. Giacomo 23:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are an immense amopunt of quoted diff all over the site, which you have now rendered obsolete. If they are not restored, we shall have to go to ANI to have the page restored. Giacomo 23:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not actually delete the page; I deleted the associated talk page. The person who deleted the page has now restored it, and I have restored the associated talk page too. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)23:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for those admin actions!
The Admin's Barnstar
I would like to award you this barnstar for speedily deleting the Hammer Head Shark hoax and the blatant attack pages moments after I tagged them. Congratulations! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can you do me a small favour please ? my pc bios has been playing for three months getting gradually wosre giving me session errors and other problems. It finally had a heart attack two days ago
i have been trying to put a wikibreak notice on my page but this mobile phone prevents me from seeing the edit button
if you have time could you please put wikibreak nottices on my user and talk page stating due to hardware failure and until 21 November 2010
I was hoping tro contributwe to the drive but that is not possible on this phone - it took 2 mins just to open this talk page lol
Deletion of The International Child Abduction Database
You deleted a page I was working on and wasted my time as the text is now lost. Please take more care in deleting brand new articles by non-brand new editors. I added the hang on template before it was deleted, though you clearly chose to ignore it, and now, ironically, there is a Talk:The_International_Child_Abduction_Database for an article that does not exist.--Cybermud (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize for the favorability of your response (whatever that means). My issue was with deleting my page after I added the hang-on template to it and while I was writing in talk. It was not identical to the linked page (which I myself referenced in the article) and the copyright symbol was a link that pointed to the copyright statement for INCADAT (the database) itself, not for the description of the database which is what was the bot flagged as being in violation. I've lost enough edits to the vagaries of the internet and the occasional errors of Wikimedia's servers that I like to click save often. I'll be careful not to do that with new articles, having seen what bots and admins will do to them if I put content there intending to copyedit it immediately thereafter (as happened in this case.)--Cybermud (talk)
There is no way we are allowed to keep copyright material on the wiki for any length of time, as there are legal repercussions to that. You can and should use word processing software off-wiki to prepare your article in a case like this. I did read the copyright statement which is actually the terms and conditions for the case studies eleswhere on their website. --Diannaa(Talk)00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy
Thanks for a very wise decision. It's a constant target, so indefinite semi- protection makes total sense. There are many very controversial articles that need this type of protection, but many admins are a bit too shy to do it. It takes courage. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa. Thanks for deleting this. If you haven't already done so, could you salt it as well please, otherwise it will get created again. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christos Gatsis and Gatsis Christos have both been salted; the first was done when I deleted the page and I did the second just now, so they can't re-create it there either. You posted a good analysis on the Vin Diesel question, by the way; I noticed that case at WP:Ear whilst reading Mr Gatsis' posts there. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
November backlog campaign
Could you confirm for me whether the leaderboard numbers should reflect rollover numbers? In other words, does one's words from a previous campaign belong on the November goldstar leaderboard? thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa. Just FYI I'm going to remove the band members from the Big Daddy infobox until I can sort out with User:Normanay1 who's supposed to be in there. I've left a message on his talk page. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. If nothing else, I have their CD liner notes I can dig out and cite. I asked him if their allmusic bio was correct; hopefully it is and we can just use that. 28bytes (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that one of the people is an alumni. I currently cannot remember which person, I and quick search did not recover any website references. I therefore added both.
The reason I actually entered these people is because I am an alumno of the school, and I heard from another person from the school that one of the people (Gina Riley or Jane Turner) is also an alumni. I do believe that one option would be true.
I will get back to you on any sort of reference that I can find.
Please feel free to re-add the material when you actually have a reliable source. If we just include all the stuff we think we heard somewhere, the whole project deteriorates pretty quickly. Thanks. --Diannaa(Talk)16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will add the correct person when a source can eb found. Thank you for responding quickly and being fair.
Diannaa, On 16 November you reverted an edit to Russian cursive which had added links to YouTube [1]. The same sort of edit had already been reverted on 7 August by a bot. The same edit was done again on 17 November, and I undid that one, following your lead but not really sure that it was the right thing to do. The same edit was done again on 18 November, reverted by a bot, and done immediately again. The same pattern of editing has started on Cyrillic alphabet - edit, revert by by bot, edit again - on 17 November.
I am new to this sort of thing.
What is the reason for not allowing this link?
What response, if any, should I make to the editor?
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to inquire about this problem. Links to You Tube are typically not allowed. As a source, they are not reliable, as the videos can be tampered with before upload to You Tube to contain anything at all. Many You Tube videos are copies of copyright material, and thus are not suitable for inclusion. Another good reason we remove these links is because they can contain malware, or because they are straight advertising. Some people get money from their advertisers for each hit on their video so a Wikipedia link can be lucrative. We want to discourage that sort of thing as it is not condusive to the type of encyclopedia we are trying to build. More info on this topic can be found at Wikipedia:External links. --Diannaa(Talk)15:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this one looked pretty good to me, for sure. The other admin should have removed the speedy tag for you before turning in for the night! Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)03:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated under a process called {{WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]], Not a speedy, but a seven-day-long period during which users will !vote on whether or not the article is wiki-worthy! The best thing to do is to continue to improve the article during the AFD process. See if you can come up with some more claims to notability, as that seems to be the main obstacle. --Diannaa(Talk)20:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
My account had trolls on it a couple months ago and was summarily indefinitely blocked without much discussion. But I digress, I've been editing on this address and others so I'd like to get back to actually doing things at Wikipedia, if possible, and I don't see why I can't do it with my old username, which is still in existence. I've contacted several other "admins" but they haven't really gotten back to me, most seem to have disappeared over the summer for various reasons, including my original blocker. Anything you could do would be amazingly helpful.
Thank you,
96.50.86.207 (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been here specifically? I haven't even had a chance to redeem my self. There isn't anyone who knows about it, it was literally no warning. It isn't about trust I'd just rather not go through any bureaucratic that would take weeks while...nvm I can see I'm talking to a wall...96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Label M
I don't understand what was wrong with 'Label M' it was simply a link to 'Joel Dorn' thus providing more information. No references were provided because this information was gleaned over a period of time from various sources which are no longer on line. It is all true and I am quite informed on the subject and collect the out of print cds concerned. There is no other information on line and now there still isn't. I have also added info to the page 32Jazz, on the same basis. Maybe no one else is interested but if so, why provide the links from 'Joel Dorn' article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald obtains (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The information seemed completely unsourced and the label non notable. There are red links all over Wikipedia, and not all of them will become articles. I also suspected it was a cut-and-paste from somewhere else on the Internet, and thus a copyright violation, but I was unable to find the source document. Please do not copy materials from elsewhere on the Internet; to do so is in violation of copyright law and thus could have legal ramifications. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)15:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user User:Sikh-history is warning me again that he's going to block me for no reason as I have said nothing wrong here User_talk:Dbachmann as you can see..I'm not sure what to do he's not stopping no matter what I do or where I edit or what I say.I am not sure who to complain too.At this moment hes re-editing my Citations on Jat People instead of fixing them like you advised me to do with google books hes doing the same thing as before on my articles.Dhruvekhera (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sikh-history is not an administrator; only an admin can block you. I am pretty sure you have been rude to him. Please re-read some of your recent posts with a more analytical eye and you will see what I mean. You have put bare-links refs from Google Books in the aticles and Sikh-history is attempting to clean up after you. He is following you around because you are doing damage, and he is cleaning it up. You need to start listening to the advice we are trying to give you. Please be nicer to everyone, and you will have a better chance of having a productive Wikipedia career. --Diannaa(Talk)17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I was kind of hoping there'd be a fix that didn't involve turtleshelling again.
I mean I just came out. I'm not bothered per se; most ip posts tend to be harassment or bordering on it, but it just seems a bit unfriendly, you know? HalfShadow03:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to take it off again? If you are hunting vandals its nice for them to have somewhere to complain at you. Whatever you think is best. --Diannaa(Talk)04:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly removed it myself. Must admit I'm a little puzzled about this - last time I tried to edit an AfD log, there was a pop-up that said I had insufficient user-rights to so do. Anyways, all fine, end of story. Apologies for this ultimately unnecessary discussion O_o !--Shirt58 (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you resolved this, as I have no experience with the AFD process yet. I have been doing speedies, and whacking vandals. --Diannaa(Talk)17:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fellow Editor
Hi fellow editor, thanks for intervening in article Arora and particularly with an editor there who has an unco-operative attitude there. I have tried to tag references for discussion, but I fear my editing their may inflame this user more. I think there is an element of racial bias by this editor as can be seen from the comments made here. I have no intention of engaging in edit wars as some unscrupulous editors have WP:Game 'd the system in past and got me blocked. I have a real problem with many of the India based articles as a lot of the content is "junk" and not encyclopaedic. Jat people is one good example of "junk". Anyway, best of luck, in removing some of the nonsense. Thanks --Sikh-History11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not sure if this is rude jumping in here! but I asked User:Sikh-history to discuss 3 times here and even wrote on his talk page User_talk:Sikh-history regarding the issue he had an problem with! and I also asked to him to Discuss the topic on the Discussion page of Arora(he did none)only threatened to block me again and again. I don't see how this has anything to do with racial bias..and if it is I have not brought up the issue as you can see here User_talk:Dbachmann . Just to point out I have added more then 5-6 new citations since I started editing the Arora page before there were not to many before for such a big page.I am infact trying to improving the article unlike User:Sikh-history who has not contributed anything to the article.Dhruvekhera (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sikh-history. Note Dhruvekhera has also posted in the thread above (Arora). I was still framing my reply when this message came in and now I will have an edit-conflict with myself :). Thanks, I will check out the investigation report in a minute. --Diannaa(Talk)17:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fellow Editor. I thought at first that your indefinite block of Dhruvekhera may have been harsh, however, see my comment here and the comment by another editor. Follow the link. It appears that Dhruvekhera has been leaving racist messages elsewhere, so I think your reason for an indefinite block is a good one. Good Work. Thanks --Sikh-History08:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be too harsh at first also, but the decision has now been confirmed by three different respected and experienced administrators. Sometimes we just have to cut people loose for the good of the project. I intend to be working on some India and Pakistan articles for the next while so I expect I will see you around. Thank you for the barnstar. Regards --Diannaa(Talk)19:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, however, I am having problems on article Arora (it maybe my pc), but can you take alook. We have another person going around hacking refernces and section there. Thanks --Sikh-History14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you reverted them and issued a warning. That was a good idea. I have watch-listed the article and will keep an eye on it. --Diannaa(Talk)23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I have just been introduced to editing articles and thought I would try my hand at one listed in the current drive. I'm not quite clear on the process of joining the drive and taking word counts so I haven't signed up, but would love some feedback on the work I've done on this page to see if it's up to scratch. Also, could you please let me know if I've addressed the right issues or missed anything which needs fixing.
Whateverblah (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I kind of figured a rangeblock wouldn't work.
Two prefixes can be kind of iffy. I mean, if all else fails, I could be SP, but that renders me inaccessible to new users or IPs (which often can be helpful/useful), and I have quite a few people watching me as it is anyway. HalfShadow04:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Plus some of the people using Huggle are quite savvy, and will pick up on this kind of thing quite quickly, whether they have watchlisted your page or not. --Diannaa(Talk)04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he stopped because he got bored (silly me.) The blocks were not applied until about an hour after Semi-whatsit made his post. The blocks have been applied for a two-day trial. We will see how many folks complain, and then try a longer period if we are not getting any flak from other users in the IP ranges. I hope this works. --Diannaa(Talk)01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, don't worry about that. It's just since nothing had happened up until now I thought you'd already set them up. I mean, there's no way I'd know one way or the other, but he usually hits my page quite early in the morning and that didn't happen, so... HalfShadow02:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was hoping he was done as all the literature goes on about these range blocks and all the potential collateral damage. So I hesitated --Diannaa(Talk)02:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that, no, I did not realize that he has a dynamic IP address but that should not give him the excuse to make continuous reverts with impunity. We all have to abide by the rules on reverts but if it is so impossible to pin down this editor to a single account, and if he is unwilling to have anything about our objections, what other sort of recourse can we turn to, if not a semi-protection? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no harm if it is very short. If not, we need to send a separate short note out to ALL our members. Members and past drive participants are eligible to vote. – SMasters (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
