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!
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 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
.jpg)
