Skip to the bottom ⇩ ·
 It is 3:09 PM where this user lives in Alberta.
Hi Diannaa, User:Anna Frodesiak and I were wondering if a range block would be possible to combat the disruption on Sasanian Empire. It seems to be coming from the 2.186* range. I plugged the IPs into TP's range counter and came out with 2.186.162.52/19. Is that correct or should I be looking wider? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mark. I plugged in seven IPs:
- 2.186.162.52
- 2.186.166.167
- 2.186.166.243
- 2.186.169.43
- 2.186.169.60
- 2.186.185.188
- 2.186.191.69
and got a range of 2.186.160.0/19 (up to 8192 users would be blocked). -- Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for your help, that looks right. I'll soft-block it for a week. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, Mark. Anytime :) -- Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And thanks to you both from me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE Barnstar
Hello, sorry for the delay in my response; I was on a bit of a wikibreak. Thank you for the barnstar. So you are aware, I am currently working on a new "menu" page for WP:GOCE; let me know if you are interested, preferably on my talk page so that I don't miss your message. --17:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
190.106.222.191, 190.106.222.129, are just two IPs I found right now. There's probably more. Erick (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked 190.106.222.128/25 (up to 128 users would be blocked) for one month. He is the only person active on this range. Please let me know if he pops up on other IPs. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not got a response here or here so the plan is obviously to re-upload the proper Big Fish poster, but I don't want to be blocked. So that's why I'm posting this first. I don't like the threat of being blocked when I'm making a correction that ONE person is reverting without a valid reason. So I'm basically seeking your assurance that I won't be blocked again. Cheers. Film Fan 22:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I already told you that if you continue to edit war to restore your preferred version of the poster, you will be blocked. I've seen nothing that would change my mind about that. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you justify that threat? I have done what I'm supposed to do. I have opened TWO discussions, only ONE of which has had a response, and ONLY from the ONE person reverting me, who thinks that it doesn't matter if a poster doesn't resemble the original if it is a tiny bit sharper that the copy that does. It's insane, and there has been no input from anyone else because no one gives a crap so what am I supposed to do? I'm not letting it go when I know I'm right and the sight of the distorted poster hurts my eyes. I'm playing by the rules, so what happens now? Film Fan 23:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, you come here to my talk page, asking for my permission to continue an edit war against multiple editors (Pleasant1623, Zeeyanwiki, and InfamousPrince) you have been pursuing since May, which has already led to you being blocked once for a month. I am saying No, you do not have my permission to continue the edit war, no matter how strongly you believe you are right. Because the version of the poster you feel is the only valid version actually looks blurry and washed out on my computers, both here on my laptop and on my Dell downstairs. The present version looks rich and beautiful on my display, as I have to assume it does for many other people, since they continue to upload other versions of the poster. So the edit war would have to continue ad infinitum for you to retain your preferred version, and you most cdertainly do not have my permission to do that. I think the best thing for you do do is drop it. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least you're now finally revealing that the reason you want to keep blocking me is because you don't like the poster I'm uploading. And no, I am edit warring with ONE person, who has not received a warning from you, simply because you prefer the poster they are uploading. I'll take this matter elsewhere, ta. Film Fan 09:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I do have an opinion about your version of the poster. It's blurry. That's why people don't like it. But I try not to let my opinion about the poster impact my evaluation of your behavior, which is the problem I am trying to address. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC) You keep insisting you are right and everybody else is wrong, but the issue is not actually as clear-cut as that. The reason I told you how the images present on my computers is to try to communicate with you how other people are seeing the images on their individual set-ups, possibly depending on what brand of computer they are using, which browser, which monitor, etc. I suggest you look at them on your computer at work, at the library, or at a friend's house to get an idea why so many people prefer a different version of the poster. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. For now, I'll adjust the clear copy to something between that copy and the correct copy. Note that this is not edit warring, it is finding a compromise. Film Fan 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to check out any proposed image on multiple displays. Or send me a link, and I'll look at it on my set-up, which is apparently quite different from yours. The best way to get a nice clear image is to upload the best, biggest one you can find and let the bot reduce it to the correct size for you. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I think you are concerned that the poster we use be the "official release version" with a certain layout of text. Others don't seem very concerned about that aspect, and are looking purely at esthetics. So there's probably no need to compromise on the text aspect. I don't know for sure on this point, as I think Zeeyanwiki edit warred with you over this point. Or was it Pleasant1623? -- Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saw this after uploading. The new version is much more like the wrong version. Biggest crime being that you can hardly see the road in the foreground. I'm not happy with it, but I've wasted too much time. Film Fan 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember when I said I wished I could give you credit for a dozen articles for Nazi Germany? Well, here's the next best thing.
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display these userboxes:
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dianna, I am glad your hard work on this project is recognized. I wish you had a clone, the encyclopedia could use her for its betterment, as well. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Put me on the clone request list, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the award and the positive feedback! It couldn't have come at a better time. Best wishes, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like you've got another one to add to your barnstar page already:
I listed you solo in the Hall of Fame because as the award's creator I don't feel it's appropriate for me to ever "win" it--I want it to stay something I'm doing for other Wikipedians--so don't feel weird about that. You deserve it with all the reading you had to do for this one! (Remember six weeks ago when I said, "Hey Diannaa, this one probably just needs a little touching up, got a few minutes?" Good times.)
Anyway, thanks again for the collaboration. I still plan to work on Holocaust and Nuremberg trials sometime after I'm done moving house; I'll drop you an invite when I do! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Khazar2 for all you did to improve the article and thanks for thinking up the kewl new award. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for helping to bring up to GA standard this important article on WP. It was a formidible task for you and Khazar2. Ive been watching with great admiration. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much! -- Diannaa (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Robin for taking on the review, and thanks for the barnstar too! --Diannaa (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunkirk evacuation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Expeditionary Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dunkirk evacuation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- One lifeboat—''The Viscountess Wakefield''—was lost after it was run onto the beach at Dunkirk.{{{sfn|Beilby|1994|p=270}} The ''Jane Holland'' was holed when a [[Motor Torpedo Boat]] rammed her
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few questions for you -
- a) are you a talk page stalker?
- b) are you a contribution stalker?
- c) are you a file contribution stalker?
It does'n't necessarily mean that you have to answer these question. Its up-to you. ☸ 16:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer is "None of the above". I responded to an {{admin help}} template the user placed on his talk page. Hope this helps. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sohambanerjee1998, I would suggest you focus on your own matters and not worry about admin tasks. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I owe you an apology. Sorry those questions but they were asked by me not for questioning or enquiring about your contributions in wikipedia but simply for lightening the mood. Once again sorry, forgot when to be serious. I want you to know that the work you do as an admin is good since I have seen you deleting old redundant non-free revisions. I hope this mends the fence. I was not talking about that {{Admin help}} but was referring to the numerous occasions when you deleted the those non-free large-resolution images for me that led me into believing that you might be the following stalkers and there is no harm or nothing wrong in being one of them as it helps me. Should have thanked you directly. ☸ 06:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted. I had no idea your remarks were intended to be funny or sarcastic. I thought you were serious. One of the things I do as an administrator is look after image maintenance, and where I draw the tasks from is User:Diannaa/Dashboard, not from following people around. That's also the place where admins can spot people who call for help using a help-me or admin-help template. Sorry if you find this creepy but as one of the only admins working with images right now if you work with images too you will tend to see my name. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do work with Images a lot these days and your name cropped up a lot while working (all for right reasons) and I thought the only way one could be this productive was by doing one of the above but I was wrong and irked you and other editor, sorry for that. Sohambanerjee1998 12:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Truly hope this apology opens up new doors of collaboration between us. Sohambanerjee1998 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't worry about it any more. I do like your new signature, by the way. Quite stylish. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you now delete these images, clearly no ORTS e-mail was ever sent. LGA talkedits 02:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done If the emails turn up the files can easily be undeleted, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. LGA talkedits 02:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, could you please undelete File:Daniel Sheehan.png, as OTRS permission has been received, 2013082910016453. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling in the Deep
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYEDA3JcQqw
Hi! I noticed that you tagged two files as having no fair use rationale:
Did you mean something else? Both files appear to have two fair use rationales for the same article. None of the fair use rationales appears to contain all required information, although you do seem to get all information if you combine both FURs. I'm not convinced that all of the FURs accurately describe how the images are used, but that is in my opinion a separate issue which I would have addressed by using {{subst:dfu}}, stating what I find is wrong. I am also not convinced that it is a good idea for the article BigHit Series to contain two non-free images which together take up 3-4 times the space of the text on the page, but that is also a separate issue. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. I agree one of the two images should be deleted; the red one seems to be the more current one, so I will fix it up. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I updated the non-free images (2) right on the page I created BigHit Series, you left a comment on my talk page about it. I am new to creating pages and uploading content, but I do believe my uploads are not in vain. Please review my images as they do provide insight into the page, and free versions of them are not available due to it showing what the specific game covers look like with respect to the format of BigHit series games.
- Also, may I suggest that both images stay up! You are right, the red one is the more current format being used for now current and future releases; however, that is a recent change (still looking to see WHEN that change happened), and not showing the yellow format case would be a disservice to users and services as a valuable contribution to identify if a specific box art still falls into the BigHit series. I understand the need to reduce the amount of non-free images on wikipeda, and that is why I did not include any other box arts which ARE very different from the two shown; however, they tend to be older PS2 and PSP games. The newer PS Vita games tend to show one of the two red or yellow formats...due to them being old, they don't really add a lot of additional information as the newer games (and formats)
- Thanks,Ciscorucinski (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and I plan on expanding this article farther! The two links I have at the bottom of the page, provide games that are in the BigHit series titles. I plan on mirroring Greatest Hits (PlayStation range) and providing a basic history, and a list of games. So right now, yes those images are 3-4 times larger than the text, but I JUST created this page recently. I am doing research on also "UltraPOP" games and how it relates to BigHit series games. So that might go in the history section, or even in its own page.
- By the way, thanks for putting the fair use rationals in the correct format! I tried uploading the pictures via the normal way, but the upload button failed to be enabled. That is the 3rd time that has happened. So I went with the more advanced (harder-to-find) method of uploading them. Thanks, Ciscorucinski (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong wit the Raven file I uploaded? It says on the file page that it is not the subject of the article but it is. The article is about the DC superhero Raven and that is indeed an official picture of Raven.
Morning stranger going through the Titan Computer! (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article contains eight non-free images, which is way too many. The image needs to be the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and it's not. It therefore fails at least two of the non-free content criteria, and it needs to pass all ten. WP:NFCC. You can add comments to the file talk page, which the assessing administrator will review before deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Diannaa, I really have a big problem with this IP address. Despite my warnings I left on his/her talk page, it continues to vandalized this article 1, article 2, and article 3. I suspected that this IP address is only used for vandalizing Wikipedia. I need help for this to block this IP address immediately to prevent vandalizing other articles again. Thank you for the response Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
- The user is on a dyamic IP, which is why you see vandalistic edits coming from (for example) 120.28.128.51, 120.28.143.49, 120.28.128.144, and 120.28.133.69. I have blocked the range of IPs 120.28.128.51/20 for one week. Please fix any bad edits made lately by these 4 IPs and I will watch-list DWRR-FM, which seems to be a favourite target. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I really appreciate your action Diannaa, thank you and cheers :). Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to cause you trouble. I've tried to be a bit more specific about the purposes of this image, and was wondering if you could have another look at it. Hopefully it meets the criteria for fair rationale, but I fully understand if it doesn't. Thank you in advance for your time! Trafalk09 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there's already one non-free image in the article, in the info box. So the image fails NFCC #3a, which state that "multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Usually we like to keep it to one non-free image per article, unless there's a very good reason to include more. This image is not the subject of critical commentary in the article, and appears to have been added purely for decoration. It thus also fails NFCC #8, which states that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Please see WP:NFCC for more information on this topic. Another administrator will review the image and its context in the article before deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Niemti (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
