Hi are you a admin? Also why did you redirect my new article and how does that affect me? I wanted to ask you this before I reverted the page since this is my first article. thanks.TucsonDavid (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hope my actions did not hurt you feelings, but it looks like we already have an article on this topic. You can find out if people are admins by going to their contributions page; go down to the bottom and click on "user rights". Regards, ---Diannaa(Talk)06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Keith Springer, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are underway to elect our inaugural group of GOCE Coordinators. Guild members and Drive participants are invited to have a look at the Coordinators page and join the discussion on its associated talk page.
Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join!
Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive.
Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
Diannaa, I am in the process of sending an e-mail for proper release to wikipedia. The form provided asks for the URL of the page. Is it okay to use Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual? I had plans to use subpages but was not sure how they would work "live". I would prefer to retain the same title for the article before deletion. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am glad you found my directions useable. You can re-use the original title for the article if you like. Good luck. Let me know if there are more questions! --Diannaa(Talk)22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent the e-mail. I cannot do any of the subpage things, inclusive to redirects for easy around reading, until that goes through. I'll watch for any predilection to improvement as regards music theory. Thank You. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have two other questions. I am not an administrator, but I am curious if you, as an administrator, have received any specific private messages not viewable to base level volunteers from wikipedia concerning difficulties with server space and a directive to deny as many articles as possible due to such difficulties?
In the course of discussion with RHaworth, who originally placed the speedy deletion nomination notification on "Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual", he is showing signs of emotional and mental breakdown based on prior personal difficulties in his early editing at wikipedia, and quite possibly due to overwork as well. User talk:RHaworth#Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual
You seem to me to be more stable in your favorability to include the originally posted article. Other than the fact that you saw the speedy deletion nomination notification, was(were) there any other reason(s) for your deleting the article? - Prophet of the Most High (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First question: No, I have not received any instructions to the effect that articles are to be debarred from Wikipedia due to a difficulty of server space or for any other reason. Second question: When I saw the speedy deletion template I verified that the information was indeed a copyright violation, as this is why it was tagged for deletion. I also noted that the article more resembled a music instruction guide rather than an encyclopedia article and thus might be declined for that reason. RHaworth is correct when he states that Wikipedia is a secular work and the religious content of your piece would probably have to be stripped from your article before it would be accepted for inclusion. When you are ready to re-submit your article, please do so at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Volunteers will check it in advance for its suitability for inclusion. My opinion is not important; I am not the decider. Decisions are made communally. Please do not speculate about the health issues of your fellow Wikipedia editors. Thanks. --Diannaa(Talk)04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You state that you verified that the information was indeed a copyright violation in total defiance of me donating the article to wikipedia as a volunteer without any copyright violation. I am not suing wikipedia, you, or RHaworth. I have further complied with the consent, but have shown the fallacy of the judgment based on that reason.
It is true that the Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual resembles a how to guide. Firstly, as can be seen in the word "Manual", 'man you all', it is something for everyone, this is deliberate because music has been called a universal language. At the level of inception to an on-line encyclopedia where the dissemination of the manual can be translated into all other languages, the writing needs to be inclusive to such a broad comprehension. Similarly, Tertian Harmony is only understood with full comprehension of all elements from root to 13th. Music notation has a limited alphabet, A through G. Though this may seem to make matters a little easier, their remains the necessity to present the 'how and why' such a limited alphabet works best, and to do so in a concise and orderly manner.
It can be seen in the English language that the development of Tertian Harmony has come as a direct response from God to a direct humility in prayer and reverence for Him by the devout of humankind. If there is to be any enjoyment of this delight, there is an equal necessity for us to remain steadfast in that same humility, reverence, and devotion. This seems to me to be the most important point - a gift for the future based on the excellence of the past.
In the formulation, not speculation, of the health issue as presented, it is due course in deriving the true reason for deletion. Unlike the Fifth Pillar of wikipedia which states that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules.", Tertain Harmony does have firm rules. It is understandable that such an 'etching in stone' may seem cold, but it is not meant to be.
If you support an error from another once, it is understandable that you will support an error again. The secular reason is only valid if we violate the First Pillar, which I am not willing to do as it allows for the inclusion of Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual as is. The article was given to you and RHaworth to share with everyone in abidance with the Third Pillar. This was not an invitation for either of you to violate the Fourth Pillar.
The inclusion of "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed" is the worst part of the Pillars in that the realm of possibility excludes such a blanket statement and that "in giving we receive". It is also disadvantageous to the community for one to think that conditions cannot improve. You state that your opinion is not important yet I treat it so. You state that you are not the decider yet you deleted the article. You state that decisions are made communally yet I did not authorize its deletion. I find you lacking in self-esteem which has caused you to do something you probably would not have normally done if this were not so. As your decision follows in the trail of another suffering under a poorly written Pillar, I understand and forgive you. As to the advice from both of you concerning its re-write and/or re-submission, that too follows under the same error of judgment.
It would be a waste of server space for me to continue with you without your support to the rest of the community, not only the wikipedia community, but the entire reading public. I understand that being an administrator carries with it further responsibility, but you are first and foremost an editor, and it is on your integrity as such that we rely. - Prophet of the Most High (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa, I admire your patience! Prophet: a) server space is absolutely not an issue - it seems infinitely expandable, b) I should have said this earlier: you may well find a completely different attitude if you submit your manual to Wikibooks, c) I have no objection to God-language in its proper place: every night next week you can hear me delivering Isaiah 7:14 and other religious matters with conviction in a church in the City of London. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk·contribs)16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete at once
I would strongly suggest that you undelete the page at once, before the whole unsavoury business escelates into major drama once more. I'm sure it was an unwitting error on your part. Giacomo 23:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are an immense amopunt of quoted diff all over the site, which you have now rendered obsolete. If they are not restored, we shall have to go to ANI to have the page restored. Giacomo 23:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not actually delete the page; I deleted the associated talk page. The person who deleted the page has now restored it, and I have restored the associated talk page too. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)23:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for those admin actions!
The Admin's Barnstar
I would like to award you this barnstar for speedily deleting the Hammer Head Shark hoax and the blatant attack pages moments after I tagged them. Congratulations! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can you do me a small favour please ? my pc bios has been playing for three months getting gradually wosre giving me session errors and other problems. It finally had a heart attack two days ago
i have been trying to put a wikibreak notice on my page but this mobile phone prevents me from seeing the edit button
if you have time could you please put wikibreak nottices on my user and talk page stating due to hardware failure and until 21 November 2010
I was hoping tro contributwe to the drive but that is not possible on this phone - it took 2 mins just to open this talk page lol
Deletion of The International Child Abduction Database
You deleted a page I was working on and wasted my time as the text is now lost. Please take more care in deleting brand new articles by non-brand new editors. I added the hang on template before it was deleted, though you clearly chose to ignore it, and now, ironically, there is a Talk:The_International_Child_Abduction_Database for an article that does not exist.--Cybermud (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize for the favorability of your response (whatever that means). My issue was with deleting my page after I added the hang-on template to it and while I was writing in talk. It was not identical to the linked page (which I myself referenced in the article) and the copyright symbol was a link that pointed to the copyright statement for INCADAT (the database) itself, not for the description of the database which is what was the bot flagged as being in violation. I've lost enough edits to the vagaries of the internet and the occasional errors of Wikimedia's servers that I like to click save often. I'll be careful not to do that with new articles, having seen what bots and admins will do to them if I put content there intending to copyedit it immediately thereafter (as happened in this case.)--Cybermud (talk)
There is no way we are allowed to keep copyright material on the wiki for any length of time, as there are legal repercussions to that. You can and should use word processing software off-wiki to prepare your article in a case like this. I did read the copyright statement which is actually the terms and conditions for the case studies eleswhere on their website. --Diannaa(Talk)00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy
Thanks for a very wise decision. It's a constant target, so indefinite semi- protection makes total sense. There are many very controversial articles that need this type of protection, but many admins are a bit too shy to do it. It takes courage. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa. Thanks for deleting this. If you haven't already done so, could you salt it as well please, otherwise it will get created again. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christos Gatsis and Gatsis Christos have both been salted; the first was done when I deleted the page and I did the second just now, so they can't re-create it there either. You posted a good analysis on the Vin Diesel question, by the way; I noticed that case at WP:Ear whilst reading Mr Gatsis' posts there. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
November backlog campaign
Could you confirm for me whether the leaderboard numbers should reflect rollover numbers? In other words, does one's words from a previous campaign belong on the November goldstar leaderboard? thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa. Just FYI I'm going to remove the band members from the Big Daddy infobox until I can sort out with User:Normanay1 who's supposed to be in there. I've left a message on his talk page. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. If nothing else, I have their CD liner notes I can dig out and cite. I asked him if their allmusic bio was correct; hopefully it is and we can just use that. 28bytes (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that one of the people is an alumni. I currently cannot remember which person, I and quick search did not recover any website references. I therefore added both.
The reason I actually entered these people is because I am an alumno of the school, and I heard from another person from the school that one of the people (Gina Riley or Jane Turner) is also an alumni. I do believe that one option would be true.
I will get back to you on any sort of reference that I can find.
Please feel free to re-add the material when you actually have a reliable source. If we just include all the stuff we think we heard somewhere, the whole project deteriorates pretty quickly. Thanks. --Diannaa(Talk)16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will add the correct person when a source can eb found. Thank you for responding quickly and being fair.
Diannaa, On 16 November you reverted an edit to Russian cursive which had added links to YouTube [1]. The same sort of edit had already been reverted on 7 August by a bot. The same edit was done again on 17 November, and I undid that one, following your lead but not really sure that it was the right thing to do. The same edit was done again on 18 November, reverted by a bot, and done immediately again. The same pattern of editing has started on Cyrillic alphabet - edit, revert by by bot, edit again - on 17 November.
I am new to this sort of thing.
What is the reason for not allowing this link?
What response, if any, should I make to the editor?
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to inquire about this problem. Links to You Tube are typically not allowed. As a source, they are not reliable, as the videos can be tampered with before upload to You Tube to contain anything at all. Many You Tube videos are copies of copyright material, and thus are not suitable for inclusion. Another good reason we remove these links is because they can contain malware, or because they are straight advertising. Some people get money from their advertisers for each hit on their video so a Wikipedia link can be lucrative. We want to discourage that sort of thing as it is not condusive to the type of encyclopedia we are trying to build. More info on this topic can be found at Wikipedia:External links. --Diannaa(Talk)15:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this one looked pretty good to me, for sure. The other admin should have removed the speedy tag for you before turning in for the night! Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)03:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated under a process called {{WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]], Not a speedy, but a seven-day-long period during which users will !vote on whether or not the article is wiki-worthy! The best thing to do is to continue to improve the article during the AFD process. See if you can come up with some more claims to notability, as that seems to be the main obstacle. --Diannaa(Talk)20:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
My account had trolls on it a couple months ago and was summarily indefinitely blocked without much discussion. But I digress, I've been editing on this address and others so I'd like to get back to actually doing things at Wikipedia, if possible, and I don't see why I can't do it with my old username, which is still in existence. I've contacted several other "admins" but they haven't really gotten back to me, most seem to have disappeared over the summer for various reasons, including my original blocker. Anything you could do would be amazingly helpful.
Thank you,
96.50.86.207 (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been here specifically? I haven't even had a chance to redeem my self. There isn't anyone who knows about it, it was literally no warning. It isn't about trust I'd just rather not go through any bureaucratic that would take weeks while...nvm I can see I'm talking to a wall...96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Label M
I don't understand what was wrong with 'Label M' it was simply a link to 'Joel Dorn' thus providing more information. No references were provided because this information was gleaned over a period of time from various sources which are no longer on line. It is all true and I am quite informed on the subject and collect the out of print cds concerned. There is no other information on line and now there still isn't. I have also added info to the page 32Jazz, on the same basis. Maybe no one else is interested but if so, why provide the links from 'Joel Dorn' article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald obtains (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The information seemed completely unsourced and the label non notable. There are red links all over Wikipedia, and not all of them will become articles. I also suspected it was a cut-and-paste from somewhere else on the Internet, and thus a copyright violation, but I was unable to find the source document. Please do not copy materials from elsewhere on the Internet; to do so is in violation of copyright law and thus could have legal ramifications. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)15:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user User:Sikh-history is warning me again that he's going to block me for no reason as I have said nothing wrong here User_talk:Dbachmann as you can see..I'm not sure what to do he's not stopping no matter what I do or where I edit or what I say.I am not sure who to complain too.At this moment hes re-editing my Citations on Jat People instead of fixing them like you advised me to do with google books hes doing the same thing as before on my articles.Dhruvekhera (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sikh-history is not an administrator; only an admin can block you. I am pretty sure you have been rude to him. Please re-read some of your recent posts with a more analytical eye and you will see what I mean. You have put bare-links refs from Google Books in the aticles and Sikh-history is attempting to clean up after you. He is following you around because you are doing damage, and he is cleaning it up. You need to start listening to the advice we are trying to give you. Please be nicer to everyone, and you will have a better chance of having a productive Wikipedia career. --Diannaa(Talk)17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I was kind of hoping there'd be a fix that didn't involve turtleshelling again.
I mean I just came out. I'm not bothered per se; most ip posts tend to be harassment or bordering on it, but it just seems a bit unfriendly, you know? HalfShadow03:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to take it off again? If you are hunting vandals its nice for them to have somewhere to complain at you. Whatever you think is best. --Diannaa(Talk)04:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly removed it myself. Must admit I'm a little puzzled about this - last time I tried to edit an AfD log, there was a pop-up that said I had insufficient user-rights to so do. Anyways, all fine, end of story. Apologies for this ultimately unnecessary discussion O_o !--Shirt58 (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you resolved this, as I have no experience with the AFD process yet. I have been doing speedies, and whacking vandals. --Diannaa(Talk)17:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fellow Editor
Hi fellow editor, thanks for intervening in article Arora and particularly with an editor there who has an unco-operative attitude there. I have tried to tag references for discussion, but I fear my editing their may inflame this user more. I think there is an element of racial bias by this editor as can be seen from the comments made here. I have no intention of engaging in edit wars as some unscrupulous editors have WP:Game 'd the system in past and got me blocked. I have a real problem with many of the India based articles as a lot of the content is "junk" and not encyclopaedic. Jat people is one good example of "junk". Anyway, best of luck, in removing some of the nonsense. Thanks --Sikh-History11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not sure if this is rude jumping in here! but I asked User:Sikh-history to discuss 3 times here and even wrote on his talk page User_talk:Sikh-history regarding the issue he had an problem with! and I also asked to him to Discuss the topic on the Discussion page of Arora(he did none)only threatened to block me again and again. I don't see how this has anything to do with racial bias..and if it is I have not brought up the issue as you can see here User_talk:Dbachmann . Just to point out I have added more then 5-6 new citations since I started editing the Arora page before there were not to many before for such a big page.I am infact trying to improving the article unlike User:Sikh-history who has not contributed anything to the article.Dhruvekhera (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sikh-history. Note Dhruvekhera has also posted in the thread above (Arora). I was still framing my reply when this message came in and now I will have an edit-conflict with myself :). Thanks, I will check out the investigation report in a minute. --Diannaa(Talk)17:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fellow Editor. I thought at first that your indefinite block of Dhruvekhera may have been harsh, however, see my comment here and the comment by another editor. Follow the link. It appears that Dhruvekhera has been leaving racist messages elsewhere, so I think your reason for an indefinite block is a good one. Good Work. Thanks --Sikh-History08:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be too harsh at first also, but the decision has now been confirmed by three different respected and experienced administrators. Sometimes we just have to cut people loose for the good of the project. I intend to be working on some India and Pakistan articles for the next while so I expect I will see you around. Thank you for the barnstar. Regards --Diannaa(Talk)19:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, however, I am having problems on article Arora (it maybe my pc), but can you take alook. We have another person going around hacking refernces and section there. Thanks --Sikh-History14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you reverted them and issued a warning. That was a good idea. I have watch-listed the article and will keep an eye on it. --Diannaa(Talk)23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, I have just been introduced to editing articles and thought I would try my hand at one listed in the current drive. I'm not quite clear on the process of joining the drive and taking word counts so I haven't signed up, but would love some feedback on the work I've done on this page to see if it's up to scratch. Also, could you please let me know if I've addressed the right issues or missed anything which needs fixing.
Whateverblah (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I kind of figured a rangeblock wouldn't work.
Two prefixes can be kind of iffy. I mean, if all else fails, I could be SP, but that renders me inaccessible to new users or IPs (which often can be helpful/useful), and I have quite a few people watching me as it is anyway. HalfShadow04:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Plus some of the people using Huggle are quite savvy, and will pick up on this kind of thing quite quickly, whether they have watchlisted your page or not. --Diannaa(Talk)04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he stopped because he got bored (silly me.) The blocks were not applied until about an hour after Semi-whatsit made his post. The blocks have been applied for a two-day trial. We will see how many folks complain, and then try a longer period if we are not getting any flak from other users in the IP ranges. I hope this works. --Diannaa(Talk)01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, don't worry about that. It's just since nothing had happened up until now I thought you'd already set them up. I mean, there's no way I'd know one way or the other, but he usually hits my page quite early in the morning and that didn't happen, so... HalfShadow02:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was hoping he was done as all the literature goes on about these range blocks and all the potential collateral damage. So I hesitated --Diannaa(Talk)02:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that, no, I did not realize that he has a dynamic IP address but that should not give him the excuse to make continuous reverts with impunity. We all have to abide by the rules on reverts but if it is so impossible to pin down this editor to a single account, and if he is unwilling to have anything about our objections, what other sort of recourse can we turn to, if not a semi-protection? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no harm if it is very short. If not, we need to send a separate short note out to ALL our members. Members and past drive participants are eligible to vote. – SMasters (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After giving more thought to this, we need the voting note to go out on 1 December. We normally take some time to tally the drive results, so I think we need to send these out separately. I will do a draft for the notice. – SMasters (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just put it here as it is very small. Finally, I managed to figure out how to use AWB. It returns 370 494 addresses for me as opposed to 347 on the Mailing List. Once this has been finalized, I will send it out using AWB on 1 December. – SMasters (talk) 05:36, 25 November 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 five 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 checked and HJ Mitchell is not on my list, but the other two are. This means that they must appear elsewhere where I gather my data. I'm wondering if we are setting ourselves up for trouble by having the mailing list. After all, the list is currently obtained from active data from the other pages. We should make editors more responsible. If they want out, they should remove themselves from the other pages. If not, they can just delete the message from their talk pages. It is a lot less work than us having to cleanup the data after them. The other problem we have with the mailing list, is that new members now have to sign on three pages to join the Guild. This is not really desirable and something we have to have a re-think on. – SMasters (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting this. The simplest solution is to protect the article for a while so only established editors can change it. I have applied this protection for two weeks. --Diannaa(Talk)05:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Diannaa's Day!
Diannaa has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Diannaa's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Diannaa!
Signed, Neutralhomer
A record of your Day will always be kept here.
Hi. I was unable to find any online sources for the existence of this group. The old texts that the original author quoted as references are not available here. By the way, a WP:Prod tag can be removed by any editor at any time. It is not like a WP:speedy deletion tag or an WP:AFD tag. --Diannaa(Talk)00:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dhruvekhera
He seems to be getting the point, after several unblock requests, and one other reviewer has come out in favor of an unblock. Do you have any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of monitoring and so on that will be required is not justified by the quality of their edits.
Three blocks have been instituted on the user with less than 200 edits logged
Only one edit to an article talk page in their tenure here. This does not show a cooperative attitude
Two racial slurs
Poor edits; poorly sourced edits
I would support changing the indef block to some shorter period like six months or a year. I think we are dealing with a young person here, perhaps even a teenager. I would prefer if they grow up off-wiki and then come back. Note I have only been an administrator since the end of October, so my opinion should probably not be the last word on the subject. --Diannaa(Talk)00:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i didnt notice that he has racked up three blocks already. the guy sounded naive and thought he might be "reformable". i could be wrong. --CarTick (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
noticed u r interested in war and India related topics. was wondering if you have access to any sources which could help this article in any way. pls free to decline if the article is not of interest to you. i will certainly understand. --CarTick (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings GOCEBacklog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state my comments on immigration, I gave examples and explained the causes of anti-immigrant belief. You have no right delete my hard work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.35.24 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked him because of the mess he was making fussing about you, though if you think an unblock would be helpful, go right ahead. Courcelles03:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles, I think we should leave the block, as they are quite angry right now and might just do more damage. It will give them time to read up on how to contribute. I have put some links and a wee apology on their talk page. --Diannaa(Talk)03:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That block is not there for punishment, it's to see what he did that got him blocked which was make fun of you. Blocking that user prevented further disruption. WAYNEOLAJUWON03:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind him making fun of me; I have to expect some krap as an admin and as a Huggle user. He just got angry and started wiping content. That deserves a block. I only wish he would have done more research on how to be a useful contributor before he dove in and started editing, and he would have had a better experience here. --Diannaa(Talk)03:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the fellow I said was "spammy" was adding a link to videos of windmills being erected. Not quite in the same league as ol' 14.79.130.218, who was blocked by another admin whilst I was composing this message. Welcome to the vandal-fighting team, by the way. --Diannaa(Talk)05:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!
Get ready.
The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin. Prep your keyboards, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please get your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar ". Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!
I did not patch up the article, I just reverted my edit. The bit I was trying to revert is where he called Bismarck a prince. He was a Junker only. And then I stepped all over your edit, so sorry. --Diannaa(Talk)05:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a member of them when Utahraptor told me about it on my talk page. I haven't been able to contribute to WP:GOCE lately because I've been mostly reverting vandalism. WAYNEOLAJUWON00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that IP who made those personal attacks/vandalism was reverted by me. I won't let anybody vandalize/make a personal attack on your talk page when I'm online. WAYNEOLAJUWON00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should, and you should block the IP that attacked you a few moments ago indefinitely because he's only used for personal attacks. He may or may not be also evading his block, too. WAYNEOLAJUWON01:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was time consuming. How I ever got to the point where I have fifteen sub-pages is beyond me. I guess I is one computer-savvy person, ha ha XD. Those two IPs were unrelated as one was at Dalhousie in Halifax and the other was at Carleton University in Ottawa. But they may have been communicating, who knows? --Diannaa(Talk)01:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP who made an attack on you five times, four on this page and one your to-do list has been blocked for 48 hours by Bongwarrior but I think you should block the IP indefinitely because he may continue to attack you after he's unblocked, which is not good. WAYNEOLAJUWON01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't block preventatively, especially since they were editing from the university's IP. Could affect some actual contributors, who knows? But longer blocks are not unheard of for schools. Don't worry about the icky-ness of the content; I don't let it bother me. Most of it I didn't even read as I was off setting up my protections. --Diannaa(Talk)01:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news. Also, other users end reverting the attacks/vandalism with their own power but I was just suggesting and trying to help you, that's all. You need to have WikiFriends in order for you and other fellow Wikipedians to be safe, if they're not bad users such as personal attacks, vandalism, etc. WAYNEOLAJUWON01:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're an involved admin, which I could be wrong. When you make a mistake on Huggle, you should click the arrow on this part of your HG screen as shown after this message. WAYNEOLAJUWON02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did click on the gizmo and Huggle bless its heart encountered an error and had to close. I am finding a lot of this admin stuff is covered kinda sketchily in the guidelines, and some of it seems to be word-of-mouth. Sorta like all snakes being notable. I will edit the instructions when I learn things so future new admins will have an easier time. --Diannaa(Talk)02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to deal with this administrative pressure early as an administrator. As time goes by, you'll get used to being an administrator and learn how to deal with this pressure. WAYNEOLAJUWON02:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Participating at first in a low-key way will be my route. Blocking folks who like pie and change their principal's name to Hitler. --Diannaa(Talk)02:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They may have all those vandalism words such as penis as their favorite foods, lol. That would be wrong but weird at the same time. They may also be called Adolf Hitler, Jr. WAYNEOLAJUWON03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple IPs are putting the same vandalism/personal attacks and edit summary, then you should block them indefinitely due to a block evasion. WAYNEOLAJUWON19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking IPs indefinitely is a last resort for administrators, as I understand it. As Diannaa said earlier, established editors may be affected by an indefinite IP block. Cleaning up the IP autoblocks would be tedious and time-consuming work. So I think it'd be best if the IPs weren't blocked indefinitely even if they did do some pretty nasty things. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs19:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Utahraptor is on the right track here. Some ISPs use dynamic IPs; some vandals are clever enough to change their IPs at will; some vandals edit from a mobile device that changes IPs as they move about the city/countryside. So permanent IP blocks are typically rare. Both these badboys last night were editing from universities. Same deal. A permanent block, or even a lengthy block, might affect too many people that could be constructive editors. There are some smaller schools (high schools, middle schools) though that have suffered escalating long-term blocks when they have a proven track record of damaging edits with little or no worthwhile contributions. Have a look at what IPs link to {{schoolblock}} for examples. Heres a quick case in point: User talk:194.83.191.3 is currently under a three-year block; this is their eighth block. --Diannaa(Talk)20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Part of me thinks I'm completely mad to run for Arbcom, but a lot of people asked me to, following the stuff I've said recently, so I feel I have to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. How's it going for you - sounds like you're getting a good handle on actually which buttons to press on the tools now - especially after the troubles we've both had with User:Justus Maximus:(Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Justus should have clued in when he was asked to remove all the offensive remarks from his posts, and discovered that to do so would have been a truly Herculean task, that he is a little too wordy. I had to stop watching his page; life is too short. I think these elections are important, and hopefully we will see an improvement in the way things are handled at the top. I think you have a really good shot at getting the post; you are an excellent candidate. Best of luck! --Diannaa(Talk)16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbi Pinto
I am happy to try and collaborate but said users dont reply. They post false information on talk pages and are all people who never before used Wiki except for these pages. I welcome your assistance (and as a note I created that page a year ago already)? Pls assist ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get why you think the price of the building is unusual. It is on Central Park West!!! Real estate is expensive in New York!!! People live in 300 sq ft apartments. And this is not a sumptuous palace that the rabbi uses as his abode; it is the church building. The rabbi does not own the church; the congregation owns it. --Diannaa(Talk)01:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1st, thats not accurate, its not on Central Park West. Yes it is absolutely noteworthy, the NY Times noted it at length. $28.5 Million is very very relevant in today's economy, particularily for a NY synagogue where the Rabbi does not speak English ?
And beyond this, if not relevant, perhaps you can show me another synagogue purchase at this high a price ? Its very relevant, particularily for someone who charges Lebron James ? There arent synagogues this expensive in NYC, and certainly not for people who dont speak any English at his young age ?
Every source introduced is relevant and comes from articles you folks have posted as references on Pinto. They are relevant for a controversial religious figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising 0 articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.
It just suddenly dawned on me that I was so busy defending you among the neutrals and nay-sayers that I completely forgot to put my own !vote on the top floor at your RfA! Never mind, you passed anyway :) --Kudpung (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are funny. Thank you for thinking of me. Speaking of elections, I see you remembered your Arb-com vote. Not too many have voted yet; less than 500, so every vote will be important. Cheers, --Diannaa(Talk)03:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made reasonable deletions and additions to a page that was about me.
Please stop reverting my changes. There was misleading information posted about me that was unsubstantiated. So I have replaced it with accurate information supported by links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.29.147 (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did realise that once you pointed it out, and immediately stopped reverting you. At first your edits were indistinguishable from vandalism. I will go over the article tomorrow and improve the layout and so on. --Diannaa(Talk)06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hi Diannaa, members of my marketing team have told me that you will not allow a page to be created because it is self promotion...? Sorry, not sure what I need to do to insure you that there is indeed a need for a wiki page. I can send you files, photos, videos to ensure that as an artist I am legitimate? Please advise how I can have the page reinstated.
Thank you for your help.
Kind regards,
Okay read. And I'm really sorry that my team has done this. I hired them for marketing purposes and they made the decison themselves that it should be included in Wikipedia.
The reason that it's quite uncomfortable for me is because the wiki page appears very high in searches on google and when clicked on it says that it is banned. Could you help me with this? What can I do? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.81.130 (talk • contribs)
Please STOP reposting a FALSE and LIBELOUS article about me and reverting my changes.
If you would like me to somehow confirm that I am the subject of the article that you keep reverting, I am more than happy to do so. The article that was up was FALSE and LIBELOUS and all I have done is replace it with accurate information that is completely supported by my links. I don't know why you are so passionate about the article that was up originally but I have REPEATEDLY noted that it is false and misleading and misattributed. PLEASE STOP messing with my edits. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with them until someone actually disputes the information which NO ONE HAS and NO ONE WILL. Thank you.99.17.29.147 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Using the term "libelous" both here and in edit summaries suggests that you may be willing to take some form of legal action, contrary to the no legal threats policy, which will lead to an immediate indefinite block. If you wish to provide information on your identity, contact WP:OTRS. The article as you last left it is a giant mess, and unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. You may wish to read WP:BRD, WP:BLP and rethink your actions. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
.jpg)
