Skip to the bottom  ►  ·

Archives Archive 1 (November 2009 to June 2010) Archive 2 (July 2010 to October 2010) Archive 3 (October 2010)

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 05:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit, although it is true, seems rather questionable for it to be on a Wikipedia page. Does it even belong there?--iGeMiNix 05:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs there. In fact I removed it also. The subject is a minor, and the post is not encyclopedic. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I removed it the first time also as it was very out of place. See ya around!--iGeMiNix 05:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with reverting this edit once the editor provided a citation from a large-circulation daily from a major metropolis. Biographies are meant to inform the reader about the person who is the subject of the biography. Thus, information of the sort presented in that interview, no matter how distasetful, is nevertheless informative as to the nature of the person that is Taylor Momsen, the subject of the wikiarticle. Thus, it is encyclopedic, whatever that may mean. We may find it unpalatable and wish that she had not been so frank and honest in the interview, but there it is. It is not our job to whitewash her bio. Eliminating the text, no matter how distasteful violates the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED. Finally, it is irrelevant that she is a minor since there is no pornographic depiction of her. I’ll get off my soapbox now. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced. I think the person just posted it because it was sensational. It is actually no more relevant to her career as would be, say, her taste in TV shows. You can tell they intended it to be sensational by the way they worded it: "Momsen is just 17, but she admitted to rock magazine Revolver that she's watched pornography." their edit summary: "Porn update." I just don't feel it's encyclopedic to include it; Wikipedia is not a supermarket tabloid. However, it seems Momsen's intent was to shock with these remarks, so perhaps she would not mind the content appearing in her article. Though her mom might. Thank you for your thought-provoking post. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest of respect, what her mom might think, and what were her reasons for saying it, are not relevant. Nor are the motives of the editor adding the text relevant. All that matters is verifiablity, especially where there may be BLP issues. I agree that the addition was not well-worded and was not well-integrated into the article. But, once cited, it is not for us to remove via Huggle. It would have been for regular editors of the article to remove through discussion on the article’s talk page. Once the editor had a source, it no longer qualified for deletion under any criteria for recent changes patrollers or for Hugglers. The better thing to have done would have been to have deleted it manually with an edit summary that included a direct link to a discussion on the talk page begun by the editor removing the content. Then a discussion could have ensued between regular editors of the article and a consensus arrived at. I fear that a new editor may have been driven away by receiving warning templates once s/he provided a verifiable reference/citation. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now I get it. When patrolling with Huggle, we should be looking strictly for vandalism. Other types of material we wish to see removed should be done using the B-R-D cycle. If we are not interested in getting involved in talk page discussion to justify removal of the content, we should leave the material in the article for someone who is interested in that topic to decide and discuss. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! You know, I should have started out with that. You’ve said in just a few sentences what I took paragraphs to muddle through. Sorry for not being clearer. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; everyone's brains get a little muddled when discussing certain topics (sex, the Middle East, parenting; I could go on). I will let IGeMiNix know about this further discussion in case they are not watching this page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the talkback, so was the info readded on the page?--iGeMiNix 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no one has re-added it yet. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to nominate three articles at WP:GAN, those are A3 (Croatia), A6 (Croatia) and A4 (Croatia). The first two passed a PR, and the last one is currently listed among PR requests. However before I submit any of the above for GAN, I'd like to have them copyedited since I'm not a native speaker of English. Would you please copyedit at least one of those three? All of them are currently listed at WP:GOCE requests. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you listed them there. I will choose one of the three to do. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the copyedit!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on your GA nominations. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just replied to you on Avoided's talk page, to say that four warnings to a vandal aren't actually required. I do appreciate that you know your way around here very well, it's just that Avoided is much more experienced on the German wikipedia (where the warning culture may be different) than here, and even though s/he's now diligently issuing warnings, seems to be starting at level one when there's absolutely no reason to assume good faith. I hope I haven't given the impression that I was trying to teach you your business! - Pointillist (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; I have mostly been copy editing during my tenure here and only recently started fighting vandals, so I welcome any advice and tips. Huggle issues a level one to start and reports automatically after there are four on the board. That is why I worded it that way. You are right; before I installed Huggle I used to report and obtain blocks without four warnings having been issued. I am glad you posted a clarification (for both of us!) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what I found:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November 2010/Newsletter 1

Looks like somebody beat us to it. I'm not exactly sure which one to go with at this point: the one on my subpage or the one on the drive subpage. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 22:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to use the version in your userspace, as per this discussion. On some computers the September font was tough to read. Ocean Shores must not know that many had trouble reading that font (they were on hiatus). We also want all our newsletters to have a distinctive style, and that style is the one I used on my draft (it was chosen by SMasters some time ago). --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that he is the same dude this time as User:129.78.32.21 pushing his agenda of Ronald Reagan. They are all on a proxy, as seen the University of Sydney tag on his page and how their IP only ranges by 1. Also, I restored your report as a bot removed it by accident.--iGeMiNix 02:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are also some helpful edits coming from that wifi so it would be a shame to block the good with the bad. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, had a discussion with TideRolls about this.--iGeMiNix 02:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is more than one person editing on this IP I wish the constructive one would open an account. but they could indeed both be the same person. Thanks for the link. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<copyright text removed> Ronalddowntown (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems they made an account, also they are the same person. This edit shows that they had intentions of spamming userboxes.--iGeMiNix 02:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the post as it is a copyright violation from http://www.heritage.org/About/Press/How-Great-was-Ronald-Reagan-40th-President-Place-in-History. Thank you for the information, IGeMiNix. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the excellent and thorough copyediting of the Harry Männil article! I was pleasantly surprised to see that you even looked up a few additional details from the references.

If it is not too much of a hassle, may I ask you for any thoughts regarding the style and grammar (or anything else) in the article? Is there something I should pay more attention to? This is my first article and I would really like the next ones to be, well... less awful. Thanks again! —Quibik (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was actually in pretty good shape, not so awful at all. Some points to keep in mind:

• Don't read things into events. for example, "he was forced to escape" is just as clear when expressed "he escaped". It actually sounds more lively and direct.
• Don't use the phrase "according to officials" or similar. It sounds like you don't trust your sources. I changed this to read "Männil was accused" and "officials stated".
• Please take the time to read through the Manual of Style. It is not overly long and familiarity with these rules will help you produce good articles.
• The main thing I do when copy editing is to make the language simpler and more direct; remove any emotional content, unless it is covered by the sources; remove the words "also" and "however", which are just about always expendable; and or course look at grammar and spelling and all those things.
• A specific change I made to this article was changing the word "mobilisation" to "troops" because I felt the reader would think he was running from the Soviet invaders. The Soviets had in fact invaded in June 1940 and by 1941 were mobilising to repel the Germans, who had by then decided to invade the area. So the troops he was hiding from in the summer of 1941 may have been Soviets but they were not in the process of invading the country at the time. It's your call as to how much of this you need to include in the article.

Thank you for your trust in me and good luck with your future articles. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the last point: I preferred "mobilization" since that was the term actually used in the original source. Anyway, thanks for all the helpful suggestions! I hope the next time you happen to copy edit an article of mine, it will be a much simpler task. —Quibik (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MessageDeliveryBot is temporarily down. I think we might have to send the invites manually. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 22:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to do it tonight? SMasters is on the sleepy-time side of the planet, I think, so it would be just you and me. There are 345 in the Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors members and about 200 listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants. Obviously there is some overlap so the best place to start is the "Category" and then move to the "List" and send to anyone on the list who is not a member of the category. OK? I will take the back half of the alphabet (M through Z) and you can do from the beginning to and including the letter L. What say you?--Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work. Let's get started. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 22:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the version we are going to use at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November 2010/Newsletter 1 so we can transclude from there. After you are done your section of the alphabet in the "category", you can do the same letters of the alphabet from the "list". That part will go fast because the names will be familiar. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry took you to the wrong section - S Masters (talk)03:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take me off the list. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... for reverting vandalism to my user page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be unexpected at first but I hope you agree with my kind words given in the nomination statement. Minimac (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit me with a baseball, I'll hit you with a sledgehammer. :)

Do you know the rule on IP editors editing the RfA? Can they or is that outlawed?--Talktome^(Intelati) 05:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against it. The person in question, however, was a vandal I was reverting on Huggle. [1] --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. [2]. :) I would say congratulations, but the fat lady hasn't even entered the theater yet. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 05:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what's going on at Jon Fisher , or what this is about? --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the maintenance tags because it looked like the person who removed them had a COI. But the peculiar thing is, virtually everyone editing the article seems to have a COI or is a single purpose account.

• 76.126.186.253 (talk · contribs) geolocates to Comcast, San Jose; has only edited this article and the one about The Irvine Progressive. Seems to be in the business of adding negative material to the article
• 76.126.182.213 (talk · contribs) geolocates to Comcast, Mill Valley CA; has only edited this article and only has positive things to say. This is the one who says 76.126.186.253 is vandalising.
• Seism (talk · contribs) was the main author but they have not edited the article for a while.
• SistaSorts (talk · contribs) - SPI
• PredilCO (talk · contribs) - SPI
• Jellybook (talk · contribs) - SPI
• Aronixti (talk · contribs) - SPI

I will try to help. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have some discussion on the article talk. I've asked for help at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now semi'd so I am going to clean it up. That usually helps. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks like two factions edit-warring. Hopefully they'll respond to my talk page discussion, especially about making his notability clear. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until all the refereces have citation info that at least identifies the source and date, I'd like some sort of tag on the article identifying this need per my comments on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You rock. Thanks for the help. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the tasty rock! I love this photo :D --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For being a vandal fighter that sometimes will beat me in reverting. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My work on this page has wrongfully been tagged as "vandalism." Erroneous content has been added to the page and it needs to be reverted to a previous version with the correct content. Two issues: the date of the game for eighth place is incorrect, since all the sources report it as 2 Sept. 1920 and not 30 Aug. 1920 (see http://www.rsssf.com/tableso/ol1920f-det.html). Second issue: the latter stages of the competition did not "descend into farse" as stated in the article (that's in violation of Wikipedia policy of NPOV), the tournament continued following the rules of the Bergvall system, as explained here: http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JOH/JOHv8n1/johv8n1o.pdf. The only difference was that the disqualification of Czechoslovakia forced an eighth-place game. Also information added in an improper type (subscript) is unreadable, since it's not in proper English and does not seem to give any valuable/supported information. Also, the game for eighth place does not belong in the same section with the tournament to determine second place, since it was only done after Czechoslovakia's disqualification. The tournament to determine second place was in the rules all along. That section needs to be appended after the one regarding the consolation tournament. --24.68.76.74 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. The point of the Wikipedia, however, has been, since its inception, to allow for editing without creating an account. I'd contend we, anonymous editors, are responsible for about half of all the material made available, and the creation of some of the most sensible rules related to editing and formatting. There are many reasons for not creating an account, from paranoia to political/philosophical beliefs. Therefore, I recommend that the edits by anonymous users should not be taken lightly as "vandalism," but that they be treated in the same fashion as those edits by people who have an account already. That is, I hope there is no profiling. There should be no difference whatsoever between the credibility given to a regular registered member and that given to an anonymous editor: both should be verified, none should be presumed guilty of vandalism. As someone who is likely to become an administrator, I beseech you to maintain this tradition. --24.68.76.74 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. But the main reason that your edits were reverted is because you removed large blocks of content without explanation, and the patrolling software we use picks up that kind of edit and draws our attention to it when it is done by IPs or newly created accounts. Once you create an account after a while you are "whitelisted" and your edits are no longer routinely patrolled.

You are actually more anonymous if you create an account, because when you edit as an IP anyone (not just administrators) can geolocate you using your IP address. Some IPs can be geolocated to a specific building such as a library or school. I actually believe editing using an account has advantages, and that is why I suggested it. I hope you took no offense. Thanks again for your contributions. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say I'm sorry I couldn't support, that it's nothing personal and, whatever the outcome, my door is always open. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond at the RFA. You obviously put a lot of thought into your !vote, and the feedback it provides is very valuable. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck with the RfA. I don't pay enough attention to them to guess how likely yours is to pass. I've always thought the RfA process shows the Wikipedia bureaucracy at its worst. They should simply give editors a second account with Admin privileges limited to a narrow scope as agreed upon in the RfA. Editors would then appeal for more privileges. (Of course, it's not simple at the technical level). Your desire to work on copyright violations as an administrator shows the limits of this approach. An admin account needs a wide variety of privileges to do such work. In contrast, working on WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, etc could be done with restricted-privilege accounts. Myself, I do mostly policing work yet I rarely feel the need for admin privileges. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright work is complex and voluminous so I am sure user:Moonriddengirl will appreciate the assistance. Much of the work there can be done by people without admin tools, so I will be able to get my feet wet first. I think low level policing work is something I will attempt initially as well. I will have a lot of studying to do, though, before I will feel comfortable deleting articles. The RFA has shown some gaps in my knowledge! This type of feedback is one reason why I accepted the nomination so early in my Wikipedia career: It can act as a tool to further development. Thank you very much for your supportive comments. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help. It's really appreciated.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am gonna keep an eye on things for a while. Sandy herself said the article was over the hump, so Maybe - - *fingers crossed* -- Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I activated the word counter application but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to use it. -ESTR + 09:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for signing up for the copy edit drive. During drives, we keep track of the number of articles we edit and the word count, using the word count of the article before we start the copy edit (typically the articles shrink a bit during the editing). The Page Size script will give you the number of words in the readable prose section of the article (excluding text in tables and lists, etc). You should record the number of words present in the article before you begin working (you can get it out of the history later, if need be) and report the article length on the record page for the drive. Full instructions can be found at main drive page. Please read that over and if you still have any questions, please let me know. Thanks again for your interest. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, This is about Rajput page. In Sanskrit, semen means reta or shukra, it does not mean ruj.I have checked the online dictionary from English to Sanskrit.The user Ikonoblast has changed the word Rajput to Rujput in Hindi.The word semen is obscene as well as offensive and against the Wiki policy. I think the user Ikonoblast is biased towards rajputs and the views expressed are not neautral.Could you please remove the obscene and offensive word ruj in Hindi and replace it with the original word Raj. Thank you.Rajbaz (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Sanskrit stuff that Ikonoblast had added, and also a maintenance tag he placed on the article. Thank you for reporting this. My apologies that this content remained on the page for so long. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. Thank you for your help.I am afraid the offensive word is still there.It is on the top right hand side of the main Rajput page, underneath where it says "castes of India".If you could replace the present page with what it was on the 15th Oct. 2010,that would be great.Thanks a lot.Rajbaz (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove it but someone had already replaced it. I have removed it again. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it considered vandalism when I clearly think it's irrelevent as I said in the editing comment? 174.93.27.191 (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier; it was bedtime. It looks like "vandalism" is too strong a word, since you did explain the removal of the content. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful RFA! Your bits have been twiddled. I strongly encourage and recommend that you read and become very familiar with Wikipedia:Administrators, the tools page, the blocking and banning policies, and the protection policy. Refer to them often, especially if you have questions. Please also don't hesitate to ask questions if you have them. There are plenty of people around, including myself, who are very willing to help you out should you need it. Again, congratulations! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! If you need any help or advice, feel free to give me a shout. My monobook script thingy has lots of useful admin related scripts, as do SoWhy (talk · contribs) and others. Good luck and happy mopping! GedUK  08:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice one, congrats :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gratz!--iGeMiNix 10:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Congrats on getting the bit! The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy the content of the G1 iteration of this article to the bottom of User:Access Denied/Adoption/CSD Examples so I can use it in my adoption program as an example of a blatant G1.thanks, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 08:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got it :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Access Denied, I actually checked to see if your request was legit! Elen has already copied it, and I have added the scintillating title. Elen, Thanks, I will always feel like we graduated from college together, since we both got our admin tools around the same time. Though I feel like I have a lot more studying yet ahead of me, for sure. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just think, not even one morning Elen had to provide the coffee. You, on the other hand, might get three or four! Courcelles 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just thinking exactly the same thing - it's as if we graduated together :) Not sure what Courcelles means, but if he's buying, mine's a cappucino :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure he is expecting us to serve the coffee!! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See that, Elen? This Diannaa woman is as sharp as a tack! Those of us who have been admins longer (like five months ;) ) can't get our neurons going in the morning without a heavy dose of coffee, and that's why we keep electing new admins, to provide a fresh supply of the junior admins to make coffee runs. Courcelles 01:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to support some candidates at RFAs so I will no longer be the "new girl". --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or nominate some. (And darned if I hadn't been planning to browbeat you into an RFA around February.) It seems like everyone I decide should be an admin ends up getting nominated one way or another. Courcelles 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I'm late, but congratulations. I'm sure you'll do a good job. Feel free to ping me if you need anything (except advice on A7, but, other than that, anything!). I see you're already putting your new buttons to use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Anyone who thinks this job is glamourous should give it a try (spoiler alert: it's not)! I have also been doing lots of waiting and observing how other admins handle some of the less clear-cut work. It's been a great experience so far. Thanks for your supportive comments. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful RFA! MJ94 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur! Just don't forget about GOCE! ;). Derild4921☼ 18:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats :P. Mlpearc powwow 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Sunshine!
		Hello Diannaa! ~NerdyScienceDude has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! ~NerdyScienceDude 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! ~NerdyScienceDude 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks y'all. Thannks NSD, for the sunshine. And I won't forget the GOCE, Don't worry! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. From what I've experienced, this was well-deserved. upstateNYer 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woot. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I add my congratulations. You have lots of support! Speaking at least for myself, we at the GOCE are glad to have (another) admin in our ranks. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 23:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Heartiest congratulations for getting the mop! Well done, you deserve it. – S Masters (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Diannaa, First congrats on the admin bit. Second, can you take a look at Jamie McMurray and do a peer review on it. Not an actual peer review but similar to that? And also can you quick copy edit it for me too? :) thanks--TalkToMe_c^intelati 00:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will have a look later. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--TalkToMe_c^intelati 00:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. This is all going according to plan. Now I can move my timetable for complete and utter world domination up by 27 minutes and 4 seconds (it's meticulously detailed, you see...)

In all seriousness though, congradulations. You deserve the mop. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't at all phased by that? Nothing? Nothing at all. Wow, I'm impressed. You should do fine.

When I rule the world, I shall name a city in your honor. But first, we must change your name to Vancouver.

I'm having fun, you know. I'm really not a megalomonitical madman. Cheers. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course I laughed; you just could not hear me through the internetz. Must be a bad connection. Dang that Telus!! XD --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Diannaa!--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I semiprotected your talk page for 24 hours. I didn't realize at first you were an admin, so if you want, feel free to unprotect/extend. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is my first day but yes I am an admin. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, congrats, and could you check what I wrote, please? link Tony (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, thank you very much. You should also mention that I am a member of the Guild of Copy Editors as I have been quite active in that organisation. Otherwise the blurb is great. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyedting Varahi. Would you please add the on the article talk acknowledging the GOCE copyedit? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reverse my edits? I dont put untrue things and dont like em.How it displeased you? The truth is truth and historians must put it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap Singh Rajawat (talk • contribs) 11:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is something you need to discuss on the talk pagew of the article, not here. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been invited to comment in a special Request for Constructive Criticism page. I am looking for areas in which I can improve. I have identified you as both an experienced and trusted Wikipedian, and as someone that has had sufficient contact with me to able to recognize areas in which I can improve. Please feel free to visit and post any comments or criticism you have. At a certain point, I cannot improve if no one tells me what I need to work on. Thanks in advance, Sven Manguard Talk 00:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mediating on recent edits for article “Petar i Zli Vuci”. I really appreciate your objectivity. (PiZV (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You're welcome. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get to the discussion soon enough, but you have my complete support in your new role as administrator. Congrats! Cindamuse (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that you reverse your decision about a speedy delete for Cache Creek Casino Resort. Casinos tend to be notable. Also this article has been around for 4 years which is a strong statement about it not being viewed as spam. Finally did you look at the id that made the nomination? It is a single purpose account that did the nomination and it happens to be the name of another casino that does not have an article. Seems like this was a POV nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are right, not only are they an SPA, they are blocked. Thank you for catching this mistake, and my apologies. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you double check my edits at Around the World with Willy Fog? Just want to make sure that I'm doing things properly and recording the numbers right. Thanks. -ESTR + 10:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the work is good. Another editor has reveiwed it as well and has placed some comments on your talk page. You need to keep a running total of your word count by adding up the words from all the articles that you edit. I have done this for the first two to get you started. Thank you very much for participating! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Diannaa; I've got a question about the drive's awarding system. There are awards offered for those who copyedit articles with a 4000 word count, 8000 word count, 12000 word count, and so on. Do we get these individual awards as we go along, or are they all saved up for the end of the drive? I'm asking because a number of us have already gathered enough words for the 4000-related award, and some have even gotten enough for the 8000 one, but nobody appears to have received anything yet. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for participating in the drive. Editors will receive one barnstar for word count at the end of the drive. It is possible to win additional barnstars for appearing on the leader board, copy editing the largest article, and so on, but each person who qualifies for a word count barnstar will only receive one of those. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up! Cheers, and good luck!!! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and good luck to you also. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa, You recently deleted our page for North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NABCEP

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jerrysena/NABCEP#About_NABCEP

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.

Jerry Jerrysena (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your excellent work in the October 2010 Wikification Drive, you are awarded The Cleanup Barnstar! Thanks for your work!  Ⓢock  03:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation if the October 2010 wikification drive. Please participate in discussion about planning and coordinating the next drive here. MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WP:WWF/D/2010/O at 06:22, 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]

Of course. I'll get back to you on it.--Kudpung (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good, I like it. I shall probably plagiarise it ;) --Kudpung (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You betcha. I will move it to the sub-page and you can link to it if you like! Thanks for reviewing it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A message from WikiProject Wikify! Thanks for participating in the October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive! We made significant progress, wikifying hundreds of articles. However, the backlog still needs a large amount of effort--discussions about the next drive (in December) are underway. Until then, happy editing!  Ⓢock  00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for copy-editing National Treasures of Japan. I assume that you are done with it, correct? Do you think that it would have a chance at FAC? bamse (talk) 02:26, 4 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]

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.

Jerry

Jerrysena (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the document you have at User:Jerrysena/NABCEP and it looks to me like every part of it is copied directly from http://www.nabcep.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/Central-CIH-7.30.10-rev2.01.pdf. Example: First paragraph:

And now I quote from the pdf file:

The two are identical; every part of the article at User:Jerrysena/NABCEP appears in an almost identical form at http://www.nabcep.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/Central-CIH-7.30.10-rev2.01.pdf. The article would have to be completely re-written.

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]

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]

Diannaa, can we get the current NABCEP Wiki page taken down till we get this resolved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NABCEP

It's rather embarrassing for all of us to have that there when people search for NABCEP. Is there any reason it has to remain up?

Thanks again for your time on this. Jerry

Jerrysena (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thanks for your help! I think you are right--that article needs attention from somebody who knows about samba music. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa,

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.

Thanks again for your time, Diannaa.

Jerry

Jerrysena (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Why don't you try to block a vandal on Huggle? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some last session. Its the bomb! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's 10 rpm. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Ⓢock  00:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ☽☾ talk 05:24, 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]

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?

Thanks, Weatherman05071 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You go to the page WP:TRANSLATION and follow the instructions, but much depends whether there is a translator who will be willing to take it on. Good luck.--Kudpung (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung is wise. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both Weatherman05071 (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the translation for you. It's at User:Kudpung/Bordeleau (draft). --Kudpung (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, it is greatly appreciated.Weatherman05071 (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try the pp-semi template like this: {{pp-semi|small=yes}}? WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've been looking for this. You will make a great admin some day. Patience, young Jedi. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome and thank you! WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, Wayne: Don't run too early, and don't run unless you know you're ready. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally did not sign as I thought it was optional. I will research this some, and see what I can find out. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this discussion, which makes it pretty clear that not signing them is a little pointless. So I will sign them from now on. Thanks for the input, Wayne. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:53, 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]

Thanks. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's sock is this? 92.28.80.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I have not been following these debates very closely. Geolocates to Liverpool. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:56, 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]

Looks like a anonymizer network. I will be starting an investigation at WP:OP. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Only just noticed you have The Bit - congrats !

Hope you still have time for the non-mop ops :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh certainly, I am still on the leader board for the drive, heh heh XD --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:07, 7 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]

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]

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]

Yes, that's what we are going to do for this drive. We may change it for the next one. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 :)