i have cited two sources. please refrain from editing the article any more. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.151.46.148|86.151.46.148]] ([[User talk:86.151.46.148|talk]]) 03:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
i have cited two sources. please refrain from editing the article any more. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.151.46.148|86.151.46.148]] ([[User talk:86.151.46.148|talk]]) 03:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
i repeat, i have cited two sources. one is a HIGHLY respected mma fansite, the other is a bona fide news source. thanks.
It is a bank holiday in some parts of the UK so perhaps he was logged on at his hotel or his gran's. Whatever. I have applied the wider range block and we'll try it for a week. If no innocent bystanders are calling for my blood we will try a longer block. --Diannaa(Talk)21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only other option is an indef SP, otherwise he'll just wait it out. You're sure this probably won't effect anyone but him? I'd prefer not to go SP; as I said it'd probably have to be until one of us dies, but if this is causing disruption I'd rather not be responsible for that. HalfShadow21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wider range block affects some 8000 IPs but when I checked, only eight of those IPs had actually edited the encyclopedia during the months of October and November. One person did a few edits on a star trek article, and another chap updated a few articles about various towns in Britain. I think I would like to proceed, as if he can't get through, eventually he will get bored with trying and will get a life, maybe. If the other folks are keen to edit, they will still be able to create accounts elsewhere and then edit from this range. Or we could go back to the narrower ranges under the assumption that our fellow just had the day off and went out of town. An indef on your talk page is of limited value as he will just find someone else to pester. --Diannaa(Talk)21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. I will leave it with the bigger range for a week and then decide where to go with it next based on what happens. --Diannaa(Talk)22:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I edit conflicted with you while copying the numbers from my slot on the page to the leaderboard, which changes my ranking. You can check my contributions and see that I did not copyedit beyond the timelimit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
I just reverted some comments from this IP on their own talkpage directed at all of us; I hope that my edit was not out of line. If you agree, would you consider revoking talk page access for the duration of the block? Nothing productive is coming from this IP address. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the International Cinematographers Guild
I work at The Cinematographers Guild and decided to create a page for us, but it was instantly deleted before I had a chance to respond to the Speedy Deletion notice. You'll see the the Writer's Guild, a sister local to us, has a similar page up. Can you please replace the page that I had created, since I had not had a chance to save a backup copy of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill.bronner (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The second 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, the article could be speedily deleted if the organisation is deemed not notable enough for an article. Sorry the reply could not be more favourable. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)01:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi D! Could you give me your take on this, just to share opinions? I AfD'd this after cautiously not wanting to slap a G3 on it immediately; However, the way the AfD is going, it seems I would have been right anyway. Is there anything stopping me from doing a G3 right now before the AfD runs its full term?--Kudpung (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) "G3 - hoax" is only used for blatant hoaxes, where the misinformation is so obvious it constitutes complete vandalism. I did remove the negative unsourced content. (I have made a user subpage containing examples of articles deleted under CSD here.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree with G3, though the references and quoted reviews do not check out. The artist actually exists. But he has only got one song available so far, and does not meet notability guidelines IMO, so it could have been deleted under A7. The article also qualifies for a BLP prod as it is unreferenced.
In a more general sense, I think the article qualifies for speedy deletion as the guideline says "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." And since Courcelles deleted the article under a speedy deletion criterion, it looks like the fact that you started the AFD process does not preclude proposing a speedy if one of the criteria fit. A speedy tag should not be applied to an article that has survived one of the other deletion processes. --Diannaa(Talk)17:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated.
Stats
GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive graphs
58 people signed up for this drive. Of these, 48 people participated in the drive.
Although we did not eliminate the months we planned to (January, February, and March 2009; and August, September, and October 2010), we did reduce the backlog by 627 articles (11.2%), which was over our goal of 10%.
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks.
Question: If we didn't total our word counts by Nov. 30 11:59pm, then they don't count towards our awards in the end, right? Even if we did the work? thanks --Aichikawa (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is correct. There is only about a 5-minute grace period to get your material posted, as the page is usually closed right on time. --Diannaa(Talk)08:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George Augustus Selwyn
Deleting something because you don't like the reference is a lot easier but much less helpful than finding a reference that might be considered more acceptable. George Selwyn's alleged necrophilia is perhaps the most historically remembered fact about him. I can add a reference to a book instead of that website but it contains the same info and is less accessible.173.112.102.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I am new to editing and unsure how to add it, could you give me a hand? It is in The Aristocrats by Stella Tillyard but I don't have the page number. I see in Google Books there is a reference in "The misfits:a study of sexual outsiders" by Colin Wilson on page 17. How would that be added?173.112.102.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Here is the correct format:
<ref>{{cite book |title=The Misfits: A study of Sexual Outsiders |last=Wilson |first=Colin |year=1988 |publisher=Grafton |page= 17}}<ref>
You paste this in after the info you glean from the book. Then the wiki formatting automatically does its thing and the citation appears down below in the refercences section. There is also a cite template for information from the internet; here is a blank:
<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref>
Unfortunately omni.sytes.net seems to be a blacklisted website, so I have removed that source from the article. I am logging off now so if there are any further questions I'll get back to you tomorrow. Happy editing! --Diannaa(Talk)06:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info and helping with this. I am going to add the famous quote by Henry Fox and reference the Tillyard book I will get the page number later.173.112.102.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive
22 articles already? It looks like you stole my technique of wikifying really short articles! :) Thanks for working so hard ... this drive is pretty much going downhill right now... Guoguo12--Talk--20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed many from the category that did not actually need wikification. I will do some more tomorrow. Short articles can be found using Catscan. If you want to use it and don't know how, please let me know. --Diannaa(Talk)
Oh I am so sorry you had a bad experience. You were in a good position to win a post. I will mark you as withdrawn from the election. --Diannaa(Talk)06:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another matter, Diannaa, I am sorry that I posted out a few notes to a handful of editors to alert them to the elections. A few of them voted for you as well. The original thinking for me to write to them was that I thought, why not write to some editors who do use the request page, but are not GOCE members, and let them know that we are getting more organized, and are alive and kicking. I did it in good faith, but I guess now it has turned on me. If I really wanted to lobby for votes, I would have written to 100 editors, not 19. I consider us as friends and co-workers here, and have been for a fairly long time. I would hate to see this put a wedge between us. At one stage today I got a bit demoralized and considered if I should pull out. I do feel that the questioning is bordering on a personal attack against me. But I think I need to stand up and not be bullied by this one user. If you feel that I have been unfair, please do let me know, and I will consider any appropriate actions. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I award you this exclusive barnstar, the Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar, for your exceptional copyediting efforts during the GoCENovember 2010 Drive, where you copyedited an impressive 164 articles with a combined total of 87,095 words (147,982, with rollover words), Diannaa, I hereby induct you into the exclusive Order of the Caretaker club. Congratulations, and thank you for all your hard work! — Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, the software won't actually let you perform that large of a block! The biggest you can do is a /16, that blocks 65,536 people. (I personally am loathe to do anything larger than /19) Courcelles23:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was hilarious. Luckily he quit after the second block. Are there that many people in the UK?? OOpsie, there goes continental Europe. My bad! --Diannaa(Talk)
Don't joke too much! Even with the limit of /16, it is still possible to block access to Wikipedia from entire countries, especially in the middle east and the south Pacific. (A mere /20 will, for instance, take out all access from the nation of Vanuatu!) Courcelles00:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa, placing a six month full protection on an article is not in line with policy. Take out the VOA's that are so old they could be sold as vintage Champagne, add PC2 on top of semi; but you can't lock everyone out of an article for half a year on account of some autoconfirmed vandalism. Courcelles 03:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
:All right. What would you recommend? --Diannaa(Talk)03:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Restore the semi, to stop the drive-by garbage, and add PC2 to make the reviewers look though any edits from autoconfirmed users that are not reviewers or sysops. That'll stop what it is we're seeing, 3 to 5 year old accounts that came out of hibernation to vandalise. (And it's not like there can be TOO many of the darn things. Though having indeffed three tonight, I might be wrong, but we can easily get rid of them as they appear.) Written after ec: Good, that's the best way to handle things. I'll watchlist the article and use the banhammer on the "vintage" accounts as needed. (Though the idea of actually having to read a word about Justin Beiber kind of makes me cringe ;) )Courcelles03:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Unfortunately when they come to the talk page they also only push the POV. But please continue to try to explain Wikipedia policies to them. Thanks for reporting this. --Diannaa(Talk)03:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Diannaa, sorry for my emotional complaint. Now I see you sent the same warning to the other editors engaged in the edit war. Therefore, my complaint that your were treating us unequally was wrong. I apologize for that. Monkh Naran (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily mean jump up and down on him, but the last time I only warned one side I was specifically asked by an admin why I didn't warn both. HalfShadow03:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cybermud is incredibly angry right now. I am still looking at the diffs here. You did right to warn both editors; I just did the same on Inner Mongolia. I have kinda got a wording worked out about what I will say on their talk page and will report back in a minute. --Diannaa(Talk)03:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you generally shouldn't template regulars, it's just in the case of edit warring it's the most efficient way. As I said to him, I'm just trying to make sure they both don't get in trouble. HalfShadow03:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Templates are good because they have specially designed neutral wording. The 3RR template is sorta like a speeding ticket; there's no nice way to do it so the neutrally worded template is best, even with regulars. --Diannaa(Talk)03:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my message is now up on their talk page. I think they have stepped away from the computer for a while as they have not edited for about 25 minutes. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)03:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image was a copyright violation and thus was deleted. I could find no record of the article passing afd, only the creator moved it into main space claiming it had passed. Please provide a link to where it was approved it you can find it; I could be wrong. My rationale for deletion was G3: Blatant hoax: this is an internet meme and a thing they do in manga comics, not real life. --Diannaa(Talk)03:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is if you would kindly provide me with a link wherein this article passed afc. --Diannaa(Talk)03:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why we could not have an article about this as an internet meme or a thing they do in manga, if people think it is notable enough and sources could be found. This article was not acceptable as it was presented as a thing that people could actually do. That is why I cchose category G3.` --Diannaa(Talk)21:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised by your comment per semi-protection of the article. I do not think it is an accurate assessment. After accusations of vandalism were revealed false, the "3RR" was indicated. There was one contributor on the "ANI" who mentioned many POVs at work other than myself. Were you to further examine IPs edit history, you would find cordiality and willingness to listen and compromise with other editors, save one, who is under the false assumption that creating NPOV in a biography means to insert excessive subtopic criticism not appropriate to the article subject. I have retained all information by moving it to proper articles and sections. Perhaps you will reconsider your position upon closer inspection. It is important to draw conclusions from one's own investigation, rather than hearsay or presumption. Thank you for your attention. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is semi-protected for one week. Please do not take it personally. I did indeed thoroughly investigate and I stand behind my action. --Diannaa(Talk)15:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take the protection personally, nor am I questioning your decision to do so. However, your notation "Protected Ralph Nader: disruptive POV edits by multiple IPs", I find misleading (a) as per above, (b) the fact that the disruption occurred when a named user falsely accused IPs of vandalism, likely as a form of personal attack, and WayneSlam acted inappropriately, which was determined per ANI, and (c) it omits said named user, who has admitted to pushing a negative POV under the false assumption that the article is "too positive" and inserting negative content will create NPOV, when in fact such a position overtly opposes NPOV. I have denied, and will continue to deny, that the IPs edits are based on POV, or that these edits are intended for any other purpose other than to improve the article. Thus, with respect, I find your notation misleading, if not altogether incorrect. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know about Wayne and he has now had his rollback, Huggle, and Twinkle privledges taken away. I did not mention the registered user in my rationale for protection because a registered user is not stopped by semi-protection. It is true that IPs are not the only ones who participated in the edit war or the only ones who behaved disruptively. Note that there were absolutely no talk page edits for this article from November 30 to December 6: people were simply reverting reverting reverting and giving their rationale by edit summary only, if at all. I apologise; it was not my intention to diss IP editors or make like registered users are always in the right. Clearly at least two of them were wrong in this instance. Not necessarily in the choice of content they wanted to insert or remove, but in their behavior. --Diannaa(Talk)23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am trying to engage User:Betaclamp in a discussion by starting a merger discussion by inserting a merger banner on the Beta clamp article page and posting a comment on the user's talk page. However the user keeps reverting the addition of the merger template and has not responded to any of my comments. Given the number of reverts the user has made after being warned, I think administrator intervention at this point may be appropriate. I would appreciate if you would look into this further. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a quick look at this page last night when he shut down the redirect and reopened the page as an article. I converted it back to a redirect-from-merge, as you probably already know. Please keep in touch if you need a hand with anything. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)01:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why Did You Delete My Indital Pages? I've worked with other Admins on creating this page
Why did you delete my created Indital page? I've worked very diligently with other Wikipedia admins to ensure the content of this page is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and now all that work has been deleted...I work for a variety of companies who want to utilize Wikipedia to give content about their company, and NOT USE IT AS A MARKETING RESOURCE. I've worked with admins to make sure this is the case, but now my Indital page has been deleted. I've put considerable time and effort into creating this page and worked with others to make sure the page is correct and now all that work is gone.
I'm fine with updating the pages to be more fitting of the guidelines if you believe I need to. Just please reestablish my page and help me be a continuing contributor to the community. This is part of my job, and losing this pages is very detrimental, especially since others have previously approved them.Jmlnarik01 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason your page was deleted is because it met the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion class WP:CSD A7: "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a business directory. The article still fails to meet the notability guideline. The page is now available in your user space at User:Jmlnarik01/Indital for further work. If you choose to move it into main space again, it will likely be deleted again. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)01:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Thanks for the recent corrections you made to this article. The regular chess editorial crowd (myself included) have some deficiencies in the English grammar department, so your changes are most welcome (—fingers crossed no-one reverts them!). Brittle heaven (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. The user received a short block. The edits seem out of sync with their recent activities, so I wonder what's going on. --Diannaa(Talk)04:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that user's contributions to L Kensington's page in the recent changes log, but you had already blocked him when I went to report him ;) . However, judging by the nature of the good contributions stopping in early August 2010, I would say that the original user left. Then 90.194.145.174 comes and makes "apostasy vandalism" [1], which L Kensington reverts. After a bit, Jkl678 (talk·contribs) arrives and re-vandalizes. [2] I am suspicious of a compromised account, so should I request checkuser to determine if 90.194.145.174 compromised Jkl678's account? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a very good idea. The recent edits do not in any way resemble the edits from August. Jk1678 is blocked for a few more days, so there is still time to investigate. Thank you for taking the initiative here; much appreciated. --Diannaa(Talk)00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you partially dealt with this issue before, and would like to ask you to do it again. As I believe you are aware, User:Samahiaka18 continously inserted an inccorect version of the Michigan State seal, with a blue outer ring rather then red. This is despite the fact that the State Seal has red, while the seals of Government officials are blue. After both my and your reverts, the user appears to have given up on that, but then began removing the Seal all-together since he/she didn't get their way. Now an IP address(which I suspect is User:Samahiaka18 not signed in) continues to remove the seal, despite warnings. Can you please take what action is necessary to stop this. Fry1989 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The seal on the Michigan Attorney General article should be blue. There is a red one up there right now, the state seal, as we have not got a blue attorney general seal available. I note that you have not posted any warnings on the talk page of the registered user, and the IP has not received a warning since December 4. You need to realise that new or unexperienced users may not see your edit summaries, and therefore may literally not be getting the message. I am posting a modified level 2 warning template on the IP's talk page. You can use these templates too if you like; they are available at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I will watch-list the article for a while and help you monitor what happens next. --Diannaa(Talk)20:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I'm sorry if I'm not dealing with it the right way. I've requested the AG's seal be made on the Commons, then we can put it up here. Fry1989 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. Don't worry about not knowing the "right way", there are so many rules that no one can possibly know them all. --Diannaa(Talk)23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The USe of the Seal is illegal for commercial uses, however, it's use for education purposes is NOT restricted. This is in standing with all national insignias, The IP is using it as an excuse to get their way. Fry1989 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without seeing a copy of the Act, I can't say what is correct. They say nothing about educational purposes on the website. Perhaps if you could get the Attorney General seal uploaded that would resolve the debate? --Diannaa(Talk)00:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Sec of State's website(who is custodian of the Seal), coroborates that it is commercial use that is illegal. Also, their depiction shows the seal with a redish-brown and MOST certainly NOT blue. The IP has absolutely no proof the seal is blue, nor can I find any. The seal should be re-inserted, as the IP has not done anything constructive, or given proof to their claims. Sec's websiteFry1989 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can see the inconsistency here. First the IP claims the seal is Blue and tries to re-insert it several times, and then once it is made clear by myself and then yourself that the blue one won't be used, they then claim the use of the seal is illegal. The IP has no sources, and only is trying to get the blue one used, and if not, then to have no seal used at all. Fry1989 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand your point. But the website clearly says the use of the seal is illegal, excpt for official govt documents. So the IP could be right about that part. I am not going to insert it. If you wish to attempt it yourself, that is your right. --Diannaa(Talk)00:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll wait for the AG seal to be created. The point I wished to make has been made. However, if the Ip attempts to remove the Seal from other pages, uch as the State, or the Governor, we may have a bigger issue. So for though, it seems just to be regaring the AG's page, so I'll leave it alone. I got a vacation coming so wanna relax a bit before I go. Thanks anyways for putting up with my rambling, I can be kinda harsh some times, and tough deal with, though I mean well. Fry1989 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A short article, Manaf Abd al-Rahim al-Rawi, was deleted by you today on the grounds that it was an 'unsourced attack article'; I presume it was an oversight, since the article was indeed sourced (to a detailed New York Times article), and the subject of the 'attack' was a member of Al Qaeda. I've provisionally restored the article, with original source, and added a second unrelated source reference. You might want to drop a note to the user who added the speedy deletion tag that they're being overenthusiastic with the speedy deletes; I believe that was Mkativerata . jackbrown (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you for having warned user Counterdem about his recent edits. I supose his edits are not intentional vandalism, but they are however nationalistically motivated. The worste is that they are very annoying because they require time and effort from a number of editors to correct them. Well, thank you once more. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Create an ANI thread concerning abusive behavior by Lunalet?
I have created a draft for an ANI notice here. Please let me know if you think I should create such a thread, since I feel that Lunalet's abuse of SMasters has gone waaaaay to far. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind an uninvolved admin to look at everything, but without creating a lot of drama. Please ask SMasters what he thinks we should do. --Diannaa(Talk)02:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you both for your support and understanding. Lunalet has done nothing very constructive with his account except cause wide disruption and attacks on several editors. He has wasted all our time. I have had to answer to so many of his attacks rather than helping with so many pending copyedit requests that we have. If we have enough evidence, I would support going for this. The elections are almost over, but I'm worried that the badgering will spill over into the Guild. Also, if we can prevent him from badgering other good editors outside the Guild, we would have achieved something good. But ultimately, I leave the decision to proceed or not with Reaper Eternal. – SMasters (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this and thought I'd give my opinion. Lunalet shows more interest in attacking the Guild (specifically SMasters) than constructively contributing to Wikipedia. There's plenty of evidence, as can be seen in Reaper's ANI draft, so I'd support an ANI report. However, like SMasters said, the decision is up to Reaper. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs03:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the general consensus is to create the report? I would like Diannaa's input on whether she supports such a report or not, though. (I don't mind filing the report and dealing with the drama.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people suspect Lunalet is a socl puppet of User:LAz17, but Wikistalk shows no overlap between the edits of LAz17 and SMasters. Sarek of Vulcan has removed the most recent attack. I have posted to the ANI thread. --Diannaa(Talk)20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weather Satellite: GOES East
Hi Dianna, i'm new in wikipedia
Can u help me with this problem:
i try to fix a mistake in Weather_satellite: and you revert this
The GOES is a Geostacionary satellite, like METEOSAT (europe), INSAT (india), GMS (Japan). All Geostacionaty satellites orbits over equator,... GOES 12 (east) orbits over equator at 74W longitude... the amazon river runs over equator!
where is the reference about "over mississippi" ?
Do you think we should send a note out thanking all those who voted in the Coordinator election? I already contacted SMasters about this, and he thinks we should just include it in our final end of year newsletter. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs00:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I agree with SMasters. We are nearly at year end, and we could send a wrap-up out about a week before our next drive is due to start. It could include a wrap of our activities for the year; a summary of the election results and a thanks for voting; and an invite to our next drive. What else? I am missing something. --Diannaa(Talk)00:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe encourage people to copyedit some articles in the requests section so we have a nice clean page for the start of the drive? Sorry if I haven't been keeping up with that well, I have been getting requests on my user talk page ;> . Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. It might be good enough for GA as-is, but for FA you will probably have to go through again and remove more sports-isms. Good luck! --Diannaa(Talk)23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
