User talk:DianeFinn

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Reubin O'Donovan Askew, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added his military rank. Isn't that constructive?

May 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Several of your recent edits introduced errors; please check before posting. Tvoz/talk 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Family of Barack Obama

I have nominated Family of Barack Obama, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family of Barack Obama. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Loonymonkey (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Advice

In controversial articles, such as Barack Obama, it's pretty tough to take any preventative measures to guard against users reverting. It's very tough to have anything met without controversy at this point. Pretty much all I can day is keep WP:BRD in mind, and do your best to sort out what you can. Wizardman 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AGK#Mediation tips

Hello, DianeFinn. You have new messages at AGK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have offered my response to your post; if you have any queries, please let me know on my talk page. Anthøny 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Further comments: Checkuser block - Alison ^❤ 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DianeFinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am being unblocked by mistake. If you look at all my edits, you will see that I am a productive editor and have not edit warred. While there have been disagreements on some topics, there is some agreement by others on my side. I have been very civil. I have looked at this Dereks1x and I have never edited the article that got him banned. My name is not Derek. I also see that there have been many accounts blocked as Derek. Since I am not Derek, I suspect that others may be accused even though they are not Derek. Can you justify and prove that I am Derek? Or will you perpetuate a wrong block by ignoring me. Please unblock. You will note that I even contacted 2 mediators for editing advice, which shows that I am sincere in getting along with others.

Decline reason:

According to Checkuser evidence, you are Dereks1x. — Rjd0060 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DianeFinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Rjd0060 says according to checkuser evidence. I have just checked RFCU and checked the link. There is no checkuser evidence. I am not even listed in a RFCU. Please explain.

Decline reason:

We don't require an RFCU to process a checkuser request. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Did you not read the big blue box above that says "Blocked as a sockpuppet ... Checkuser block" ? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked? I see it says sockpuppet but I am not Derek. My edits on Jimmy Carter are good. I also made good points about Obama. It seems that I am blocked because people want total devotion to electing Obama, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Since there is no RFCU, there is no checkuser evidence. Why did the checkuser go on their own to block? Political motivations? There is no explanation. This makes Wikipedia look bad. Anyone can put that label on. LOOK at you checkuser link in the unblock request that YOU (Rjd0060) placed. That link says It must be used only to prevent damage to any Wikimedia project. The tool should not be used for political control;

I HAVE DONE NO DAMAGE TO WIKIPEDIA SO ACCORDING to the link YOU gave, I should be unblocked. Please

There doesn't have to be a RFCU page for each case. Anyhow, I'll leave a note with the checkuser who found you out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the checkuser policy, there doesn't need to be a public RFCU case filed. Furthermore, you were identified on behaviour then verified by checkuser. Checkuser has

Confirmed you are Dereks1x. As Dereks1x has been blocked for abusive sockpuppetry amongst other things, this is hardly "political control" - Alison ^❤ 15:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]