G7 does not apply, as others have edited the page. Someone has converted it to a redirect. I hope that is adequate. -- Dianna (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started working at the top of the list! I would just like to note that the main account, Jharvey12, will be autoconfirmed in a couple of days, so I have added one of my boilerplate messages to their talk page in an attempt to get them schooled as to our expectations beforetimes. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dianna. Thanks for reviewing that one -- it was very difficult to do especially because it's so speculative and the verb tenses needed to be adjusted to be clear about that. I do take issue with a few of your changes, which I've altered back in this edit. The edit summary ... um ... summarizes. Also, are you using a tool that insists unnecessarily on spaces in certain places? I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter whether section titles are spaced from their = signs, nor whether the # of a numbered list is spaced from its text. All best, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking my review. Some of the stuff I was just not entirely sure, tbh. But I think the subject of the sentence is not "phenomena"; it is "background". : "one must identify an artificial, coherent signal against a background (of various natural phenomena) that also produces radio waves." ?
The spacing habits are just personal preference that add to the readability of the page, and the section headers are made uniform using a script. No big deal; it adds nothing to load times. -- Dianna (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always go through your reviews of my edits :) The intention was that the clause beginning with "that" qualified the phenomena, not the background. The parse is "one must identify an artificial, coherent signal against a background of various (natural phenomena that also produce radio waves)." --Stfg (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, could I please get some help regarding the strategy for using multiple cite references to a single book source? I would like to use multiple {{cite book}} citations to the same book in an article—the only difference between each reference being the page number. Do I simply create multiple Cite Book citations with distinct ref names (with the aim of using LDR one day), e.g. name="BookName 1999 p.34", name="BookName 1999 p.50", name="BookName 1999 p.101" etc., or is there a mechanism to tie different refs back to a single defining citation (so that all the parameters don't have to be recreated in each template)? Cheers. GFHandel♬00:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GFHandel! The primo solution is the {{sfn}} template. What you do is place your books in a bibliography at the bottom, and then use the {sfn} template to place the citation into the notes section. The template also automatically creates clickable links down to the bibliography. The advantages of this system are that citations that are identical (including the page numbers) will automatically collate for you, and you don't have the problem of accidentally using the same name for two different citations. Make sure you include the | ref = harv parameter in your citation templates. Check out Eva Braun for a shortish article that uses this referencing system throughout. There's a script available for detecting errors in Harvard citations at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. A new wikiproject—just recently launched—will eventually be the place to go for this kind of advice: Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement. If there's anything you want me to do to help, please let me know. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You recently semi-protected the redirect Altoona Central Catholic School due to an IP undoing the deletion outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altoona Central Catholic School. As soon as this occured, Steelers628 (talk·contribs), who is an SPA with similar edits that participated in the AfD, began doing the same thing in the IP's stead. I don't know if requesting full-protection or reporting the account would be better, but since you were the admin that semi-protected the page I figured you'd know how to best handle that, could you please take a look at it? Thank you. - SudoGhost00:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have full-protected it, but was tempted to delete and salt, as some of the content was copy-vio off the school's website. I have also put a note on the user's talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"However, he was interested in religion, and was much influenced by the work of C.G. Jung, who took religion seriously, if in an un-orthodox way."
It is extracted from Chuck Fager. There are 3-4 assertions made in this sentence and it's not clear which one is considered to need a citation. WP is full of unsupported statements. We surely cannot put a citation on every sentence? An editor who failed to get this article speedily deleted, then proceeded to slap a 'citation needed' at the end of almost every para in the article. I suspect this editor has a POV prejudicial to the subject of the article (Fager). Your thoughts would be appreciated. I have done some editing of the article and removed some of the 'citation requests'. Now they are being put back on by an IP. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it all should have sources, but so should all the articles, eh? It looks to me like someone is getting point-y with the tags, like you said. One way to go is to place a {{Refimprove BLP}} at the top of the article and remove most the "citation needed" tags. In my opinion the statements that most need sources are things that are likely to be challenged. Did he really share a jail cell with Martin Luther King? I would leave the inline "citation needed" tag at any of those kinds of statements, for sure. Will the IP go for that, do you think? -- Dianna (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on it along the lines you suggest. He did leave alone all the citation requests I removed, for which I gave a precise reason. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahluwalia
Hi Dianna, sorry to bug you yet again, but me and user Sitush need your help. We are trying to clean the above article, but as you can see from these edits, there is a user who keeps reverting to non referenced stuff. Can you help? He won't even engage in a dialogue. Thanks SH06:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sikh-history. The fellow had also added a large block of unformatted text to Kalwar, a disambiguation page. I have reversed his edits on both pages and will watch-list. I have placed a personal note on his talk page and a welcome template, though it is unlikely we will be able to teach them all the required skills; anyone who is prepared to leave pages in such a broken state likely does not have the mark-up and computer skills to contribute productively here. -- Dianna (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J
Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles.
Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
Thanks for the heads up on my potential involvement at ANI. I have posted there to explain my position. Incivility and battleground editing are a cancer to the project and there is far too much leniency given to repeat offenders IMHO. Thanks again and while I am here, let me give you a big pile of brownies in recognition of your amazing work on WP especially on the GOCE project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I thought you might have an opinion. I just started reading The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. I think if we can reach some kind of point where this kind of behaviour is no longer considered acceptable, we can build a better community and help retain editors. Well, a girl can dream, I guess. Thank you for the praise and for the brownies too. -- Dianna (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few editors who I think should be involved with the mediation. Will the bot make another round to notify them, or should I take action to that effect? Thanks. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second Kierzek's compliments for your outstanding work that helped bring the Himmler entry to GA. I offer you a cup of coffee to counteract any lingering effects of the cliffhanger review and the beer. Congratulations! Malljaja (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question about getting control of User:Jonex on en:wiki
Hi Diannaa,
Thanks for you attention.
I've tried the suggested unification procedure but I got "Login unification not complete!" message.
Besides the relation of attached Wikipedia sites, I got the following:
"The account 'Jonex' could not be automatically confirmed as belonging to you on the following sites; most likely they have a different password from your primary account:
de.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
id.wikipedia.org
pl.wikipedia.org
sv.wikipedia.org"
At the bottom of the page, there is a "Finish merge" box which asks for a password:
"If these accounts do belong to you, you can finish the login unification process simply by typing the passwords for the other accounts here:"
