Request your attention to the issue again to evolve consensus.[[User:Vamsisv|Vamsisv]] ([[User talk:Vamsisv|talk]]) 05:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Request your attention to the issue again to evolve consensus.[[User:Vamsisv|Vamsisv]] ([[User talk:Vamsisv|talk]]) 05:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I am responsible for editing the toilet paper article which you had to correct for "vandalism". I did not think of it as that, but merely a harmless joke. Nevertherless, I respect Wikipedia's rules and offer my sincere apology and assurance that it will not happen again. No this is not a joke, nor is it said with sarcasm. I am quite serious. No harm no foul I hope.
Lmao! that makes up for the no carry over big time - good luck with Wikifying, I need to check that out as I never completely understood what Wikifying is - I imagined it had to do with lead sizes and orders of sections etc., something for me to read tomorrow I guess. Anyway I am off to bed to dream of my gold typewriter and badge lol, night and thx again. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Diannaa, I checked through all the roll-over totals and your math looks good. I also checked over the leader boards and they all look fine except for the massive Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya article that Chaosdruid copy edited. Before the user added the GOCE-in-use tag, the article had 30,966 words. There was also a bullet-point list that added 1715 words for a total of 32,681 – not 32,711 as was written. The difference is not huge, but I'm wondering how 32,711 was calculated. There is another numbered list of items within the article totaling 153 words, but adding this still doesn't make 32,711. Could you help me on this? Thanks! --Tea with toast(talk)03:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for checking my artihmetic. :) Chaosdruid has turned in for the night so I can't get you an answer right now to your other question. Most people plug an article with a lot of lists into a word processing programme to do the word count and there may be slight variations in how different programmes do the calculation. It does not impact any of our awards, but we can find out tomorrow, if you think it's important. --Diannaa(Talk)04:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An Enquiry
Hi, the message you left on my talk page reads, and I quote, "The recent edit you made to Wikipedia:Sandbox has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing;" Isn't this a contradiction, it WAS the Sandbox that I was editing. 120.16.237.82 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the IP editor you blocked 174.94.36.111 is messing with his talk page, and well, frankly putting my name all over it and one of his edit summaries is a clear BLP violation. I thought I would let you know. Thanks again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is one where he, in the edit summary, calls me his boyfriend, which seems a bit much (and to be clear, I only edit that page for vandalism, I would never ever edit my own page, I respect the rules around here). If you think that should go, that would be good. I appreciate it. Thanks again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fellow Editor, I seem to be having some problems with my editing tools, but could you have a look at this rogue IP who seems to be deleting references and adding some odd information here. Thanks --Sikh-History08:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another administrator has blocked the IP for edit warring; I am still going to place a notice on their Talk page not to copy stuff from other web sites. --Diannaa(Talk)15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thaks. The PC I am on prevents my editing tools from working. I will have to use another one. As a rule in information on www.sikhiwiki.org is junk and I remove it, when it used as a reference here. I have caught editors writing stuff here, then referencing back to www.sikhiwiki.org, where they have edited the article in another name. Thanks--Sikh-History15:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is a wiki called IMdB, which is a movie data base. Vandals have been known to post false information on that wiki and then try to use it as a source here on Wikipedia. I have to go to work now so I will see you later. Bye --Diannaa(Talk)15:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re:January barnstar.
Thank you for the barnstar, Diannaa! Now, I hope I don't sound ungrateful, but I'm mostly asking this so that I better understand how this works: One of the rules for barnstar awarding is that anyone who copyedits an article of 10,000 or more words gets a special award for doing that. I copyedited an article of just over 10,000 words, but it was solely for typo-correction - the copyediting tag at the top still qualified. Does an editor have to copyedit the article enough so that the tag can come down, or do they only need to complete a certain copyedit that they set out to do? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, you did copy edit an article of over 10,000 words. We have simply not yet finished handing out all the barnstars! This document shows what all has been done so far. Sorry for any confusion. Congrats on your nice awards, and thanks for helping out with the drive. --Diannaa(Talk)21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-doke! Thanks for "clearing the fog"! And these drives are fun, I personally think a lot more WikiProjects, especially those concerned with editing styles, should hold these sorts of drives every other month - it's a collaborative effort, treated like a semi-competition, and substantial participations are rewarded, so there's plenty of motivation for people to work on clearing these pages up. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We have reached the end of the month and the end of another successful drive; thanks to all who participated.
Statistics
54 people signed up for the year's first Backlog elimination drive. Of these, 40 participated.
One of our goals was to reduce the size of the backlog by at least 10%. We managed to reduce the backlog by 633 articles, or about 12%.
Another goal was to eliminate as many 2009 months as possible from the queue. We eliminated January, February, March, and April—4 out of 12 months is not bad! In addition, we eliminated 37% of all remaining 2009 articles from the queue.
Chaosdruid copy edited Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya for 32,711 words, which is the largest single article completed in one of our drives so far. This article counts as six 5000-K articles, and Chaosdruid wins the "most 5000-K articles" leaderboard category. Way to go! A complete list of individual results is here.
Barnstars
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the November 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 the barnstars within the next couple of weeks.
Thank you for participating in this year's first Backlog elimination drive! We hope to see you in March.
Hi Diannaa. Just fyi - I don't know if you're aware that there's a debate in John Wayne Gacy (that I'm thankfully not involved in) about that image that you just restored. btw I never thanked you for the heads up about W S. I've always been careful with rollback but now I'm that much more conscious in its use. SlightSmile00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the heads-up. It just looked like routine vandalism from inside Huggle, as an anon removed it with no edit summary. --Diannaa(Talk)04:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea; I was just checking it out and it's not the first time. The article is a walking time bomb, apparently. I have semi'd --Diannaa(Talk)04:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Diannaa! I see you're in AB, is it too much info to ask top or bottom half? Just curious as I spent my "formative years" in Fort Mac and the family lives just south of Cowtown. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots14:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have restored that bit. The rest of the stuff is unsourced; if you have any local knowledge perhaps you could look it over for accuracy. Thanks. --Diannaa(Talk)06:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to speedy deletion of Eyes of Fire (Band)
I was in the middle of writing why the article was Important/Significant when it was deleted. please read my reasoning and description of the article and reconsider deleting it. If it is still not Important/Significant, please help me and tell me what needs to be added so i can create this and other band pages for band from Wisconsin.
The band does not meet the notability guidelines. People, bands, and other organisations need to have write-ups in reliable third-party sources such as magazines or newspapers in order to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Have a look at the material at WP:BAND for guidelines specific to bands. --Diannaa(Talk)04:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Myspace and Facebook are not considered reliable sources. The Encyclopaedia Mettalum is a wiki that anyone can edit and thus is likely not a reliable source. The remaining sources were Mr Birkenmyer's own websites. All of the albums are self-published. There are no write-ups in reliable third-party sources that I could find. Sorry, but it seems that this band is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. --Diannaa(Talk)19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edit [1]. In your edit summary you called it an "unexplained removal of content" by User:MosMusy. Please notice that he explained his point twice on the article's talk page in the Russian as other language section. In addition you also reverted another edit of his, which is not connected with content removal. Please be more careful before you accuse editors of inappropriate behavior next time. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happens to the best of us. I have been looking at these two issues for a while now, before finally expressing my opinions on the talk page today. Debresser (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply asking for balance and thats all. The other user seems to want to white wash any balance and thats not reasonable. To call AOL libel is absurd... and the other fact is documented everywhere. Thanks for the balance. Babasalichai (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
beg to differ, its not me its the User:Sikh-history who is making unconstructive edits like this and is also misusing warning templates like this and this. I have warned him about WP:3RR on Ranbir Kapoor. The user seems to be obsessed with me and is stalking my edits, some of his blind edits like this is a good example of him showing personal animosity towards me, he was earlier making unecessary comments on my talk page like this and this. He was blocked for 24 hrs last time. Winston786 (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Game, and I think your behaviour will become clear. You've already had 1 weeks ban and you have engaged in edit wars with administrators. Also issuing WP:3rr when I clearly have not reverted edits is a great example of misuse of templates. It will be interesting to see how long this will continue. Thanks and Best Wishes--SH14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, its you who need to read WP:Game, you are constantly stalking my edits, most of your edits recently have been the ones related with mine. WP:3rr was issued coz you did revert the edits I made on the page. There has been no misuse of templates by me. Even you have been blocked in past(your block log) so watch it. Winston786 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make my case clear, I have added all the verified and standard sources when asked by other long established users, and I can explain all the edits I made. The only person warning me(or misuse of warning template I may say) is User:Sikh-history. Winston786 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator Titoxd removed the AIV report with the remark "not done; take this to AN/I, RFC, or somewhere else, since it's not blatant vandalism/spam". The diffs I have checked so far show that Sikh History is adding content and providing sources and Winston 786 is adding content and not providing sources. Sikh History, please do not accuse people of gaming the system or of having a lack of competence. That type of post inflames the situation and makes thing worse. Winston 786, it is quite normal for people to watch-list articles and check their list several times a day. I do this myself on problematic articles; I have 170 pages on my watch list. If Sikh History has watch-listed some of the articles that you are editing, this may give the appearance that he is following you around; however he is actually following the development of the articles and not you in particular. --Diannaa(Talk)15:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases I have provided the source, when asked for(or a better one), the other edition I have made are "Facts" which can be just tagged rather than complete deletion. Winston786 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is past the point where we can add material, especially to biographies, without quoting reliable sources. Things have gotten stricter about that even since I started editing a year and a half ago. WP:BURDEN says if you wish to add material you have to provide a source. Any unsourced material is subject to immedicate removal. --Diannaa(Talk)15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Burden is something I have been pulled up on, and we had possible lawsuits due to the nature of some comments on Biographies, hence the strict issue. Its true I have many articles on my watchlist, and the Bollywood ones fascinate me. I have raised an WP:AN/I on this issue, or I fear it may rumble on, everytime I question this particular editors edits. Thanks--SH16:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that the Bollywood pages you have on your watchlist, drew your attention only after I edited them and all your edits on them are just blind reverts or twisting of my edits. Winston786 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But it inflames the situation to say it, even if it is true. You would not say it to a co-worker if you were speaking to them in person, would you? Probably not, as you would make an enemy. --Diannaa(Talk)19:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am working on some real-life things as well. Unfortunately no admins seem inclined to respond to the ANI thread. I would be interested to hear other opinions --Diannaa(Talk)19:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me and DBachmann are the only two editor who try and tackle Indian related articles head on. You are peobably the third. Most editors realise they are a headache. I have had 3 blocks over Indian related articles and I consider myself quite dispassionate. It can get rather heated even for very cold people like me. :) Thanks--SH19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good example of the problem. Their are relaible sources there from books, magazine article and from English newspapers like the Guardian, but he either does not understand them or does not understand what WP:Consensus is. here is another example, where he seems to object to Hindu women being captured by Muslims, when clearly the reference states "When Hindus crack this joke, they are oblivious to the fact that had the Sikhs not intervened, their womenfolk would have been dishonoured and taken into exile....". Now this could be raised under WP:Censorship. Thanks --SH10:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This extremely annoying person hasn't yet shown any signs of tiring of his silly games. It is becoming a chore to keep reverting his puerile edits to the Jonjo Shelvey page, so I was wondering if the account could be blocked, since he/she has already been warned but has ignored the warnings and declared their intent of continuing adding references to Shelvey being bald. Dubmill (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keen to block a person for something so trivial but it is disruptive. I will try one more final warning and if the activity continues let's post it at WP:AIV for a second opinion. Thanks. --Diannaa(Talk)18:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, I feel I owe you the courtesy of telling you that I have requested full protection for Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. While I know that you can't directly protect the article, your opinion on the RPP page may be useful. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose that you could nudge another admin to look at both the page protection request for this page as well as the 3RR report I filed on User:Babasalichai? The protection request was filed about ten hours ago, so that's not too old, but the 3RR report was filed over 24 hours ago, and several more recent reports have been processed since then (I'm worried that perhaps it just got overlooked). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add a comment on each board, and I am awake now and will monitor closely. It's ok to block or protect myself in cases of clear vandalisms or BLP violations, I think --Diannaa(Talk)15:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there ever an instance where a user simply a biased voice that does not wish to adhere to Wiki's guidelines? Just wondering what happens if that occurs. I feel as though Babasalichai is that. It just seems that he will never compromise in a way that is intelligible. Perhaps it's just me? Not sure! Either way, thanks for your help, Diannaa. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen that before. What happens is we continue as we are doing and if he adds any material that violates BLP policy, we remove it. We keep doing that for as long as it takes. He can do no damage presently as the article is locked; when the protection expires it can be re-applied. Some of his stuff is bordering on trolling, as he persists in not getting the point. That's another way it could go: he violates enough rules that he gets blocked indefinitely. Thank you for spending so much time on this matter. The more of us there are that are mnonitoring, the better. --Diannaa(Talk)15:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple request balance... Am following the rules and appreciate your time...A simple line on the idol worship should settle that matter - accept your underworld commentsBabasalichai (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Babasalichai (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Nikolayevich Petrov
Aye, thank you for the reminder! All information on the page comes from Petrov's autobiography. I shall go back now and cite particular references.
Some recent changes (I believe made by one of Petrov's children) are, though salutary, somewhat at odds with his published recollections. I shall go back and make sure that the citations are properly done.
Would be much obliged if you'd check over my shoulder when I'm done and make sure things are in order.
Yes I find it very useful. Because you're in constant real-time contact with other Wikipedians (also, admins have their own private channel, but to whoever else is reading this don't worry, there's no shady cabal-like business dealings going on in there, it's actually quite boring usually ;) ) I'm usually active in the #wikipedia-en-help channel, where I'm always helping out newbies. There's also an anti-vandalism channel that monitors the recent changes feed and continually outputs any edits that are flagged by the system as being possible vandalism. I have my client set so that it notifies me anytime my name or any other certain keyword pops up in the feed.. it functions like an automatic notification watchlist, which can be very useful, especialyl if someone is in the process of vandalising your userpage. There's also usually really lively chat in #wikipedia-en, which can be entertaining to watch on some friday and saturday nights as drunken Wikipediots argue with each other ;P. Also the Office hours chats are a great way to get to know some of the suits at the foundation. Anyways, it's not everyone's cup-o-tea, I guess it depends if you're social butterfly and like chatting much :) -- Ϫ06:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I will check it out on the sly using an assumed assumed name. Like, a fake user name. Hee hee. Hey, I just realised we are neighbors: you live in B.C. --Diannaa(Talk)07:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's cool, I totally understand. Myself I'm not overly worried about people knowing where I live. Heck if someone showed up at my house I'd invite them in! ;P -- Ϫ15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say thanks for all the copy-editing on the King John article - it's looking a lot better, and is very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a question. In the section entitled "Volunteer companies organized from state militia", There is a [citation needed] tag after the comment, "Several other well-documented companies are likely have been organized in this manner, such as the Jackson Guards from Jackson County, and the Phillips County Guards of Phillips County, but so far contemporary records linking them to the militia have not been found." I am unsure how to resolved this tag, since the comment is about the fact that no records have been found. I added this comment after a couple of people sent me lists of Volunteer Companies from Arkansas and asked why they weren't all included in the article. How to you document the lack of a reference, or is there a better way to make the point? I really appreciate your insight. I may eventually nominate this article for GA. Aleutian06 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is no mention of the lack of sources in the sources, you may have to take it out as it looks like OR or speculation :). Here are some suggestions for further development of the article:
you could consolidate the references that are used multiple times. Have a look at my favourite article, Indiana class battleship . Note the Footnotes, Citations, Bibliography set-up
if you put all the citations in cite templates they will all be formatted correctly and in the same manner
citations need (where possible) ISBNs or OCLC numbers, publisher name, publication date, location - these may be available at www.Worldcat.org
all the dates need to be in American style (m-d-y; I worked on this but may have missed some, especially in the references).
Oh! This type of thing also happens when multiple IPs are vandalising the same article. Clue-bot or an unaware Huggler will not notice the hidden vandalism. Another trick they are pulling lately is 3 edits: bad, bad, good; if you are not alert you will not see the first baddie, and it appears that they are reverting a vandalistic edit. Can't say more: WP:Beans --Diannaa(Talk)00:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dianna, I dont know whaty our talking about ?? My page is completely deleted and gone, please return it, i spent hours collecting the information and was not done with it.
Fellow, Editor Kindly fix the page, Mohammed Mamdouh. I spent hours putting it together and you just deleted it and i wasnt even done with it, tell me what to change, deleting suddenly and abruptly is HARSH, i just dont want hours of research to go down the drain... its not plagiarism if its from production site which is approved !-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.173.80 (talk • contribs)
You cited me for vandalism because of my apparently "biased edits". Yet by calling my edits biased, isn't that biased in itself? I think you need to review your policy before accusing others of vandalism. To know the true reality of yourself, you must be aware not only of your conscious thoughts, but also of your unconscious prejudices, bias and habits. I mean mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of, but stigma and bias shame us all. Of all the causes which conspire to blind Man's erring judgment, and misguide the mind; What the weak head with strongest bias rules, - Is pride, the never-failing vice of fools — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrinCrow (talk • contribs) 04:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage we are uncertain who were behind these acts of vandalism but a thorough investigation, both through our internal structures as well as through the SAPS, is under way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrinCrow (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick vandalism revert at Talk:September 11 attacks. However, it's left the username visible in your edit summary. I revision deleted his edits under RD3, blatantly disruptive. Do you think the edit summary for your revert should be concealed also, to remove the disruptive username and deny him the glory of seeing it in the talk page history? —C.Fred (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just been RC patrolling for a while, and keep seeing that you've reveted vandalism faster than I can click. For your tireless effort, please accept an anti-valdalism Barnstar
Request your attention to the issue again to evolve consensus.Vamsisv (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I am responsible for editing the toilet paper article which you had to correct for "vandalism". I did not think of it as that, but merely a harmless joke. Nevertherless, I respect Wikipedia's rules and offer my sincere apology and assurance that it will not happen again. No this is not a joke, nor is it said with sarcasm. I am quite serious. No harm no foul I hope.[reply]
.jpg)
