User talk:Diannaa/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Guatemalan vandal spotted

190.106.222.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

190.106.222.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked range, 190.106.222.0/26, for two weeks. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

190.106.222.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked range, 190.106.222.0/25, for one month. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You got mail

I sent you something.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just passing through

How are things with the ol' Guild? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Utahraptor. Nice to hear from you! I hope you are well --Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you look at

Yerevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where we seem to have another nationlist editor, perhaps a sock. 3 reverts but before the 3rd I gave him the new DS 'notice'. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Hopefully he has understood. Please continue to monitor and let me know if things take a turn for the worse. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. At least now he is using edit summaries and explaining his edit, which now makes sense. But we need to expect a return to the recent socking - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser data is still fresh enough that a quick resolution could be found at SPI. He has now stopped editing, with exactly 10 edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I can provide the diffs. And I don't have iRc set up on my laptop (away from home until Monday) and can't recall my login details. 10 edits probably not a coincidence. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if these edits are valid or not, as the citations are not checkable. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgot about this, but I did block the editor recently.[1]. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

CCI update

Wizardman 21:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wizardman! There's two other cases that can be archived as well if you have time. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Will close up the third one later. Good to see some are closeable. Wizardman 13:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And the third. Wizardman 19:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Working on Tobby72, Where it looks like all the edits can be resolved and the case closed someday soon. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocking paranoia? Well whatever, enjoy yourself.

Hey there Diannaa - blocking me (my IP that is) appears to me like strange paranoia; just for your information: I am not "User:English Patriot Man", I'm not even English ;) -- I've been to England once ... does that make me "English Patriot Man"? This is not to start a discussion - I just wanted to let you know. Have a thoughtful day. Sincerely,87.159.107.222 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.187.238.55) PS One more thing -- for now I've had enough -- you don't have to fear that I'll try to add correcting information from primary sources, no more divergent information that could make people question the sources that are not sorted out. No more try to work for freedom of information. For now that is. Have a nice day. 87.159.107.222 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Pickleboy7997

Could you block this user, please? Based on the user's first edit, it is clear this is yet another sockpuppet of User:Zimmermanh1997. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As you have previously dealt with this user, I am making you aware of the new SPI against User:Zimmermanh1997, which can be found here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer. Sorry you had to interrupt your hiatus to deal with this stuff. I hope you are feeling better. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper citation

Kampfgruppe (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Brigade144

I didn't notice his/her account, it seems like User:Pulum34. 183.171.168.94 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is the blocked user (original account was Andrewbf). I am not seeing any of his usual tells. Please feel free to open a sockpuppet investigation of you disagree. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Josef Mengele

The text I removed is in no way relevant. Background about the military he joined is not needed in the article. Other similar articles of former military members do not include the ideology of the military they joined. Simo HäyhäTimothy McVeigh well known former soldiers as examples. Neither have a description of the US army or Finnish army. If it is at all relavant it should be a different section as it has little to do with his military service. It is background to the war that was fought and is no way needed considering how well known WW2 is. --Youngdrake (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about article content belongs on the article talk page, not here. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Rauleesparza

User:Rauleesparza has been reported as impersonation of Raúl Esparza. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Off to the gym now, ttyl. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Zimmerman, again

Got another Zimmerman IP sock, this time 69.138.30.59. Is there any chance a range block could be put up for this range and the one he used previously? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DoRD has blocked the IP (for a year!). Unfortunately though these IPs seem related on first glance, they are actually not close enough to range block, and actually involve different service providers. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he uses one from Comcast and one from a local ISP, according to IP GeoLocates. Hopefully this new block will keep him from doing anymore vandalism, but I really think a rangeblock would help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Range 69.0.0.0/8 (up to 16,777,216 users would be blocked). Blocks of this size are not permitted :). We need at least one more IP from each service provider to calculate two tight range blocks. Please keep monitoring and let me know if he pops up using any other IPs. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to say there aren't 16 million people in Frederick and Washington counties in Maryland (the areas where Zimmerman edits from). Here are the IPs he has used, which might help narrow down the blocks a little more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The IPv6 series is already range blocked, and the other IPs are not close enough to help narrow it down. Sorry, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Darn, guess we will have to keep playing whack-a-mole. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Appropriateness?

As someone who is very active on Wiki, could you please take a look at the appropriateness of the following two edits?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siwa_Oasis&diff=592982798&oldid=592901808

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siwa_Oasis&diff=next&oldid=592982798

Thanks,

JS (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take the matter up on the article talk page so other editors interested in that article can comment. I am not going to comment. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, JS (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Hi, Diannaa! Would you mind if I ask you for a second opinion on a copyright matter? I find this to be unacceptably close to this bio; the Dup Det report doesn't look so very bad. Normally I'd just blank it and list it; however, Trident13 is upset at me because I posted about him at WP:COIN, so I thought I'd see what you think. If you have the time or inclination. I'm trying to work out whether the CCI I requested is actually needed; I hope not, it'd be a nightmare - he has over 100,000 edits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi JLAN. The content appears even earlier here, but the text may have been supplied to the BBC by Hogben himself. Regardless, the material is too closely paraphrased in my opinion. Whether or not a CCI needs opening or a block implemented is a matter best decided by one of the more experienced admins who work CCI. -- Diannaa (talk)

Thanks, it was just the one article that I wanted your view on. Since the hidden-text-in-sandbox thing is a bit of a grey area, I thought I'd try and see whether there's really enough to worry about in mainspace to be worth creating all that work. And on the rest of it, yes, for sure. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Saybrook University (again)

Hi Dianna. Might you possibly take a look at the new [[WP:RFPP#Saybrook University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)]]. I opposed semi-protection of this one last time, and you declined the request (thanks), but now that consensus has been achieved at the article, the IP, who seems to have been biding his time, has come back and edited against consensus to misrepresent the sources in the same old way. He is also doing stuff that may be worth keeping, and we can take that on board, but his removal of valid sources and reinsertion of sources that don't say what he claims they say, has become impossible to manage. Thanks for any help you can give. Cheers, SImon. --Stfg (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. How should I have made that link so that it was clickable? :) --Stfg (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

voilà -- Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see Thanks for semiprotecting the page. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Return of Hypocritepedia

Back as 69.178.195.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and reported to Hypo's SPI if you want to examine it. Nate • (chatter) 10:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Mark Arsten

Hi.

I could not view the YouTube link you posted in this diff; it does not show up in my region because of copyright reasons. But let me guess: You believe Mark will come back, right?

Well, {{Retired}} does not say "gone forever". But the counterpoint is that a {{Retired}} stops these: Special:Diff/616617087/616676069, Special:Diff/616678000/616904373. Fewer users confused.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(watching) The template suggests that a user placed it himself. The title of the video is "I'm Only Sleeping". The notice on top is clear and Mark's style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The link goes to a recording of I'm Only Sleeping. See also WP:LINKVIO. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:: No, it doesn't. There is no first person pronoun in it. I've seen other admins putting it on other users' pages. But let's assume it does. So what? The counter-confusion application overpowers any assumption. And we could edit the template to eliminate this assumption. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's simply not his style. The notice on top of the page is, and is clear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I know... but again, so what? If it helps, does it really matter? My diffs show that the notice on the top of the page is failing to perform its duty. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa. Mark said via email that he does not want that template on his page. I think we have to respect that. He does not consider himself to be retired, and will be back someday (hopefully soon). Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed that clinches the matter. Thanks for the info.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just in case I don't edit for a while, I hope that nobody will put that ugly template on my pages, which would also place me in a category, automatically. I would not do it to others. There's this message: "user has not edited since ...", - that's a little better, but not needed in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I mentioned something important. Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Again an email is sent to you.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hi friend. Would you say that Animal welfare during World War II would need to be created? Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know; do you have lots of good material? If you're not sure, you could start the article in a sandbox and see how it goes. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have some material regarding elephants killed during the Siege of Leningrad, but also thought I could use some material and information from Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the war in the Pacific. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I will start the article at my sandbox tomorrow and see how long I can write the article. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Russians, allegedly, trained cute doggies to run under enemy tanks carrying explosives. Problem was, the doggies then ran back to their masters before completing their missions, with explosives (and timers) still attached. I'm sure I read this on Wikipedia somewhere. Maybe User:Sagaciousphil and friends could help with this aspect?

Horses in World War I is a featured article, and Horses in World War II could perhaps have had similar detail with more work. Suffering of horses was colossal during both world wars. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Great and interesting inputs guys; I'm too tired now to look into it, but like I said, I will begin sandbox tomorrow. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to respond to the ping - I think the article you mean is Anti-tank dog? SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Thank you, Phil. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I just got home from a short family vacation, so did not start the sandbox-article yet, but will do it today. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

ALRIGHT, I've finally begun to write the article in my sandbox. I believe it will be finished by tonight, but don't look at it yet, because it's far from finished. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Diannaa thanks for given me another chance to improving English wiki. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Philippe Capdenat

Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RANKING OF NOMINAL GDP OF RUSSIA WRONG!RUSSIA IS 9th,NOT 8TH!

Is it possible to mention Russia as 9th as nominal gdp in 2014?In Russia article presentation this country is presented as 8th for nominal gdp (false) and also aside close the value 2092.According to IMF in 2014 Russia is only 9th by nominal gdp behind Italy with 2171.You can see it also in List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal) .Russia is 9th in 2014.Russia article isn't respecting at all Wikipedia english criteria.(I don't want any captatio benevolentiae but i visited your places .I'm from Italy and i started from Vancouver to vist by Carnival Spirit Alaska till Anchorage and later starting fron Vancouver i passed by Hope ,then Kamloops,Jasper and then the pass to Banff (Dead man flat) and then Calgary.I liked a lot Jasper!)151.40.117.74 (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I like Jasper a lot too, but my favourite is Banff. Thanks for the info about Russia. I only visited the article to clean up a copyright problem; I am not one of the regular editors there. Please present your points and sources on the article talk page, not here, so that someone who knows more about the topic can get involved. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I did it and people noticed the mistake but nobody acted to remove it.) I had lunch in Banff and in the evening i slept in Sandeman Hotel close airport).151.40.122.172 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential block evasion?

Hi. Thanks for your block of 50.12.9.41 (talk · contribs). I was wondering if you could take a look at this edit. Looks like block evasion to me (but then, maybe I'm biased). Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an unrelated IP that geolocates to the same area (NYC). I have semi-protected the page and will watch-list for a while. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead contence

Hello, and sorry to disturb You again. (But it's not about any general or some kind of problem) I just recall that You (I belive) stated that a lead shall reflect the content of an article. And not much else ? Or am I wrong ? If not, I only wonder if this always is the case (in longer articles like von Manstein, although I can assure You that it's not about him again). Boeing720 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Boeing720. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, which is the style guidelines we strive to follow on all of our content. These style rules are closely followed in Featured Articles and Good Articles, whereas other articles are more of a work in progress. Featured articles are independently reviewed by at least three people, and Good articles by at least one person. Manstein is rated as a Good Article. Some articles are too short to really need the repetition / summary that the style guideline calls for in the lead. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for complete information on the lead section. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You very much for this very enlightening and detailed answer, including all the links. Thanks again ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ronn

Imagine if Ronn were going to be at Wikimania this year. Or next year? What would we tell him? Can we meet him?

I wondered if you might be at either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We have him at the advantage: We know what he looks like! On one level I would love to go to Wikimania, but I don't know that I ever will. I've managed to keep my RL identity totally secret so far, and I hope to keep it that way. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

808s & Heartbreak

Yo Diannaa; can you do mans a favour and protect the page 808s & Heartbrek again; consistant genre warring? Safe HackneyE8 (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you very much for doing that but to be on the safe side can it last a couple of months; I have this feeling that the minute it's unprotected they'd probably start a war up again? HackneyE8 (talk)

You all need to go to the talk page and discuss the genre. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection has now expired, so we will watch and see. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have some filters in place that should help to manage this situation. I'm keeping a close eye on them.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

86.165.*.* genre edit warrior

It's just User:MariaJaydHicky back again. Block on sight material.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, I did not realise. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Diannaa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Normandy landings

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Great article! Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Evil One! Nice to hear from you. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! Kierzek (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The battle of Caen is a very interesting subject. Congrats. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Page Move Request

Hey Dianna, could you do a quick page move for me? I need WKDL (AM) moved to WRCW (currently a redirect). Reason, WKDL has changed it's callsign to WRCW. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I can do it easily as there's no history merge required. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ma'am. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What the ... ?

Is it a bug or error on my computer or is it simply not possible to click on images on articles and be presented with the view license anymore? When I click on a picture in an article, nothing happens! Does this happen to you as well? Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The site was trying out a software called Media Viewer. Since most people did not like it, it is now turned off by default. If you want to turn it back on, go to Preferences→Appearance, and tick the box "Enable Media Viewer". -- Diannaa (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much, friend. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Kick (2014 film)

Hello, Thanks you so much for acting so fast. I had time making changes :) Hope this will help. Please do keep an eye on the article if ever you have time. Daan0001 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A sock of Martin S. McFly?

Hello Diannaa. You blocked Martin S. McFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - do you think that Dos aree num (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same person? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see that Favonian (talk · contribs) has now blocked as sock of David Beals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

He's back

The editor you blocked as Martin McFly is back, now spamming as Dos ares num. He's only hit two users so far, both reverted. --Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I stopped mid-message to answer the phone, and someone got here while I did. He's definitely the same guy; he's using the "answer on my talk page thank you" phrase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmargi (talk • contribs)

Just want to add, "Martin S. McFly" is a scandalous throwaway sock waste of a superior username :/ Think, McFly, think! -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

For Your knowledge

The Trial of Erich von Manstein article will within days be reviewed for "good reading" by an administrator at my request. I hope he will approved !

I would though at the same time like to mention (possible to von Mansteins defence reg. the political commissars in the Red Army), that I have read Émile Zola's L'Attaque du moulin a long time ago ("The attack on the Mill", in litterar translation; from Swedish the same would have been "The Breakdown". I havn't been able to find its English title). It's a shorter story that I believe to originally have been published together with contributions from other autors. It deals mainly with the fate of two French men that enlist volentary for France in the Franco-Prussian war 1870-71. It's a sad, partly horrific, but still great story. But from it, I learned that civilians must not participate in wars (atleast not in the 1870's). And hence could executions of political commisars be regarded as OK. But please note, this is not my values I just have stated. I strongly oppose to the capital punishment, also in war and for treason or cowardice. Boeing720 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting information. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I have made one contribution at its talk-page, but was honnestly unaware of the earlier review. When giving an input at talk pages, the first that comes up is the "new comment". However I hope the article is improved enough since. 83.249.160.125 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Sorry again. It seems like a visit to another Wikipedia makes my "keep being logged in for 30 days" to log out.Boeing720 (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Another quick question

How can you tell how many words an article has, without boringly counting each and every word? Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Try this word count tool, endorsed by the Arbitration Committee. Paste in the rendered page, not the wiki markup. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I'll try it out. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also a script available; see User:Dr pda/prosesize. You would have to paste it into your common.js page. If you want to try this out and need help getting started with scripts, please let me know. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Grammar question

Is the synonym for the military word retreat spelled withdrawal, withdraw, or withdrawn? Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It depends on how you are planning to use it. Examples:

• Hitler told Paulus that withdrawal from Stalingrad was out of the question (noun)
• Hitler told Paulus that his troops were not permitted to withdraw (verb)
• The troops were not withdrawn, and most of them died (past participle)
• The troops withdrew (verb, past tense) -- Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trial of Erich von Manstein

The article Trial of Erich von Manstein you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Trial of Erich von Manstein for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I sent you an email. Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

copyediting help needed

I recently created Chandrakant Topiwala and Shrenik Kasturbhai Lalbhai and nominated both on DYK. As I am not native speaker, both articles need copyediting for grammar. Can you help me by quickly copyediting both articles? Template: Did you know nominations/Chandrakant Topiwala and Template: Did you know nominations/Shrenik Kasturbhai Lalbhai. Thanks, Nizil (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.. For copyediting both articles.. Regards -Nizil (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Animal welfare during World War II

After I decided there was enough material to cover Germany, the UK, the Soviet Union, and Japan, I have gone ahead and created the article. So far I have covered Germany and the UK. Anyways, It's my ambition to "completing" it to such an extent it could pass for FA article. Of course I'm well aware it's not possible right now, but, as you're a highly experienced Wikipedian, I thought you could assist me with the article's expansion, with a mentality it's supposed to be a qualified FA candidate (in the future). :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonas, sorry to be so long in replying. Unfortunately my wiki-time is limited right now so I will be focusing my attention on highly-viewed articles on core topics: Bormann, Nicholas II of Russia possibly, Goebbels starting in October when Longerich's new book comes out. I also promised to work on Utah Beach. I will help with copy edits later on if you like, but won't have time to help with research and writing. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure getting an article to FA status is a huge job - so any help you can offer would be most welcome. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For copyediting Shrenik Kasturbhai Lalbhai and Chandrakant Topiwala. Nizil (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nizil! -- Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphan?

Could you be so kind to explain to me, in laymen's terms, what an article that's categorized as an "Orphan" means? Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria. What it means is that no other articles in the encyclopedia contain a link to the orphan article. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, friend. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:KitchenerJellicoe French.jpg

I added the information asked for, yet some moron still deleted it.Rodolph (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rodolph. File:Amiralissime Jellicoe.jpg is the 1916 postcard. File:KitchenerJellicoe French.jpg is a watercolor of Kitchener, Jellicoe, and French that included a copy of the image on the postcard as one of three images. The reason why I nominated it for deletion is because it looks like a scan of a 1960s-era book illustration, not a copy of an old postcard. I am not going to restore it. The deleting administrator, user:Ronhjones, might feel differently, so you might like to speak to him. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rodolph You claim it was old - probably not old enough. It's either a painting or a watercoloured photo (no colour photos in those days). So you claim 1916, it's a European image, so we probably have it in copyright until 70 years post the artist &/or photgrapher death - more than likely it's still in copyright - unless you can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the image was made in 1916 (and not just a later painting of an 1916 photo) and that the artist identity is impossible to find (OR (s)he has been deceased for over 70 years). On the basis of the data seen, I see no need to undelete. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The original images from which this was made are out of copyright. Is not a copy of an out of date image itself without copy-right-able virtue and therefore alongside the original images out of copyright too, besides the fact that the copy is doubtless pre-1923 anyway? Rodolph (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The image is a watercolor based on the postcard, plus images of French and Kitchener, of unknown provenance. The picture looked like the one here. It's original enough to have generated a new copyright in my opinion. If you wish to pursue this further, the place to go is Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the image of French/Jellicoe/Kitchener you sent a link to came from Wikipedia rather than the other way round. The images of French & Kitchener would also be 1916 or earlier as Kitchener died in 1916.Rodolph (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Horrid people, ok not horrid just annoyingly human. Why so ever so over protective of anonymous and certainly by long dead people, which with any normal sense of benefit of the doubt would be ok for free use, YET happy to steal photographic intellectual property from David Slater, whose photo of the monkey has been appropriated by Wikipedia? Rodolph (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The review

I'm sorry. Please read my entry at Talk:Trial of Erich von Manstein/GA1. Boeing720 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what it takes to nominate an article for Good Article status. What has to be done is follow the procedure as shown at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. For Trial of Erich von Manstein, a Good Article nomination was already underway when you posted on User:John's page asking him to have a look at the article. Sturmvogel was the reviewer who undertook the review. I withdrew the nomination on 27 July. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still indeed sorry. I asked User:John if he possibly could help me (as he ,like You, is an administartor). Apart from reading "Trial of..", I had also before my request made comparissions with a few other "good reading" articles. And I thought that the article very well could be reviwed atleast. I then used following phrase

"Hello John! I would like to have the Trial of Erich von Manstein article examined for "good reading" atleast, if possible. I've only made one tiny contibution (changing the word "lawyer" to "barrister, KC, and Labour MP"). I happened to read it during discussions and changes to the article Erich von Manstein, some weeks ago. I'm unaware of how to, or where, to make such proposals. I presume an administrator or similar needs to be involved (?).". It was honnestly made with the best of intensions, and was partly made as a question, explaining that I was unaware of such procedures.

How was I supposed to know that it already was under reviewal ? (I even had missed the old one). I then notified You about it. Anyhow later I felt like I perhaps stressed you - perhaps to make the request to Sturmvogel (what do I know). However if that already was in progress, I still feel stupid. And I'm honnestly sorry for any possible inconvenience my clumsyness may have caused You. Can we put this behind us, please ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Judywalton

Hi Diannaa, sorry to bother you. I'd previously reported Judywalton to ANI for copypasting episode syposes, and you stepped in to encourage her to edit to our norms. Despite both our efforts the user has again copypasted episode summaries in these edits. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

In this edit, you said in your edit remark that you were paraphrasing copyright material from the NYT and CBS. I think you've changed the meaning in both cases. In the first case, "nearly word-for-word" is a pretty common phrase, so I think it's hard to claim a copyright on that. Further, it appears almost in many, many accounts of the story (c.f., this Google search). You've changed it to "directly copied", which is not the same. Directly copied means, I believe, without any changes, which is not what was claimed.

In the second case, Walsh did not say he believed his career in the National Guard should be viewed in its entirety and not defined by the missing citations. The actual quote CBS reported was: "I admit that I made a mistake," he said. "My record will be defined by (Walsh's service in) the National Guard, not by a few citations that were unintentionally left out in a term paper." Since this is his own statement in his own defense, I don't think this is a copyright issue so much as it is one of staying very close to what he actually said and leaving it to reader to figure out what he meant, which (by my reading) did not include anything about viewing his service in entirety. I thought he was reminding us that he'd spent his career as a National Guardsman, not an academic, and that the standards are different. But again, I'm not a mind-reader, which is why I preferred to stay as close as possible to his original quote.

I would have liked to have used full original quote but was not able to find any source that fills in the missing words (c.f., here) suggesting to me that was a statement given only to CBS. Since I couldn't find the missing words, I reported that statement in my edit as "CBS News reported that Walsh stated, "I admit that I made a mistake", but that he believed his record was defined by his service in the National Guard, "not by few citations that were unintentionally left out of a term paper".

I'm more in agreement with you on this edit, though I hasten to add, in this case, you're editing something Montanabw wrote, not what I contributed.

The original Flathead Beacon statement I relied on was, "The war college’s normal sanction for plagiarism is the rescinding of the former student’s degree and his name grinded from a plaque of the graduating class at the college, Betros said." I reported that as, "Betros stated that the normal sanction for plagiarism is rescinding the former student's degree and grinding his name from a plaque of the graduating class." Again, because I was dealing with a specific statement by an identified source (albeit not a direct quote), I felt it was important to stay pretty close to the original wording to avoid any change in meaning. Also, it seems possible that "rescind" may actually be their preferred term for it, c.f., this statement in the NYT: "Its current student handbook states that plagiarism will result in disenrollment and that discoveries of academic violations have led to degrees’ being rescinded and names’ being scraped off the bronze plaques honoring graduates on campus."

Apparently relying on the next paragraph in the FB story, "Lesser disciplinary actions, such as verbal counseling, are also an option, but stripping the degree is typical in plagiarism cases, he said.", Montanabw replaced that with, "The normal penalty for plagiarism is rescinding the former student's degree, although lesser disciplinary actions are an option." Because Montanabw wasn't trying to represent this as a specific statement by a specific source, I agree that more paraphrasing of the distinctive "lesser disciplinary actions ... are also an option" would be helpful.

But you also made another change in that edit, deleting the "roughly" from "the New York Times alleged that Walsh plagiarized roughly two-thirds". They genuinely weren't that precise. The original text I relied on (and quoted in my citation) was, "About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks. ..." I added "about a third" + "another third" to get "roughly two-thirds".

Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of amendments to the article belong on the article talk page, not here. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Msnicki (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, sorry to be so abrupt. I will address the close paraphrasing concerns here on this page so that you can see my thought processes. Just so you know, for about the last 6 months I have been working on copyright clean-up as an administrative activity, and have quite a bit of experience in this area on this wiki. The three things I changed for copyright reasons were as follows:

1. New York Times article said: "taken nearly word-for-word without attribution". Our article said: " taken nearly word-for-word without attribution" (five words in a row that are identical; that's too much). I changed this to read "some material directly copied without attribution", which is true. If you view at the accompanying graphic, all the passages marked in pink and yellow were copied directly from the sources.
2. CBS News said: "My record will be defined by (Walsh's service in) the National Guard, not by a few citations that were unintentionally left out in a term paper." our article said: "He said he believed his record should be defined by his entire career in the National Guard, 'not by a few citations that were unintentionally left out of a term paper.'" Again it's far too similar by Wikipedia standards; you're using the quotation, but failing to put it in quotation marks. The unwary reader will think that it's orginal prose, and actually it's not. I changed it to read "He said he believed his career in the National Guard should be viewed in its entirety and not defined 'by a few citations that were unintentionally left out of a term paper.'"
3. The Flathead newspaper said: "The war college’s normal sanction for plagiarism is the rescinding of the former student’s degree and his name grinded from a plaque of the graduating class at the college, Betros said. That has been done six times since 1990. Lesser disciplinary actions, such as verbal counseling, are also an option..." The article said: " The normal penalty for plagiarism is rescinding the former student's degree, although lesser disciplinary actions are an option." This is far too close paraphrasing, trust me on this. It doesn't matter who added it. I changed this to read: "While lesser penalties are possible, usually the War College rescinds the degree in cases of plagiarism." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's okay to delete the word "roughly" because people will assume that the number "two-thirds" is already an approximation. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

These are pretty good answers. I agree, the NYT does say some material is indeed copied directly. Somehow, I just misread your intent. I still don't agree with you on the CBS source; that was actually a direct quote from Walsh, not a paraphrasing by CBS and I believe you have changed the meaning. I was already in agreement on the Flathead source, but perhaps for different reasons, namely, that we no longer identify a specific individual as having made a specific statement. Had we continued to identify the specific individual and the specific statement, then I would have continued to argue that very close phrasing would be appropriate. Re: "roughly", okay, I was nit-picking. Thanks, Msnicki (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, on this wiki, it's best to write the material in your own words, and judiciously use short quotations only when absolutely necessary. It's more compliant with copyright law, and it makes for more interesting, better-written articles. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read that and I think I understand it. But I don't think it addresses the question of how to report specific statements from specific individuals, identifying them as such. When we do that, I think we have a more definite responsibility to avoid putting words in their mouths they didn't actually say.

As an example, I thought about how to report the correction Walsh's campaign issued re: their misstatement about Walsh having survived hundreds of IED attacks. In their correction, they said he'd survived "an" IED attack. That certainly sounds singular but it doesn't completely rule out the possibility there might have been another, given the imprecision of English in ordinary usage. It occurred to me they might even have deliberately said "an" not "single" precisely to avoid resolving that ambiguity and to avoid being quoted as saying single. I went with "single" only after verifying there were other sources (and citing one of them) that also reported that as an admission it was single.

But coming back to Walsh's statement re: his career, I genuinely think you changed the set of possible meanings and I don't think that was fair to him. Btw, no need to tag me each time; I follow a talk page if I post there, at least until the conversation clearly concludes. Msnicki (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that I changed the meaning of his statement, so sorry. I think I paraphrased it adequately. You are free to disagree, of course, but I am done defending my actions. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I respect your opinion even though mine is different. Thank you discussing. I won't be seeking a change in the article. Msnicki (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct template for copying

{{Copied}}: For an example of how it was used, see Talk:CongressEdits. Tutelary (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tutelary and thanks for your interest. However, according to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, the template is optional, while the edit summary is not. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another question :)

Is it possible to get an article to FA-status if it's not first a GA-article? Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. Attaining GA is not a prerequisite for FA. WP:Peer review is highly recommended. Here is a table showing the different requirements for FA versus GA: Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured--Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed 'pedia has articles related to the expression Every Man for Himself, but would u say the expression itself deserves an article itself? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandal has returned

Greetings, once again it is Special:Contributions/206.75.168.247. Also, they have a new IP at Special:Contributions/75.156.169.183. - Hoops gza (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to block 75.156.169.183; it was blocked for a week on July 24 by another andmin, and he hasn't used it since. But I will add it to the list. Thanks for your help. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This one is a bit stale, but yet another one to keep an eye on: Special:Contributions/198.53.122.87 - Hoops gza (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay -- Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another one to add to the list: Special:Contributions/64.178.130.132 - Hoops gza (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not as blatant as usual, but disruptive editing continues from Special:Contributions/198.53.122.87 - Hoops gza (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the same guy, if you look at July (The Doors were a boy band, lol). I will add it to the list, but I am not blocking as he has not edited for two days from this IP. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a block now: Special:Contributions/198.53.122.87 and Special:Contributions/75.156.169.183 - Hoops gza (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Found another one: Special:Contributions/70.72.136.208. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

He must work in the oil patch; that would explain his travel pattern. This one has not edited since Aug 8, but I will add it to the list. -- Diannaa (talk)

Question

Can you report users for harassment? Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but first read this policy page on how Wikipedia defines harassment: Wikipedia:Harassment. If what you have been experiencing fits any of the descriptions on that page, the place to file your report is at WP:ANI -- Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore requests

Please restore the image File:Minesweeper Icon.png. I would like to add it back to the article from which I initially removed it myself. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, but now the article has four non-free images, which is too many in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot to mention another image in the same situation: File:Mahjong Titans Vista Icon.png Could you please restore this one as well (with the exact same reasoning)?

I'll think about the point you brought up regarding the number of images in the first case, but I'm not sure what can be done as all of those different versions seem to be specifically discussed in the text of the article... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can justify their use, there should be no problem. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection Level 1

kindly please help. i think the page Kick (2014 film) should be protected with page protection level 1. i dont know how to send ar request for protection. help. with regards Harirajmohanhrm (talk)‎ 05:18, 8 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Kick (2014 film). I have semi-protected the page for two days for the sudden vandalism. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and regards Harirajmohanhrm (talk)‎ 05:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hello.

Two years ago, you protected Altoona Central Catholic School, which is a redirect, after some edit-warring by its creator.

The target of the redirect has now been moved, and as I was going through the redirects to update their targets, I was not able to update this oen, due to it being protected.

Could you please unprotect it, so it can be updated?

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Suggestion

What you think which book is best for studying child physiology and that can be found in India? CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cutest Penguin! Sorry but I don't know anything about this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A problem with "English Patriot Man" and his sockpuppets

Hi. Lately I've seen you blocking some sockpuppets of a user named "English Patriot Man". I see that this man is nearly obsessed with Polish people. He seems to spread his anti-Polish propaganda by distorting the historical truth concerning World War II, nazism in Europe and racism against Poles. He is totally denying the sufferings of the Polish nation. Thank you so much for taking care of him, and taking care of the articles that are his main targets. However, now he might create another sock and log in from some other computer or place, so that his personal data and IP address would be totally different. This is why I suggest us to patrol the articles that are his main targets like:

This guy is using multiple sockpuppet accounts to delete all the information about Poles being percieved as "subhumans" or "non-Aryans" by the nazis. In fact the only "Aryan-looking" Poles that were accepted by Nazi Germany at the time, were kidnapped as children and underwent "Germanisation", they were like 0.05% of the whole nation. The rest of the Poles were "insufficient" to be a part of the nazi-ruled nation, and were treated only slightly better that the Jews. This guy, he spreads lies all across Wikipedia, therefore I thank you for your quick and effective actions Diannaa. If you'd need any kind of help in restoring the data which "English Patriot Man" destroyed, just tell me. I will also try to patrol the articles about Poles. Yatzhek (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yatzhek. Thank you for your interest in this case. I already have many of these articles on my watch-list as they are his favourite targets. If you think you spot him, please let me know here on my talk page or by email if there's details you'd prefer not to reveal on-wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks once again. Lately the anti-Polish man that goes by the name "English Patriot Man" woke up again and started to ruin Wikipedia. Take a look at the changes provided by the IP address: "83.24.216.55" what are all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Europe&action=history Could you check if the damages performed by this IP address were all fixed by User:Discospinster? As you can see the English "Patriot" Man (this time as an undercover IP) once again deleted all the information about the prejudice against Poles, and I don't know how to restore the version that was right before his numerous contribustions. Yatzhek (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

All the edits by that IP were reversed. I don't think it was English Patriot Man, though. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again. Well, I thought this time it could also be the "English Patriot Man", as the person hiding behind this IP address edited exclusively the data involving Poland, deleted everything, and even dared to edit the original title of the source. Yatzhek (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Guatemalan vandal

190.106.223.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Widening range block to 190.106.222.0/23 and blocking for one month. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Got him in just under 40 minutes. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Userpage designing assistance

I would like to display my username just like yours on my user page but in this look CutestPenguin. Please help me with this I would be very thankful of yours. CutestPenguin (Talk) 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Since the user name has a space between the two words, the display title must do so also. But otherwise it's what you wanted. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your intention

Not to be confrontational but what is the intent to just revert all the issues brought forth with WP articles? That does not seem much in the "community" spirit of WP. It seems that this approach treats me more as an irritant than contributor?76.170.88.72 (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles on Wiesenthal and Mengele are both on my watch-list because I am the person who recently did extensive re-writes and brought them both to WP:GA status. I am reversing your edits because you are changing the meaning of the prose so that it no longer agrees with the cited sources, is no longer grammatically correct, or is no longer as informative as before. I respect that you have a right to edit, but in instances where a change makes the article worse rather than better, I will restore the previous version. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unilaterally reverting is one thing but then when thereafter changes occur to the text that seem to be prompted by the work of the person that was reverted then a less optimistic use of reverting is anticipated. I would not be so possessive as to how article text is expressed especially if claims are made that they have made extensive rewrites and yet questions can arise when reviewed by others. One of the ways by which an administrator's value can be determined is what questions they can ask about a change in order to understand if what they wrote is what they wanted to be conveyed. Again, I am not being confrontational and not questioning your skills. But has it occurred that changes have been made to test just what happens and what reactions there are and by whom? Some people seem to have a propensity to call that with which they disagree as to quality as vandalism; some the use of reverting and some the manner by which they view others through edit summaries. These qualities are just as significant as being "correct".76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me! CutestPenguin (Talk) 13:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicky_Hager

You recently changed the protection level on Nicky Hager, could you please take a look at the history since then and maybe consider raising the protection level? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been edit warring on Nicky Hager is should really have been protected with a {{disputed}} tag put it. The protected version of the page does not have a consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's appropriate, as the tag mentions "factual accuracy". The content dispute is more about whether or not the sources are high enough quality. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Protected Version of Nicky_Hager in the ' Dirty Politics ' section contains an unsubstantiated opinion by one player. This unsubstantiated opinion [by J.Key] would be better posted onto john key's wiki page, if warranted. If unsubstantiated opinions are considered worthy of posting to Nicky_Hager's wiki page, shouldn't unsubstantiated opinions by other people also be posted to provide balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHSinclair (talk • contribs) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to discuss this on the article talk page, not here. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the best way to manage this is to remove the disputed content as a possible BLP violation. I have gone ahead and done that. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The "opinion", or rather assessment, is that of respected New Zealand political historian and ex-Labour MP Michael Bassett and the passage is perfectly referenced. The only possible BLP violation is in the minds of the POV pushers on this article. Here is the text they are wikilawyering about - by all means everyone should check it and the citations. You'll see that is a short and spare statement attributed directly to the historian:

Proposed text
New Zealand political historian and ex-Labour MP Michael Bassett characterises Hagar as a far left "plot theorist". References

Diannaa I request that you reinstate the text. Edgespath24 (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What you should do is try to get consensus for its inclusion on the article talk page. I am not re-adding it. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicky Hager's book, 'Dirty Politics', & the material that it contains (damning evidence on major players in our current ruling regime), is proving to be a bombshell, coming just a month before New Zealand's General Elections on 2014/09/20. [I'm not writing a summary of its contents here, because I believe that that is readily available.] The media is running it almost non-stop in some cases; the book sold out within 24 hours (to the best of my knowledge), & the printing presses are already working on extra print runs. Regardless of our attitude, postive or negative, to Nicky Hager, or his books, undeniably his latest book, 'Dirty Politics', has changed the course of the elections, already (although probably not enough to topple the current ruling regime, in itself); & it is probable that it will cause, or precipitate, legal actions. Given the importance of this issue to New Zealand in the leadup to a crucial General Election, could an appropriate Protection Level, & Moderation Policy, be maintained for both Nicky Hager's page, & the 'Dirty Politics' Book's page ? (& possibly the 'talk' pages, as well ?) - at least until after the NZ General Election on 2014/09/20. We can already see political apparatchiki targeting these pages, sometimes under the guise of their IP addresses [real or proxied].

GHSinclair (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A link to the preface of 'Dirty Politics': http://www.dirtypoliticsnz.com/ . GHSinclair (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've just undone as vandalism a IP edit on Judith Collins, someone covered in the book. The complex edit introducing previously removed politician-bashing was the first edit ever from that IP which suggests to me someone trying to cover their tracks. You may or may not want to consider this part of the same situation. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hermann Fegelein

Hi, you may want to have a look into this book. Zeiten für Helden - Zeiten für Berühmtheiten im Sport talks about Fegelein's equestrian years and achievements. I find page 80 noteworthy, apparently he was forced to leave the police service in 1929 because he was caught steeling solutions to an exams. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Bee, that's really interesting. Unfortunately I don't read German well enough to make much use of it! -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind if I add a bit of info from this source? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't mind, please go ahead. -- Diannaa (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks, started MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit, please check and make sure it's okay. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks okay. The only debatable item is that the book says stolen from the room, not office (I assume they would have used the word Büro which is German for office). I made another addition. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they mean the documents were taken from a classroom, not an office. The location of the documents is not important, so I took it out. We have something on the Olympics in the following paragraph, so I re-ordered the content. Please check my work again of you would. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Small change needed. He did not participate in the Games themselves. He was invited to the pre-Games selections. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am done for the day, more to come MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, see you later. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"On 23 April 1941 Fegelein and his unit were caught stealing money and luxury goods intended for transportation back to Germany. A court-martial ordered for Fegelein was quashed by direct order of Himmler." The book tells a slightly different story (page 84 and 85). In this account the "stealing of money and luxury goods" which was transported to the SS Cavalry School took place in 1940 and the court martial was quashed by Himmler. (Starting on page 85 the book states) The 1941 event is linked to another crime. In 1941 he was accused of further "greedy murder conducted in custody and firing squads in the Warsaw jail". He was also accused of having a sexual relationship with a Polish woman, who became pregnant and he then forced her to have an abortion. Again Himmler helped him to get out of this mess although Reinhard Heydrich had requested a thorough investigation more than once. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The info currently in the article is sourced to Miller, Michael (2006). Leaders of the SS and German Police, Vol. 1, which I think User:Kierzek owns. Perhaps he can double check that source? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Gladly. I have found that Miller's book is an excellent, detailed RS source. I don't believe there is any great difference here. The time of the first action could have been earlier and the sentence can be tweaked to reflect that; in rechecking Miller's book it states: "23/4/41: nearly court-martialed after he and his regiment had stolen money and luxury goods being transported to München from Warshaw; court-martial quashed...by Himmler. 16/5/41: Brought before an SS court accused of having sexual relations with a Polish woman in Krakow. She became pregnant and was induced to have an abortion. The case was dismissed on Himmler's orders on 30/6/41." Miller, page 309. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked it, per the two sources; see what you think and check the page cite, MisterBee in your book. Kierzek (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"bloodiest battle"

Could you glance at recent changes to Battle of the Bulge and Operation Overlord to see if the issue of "bloodiest battle" can be clarified? I suspect that a technical difference between a battle and a campaign might be somehow relevant, but don't know enough to argue the point either way. 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Operation Overlord was not a battle per se; it was an operation or campaign.
2. None of the sources I used to prepare the article called it the "bloodiest battle", hence the claim is unsourced. I will remove it. Thanks for your help with this important article. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends

Example Related Articles

• Railway engines (Thomas & Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thomas & Friends (series 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Railway Series books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thomas & Friends (series 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Hi I just don't know what to do. Numerous IP addresses keep vandalising these pages High level of IP vandalism. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please report these at WP:RFPP? I am too tired to assess them right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have just reported it to WP:RFPP and again I'm sorry. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hello there, Diannna. I noticed that you are a respected admin here, so I was wondering if you would be willing to give me some pointers and advice regarding CSD, AfD, FFD, and the like. I am trying to learn the ropes by using page curator, but I am afraid that if I don't get good advice from a helpful person I might not learn what I need to. I also don't want to get bitten over a mistake or two, so I need a patient person to help me. If you are too busy I totally understand, but I sure would appreciate the help. Thanks! TinaG (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tina, and thanks for your interest in helping out here on Wikipedia. My advice is that a person such as yourself who has been editing less than a month should not get involved in page curation and deletion nominations. You are not experienced enough to do a good job in these areas. Please find a different way to contribute. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've been editing Wikipedia off and on as an IP since 2005. I made this account so I could further develop. Did you look at my curation edits? TinaG (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The best place to go is the WP:Teahouse, where people who specialise in assisting new users can help you. Good luck, and happy editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted there. Thanks for your help! TinaG (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 keeps vandalizing 808s & Heartbreak

Can you sort out both the page and Dan56 who keeps vandalizing the page and starts genre wars on it too T.Wells kid (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dianna, T.Wells kid appears to be a sock of MariaJaydHicky, like Kiddulthood and Vanillagreek, who used the same original research with the same sources to make the same edits to 808s & Heartbreak ([2], [3]), which were addressed at Talk:808s_&_Heartbreak#Recent_additions. Dan56 (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww sockpuppet T.Wells kid just now. Why don't you ask to change protection level to ‘allow only admin’ and indefinite. Just like Arthur Kemp page. 115.164.84.98 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww has blocked the new sock. I have semi-protected the article for another three months. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler - FA preb

I left a long FA-preb message on Hitler's talk page; I'd like your thoughts on the points I mentioned. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

here. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 09:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision Deletion request

I don't know if you still do these, but I was wondering if you could have a look at an edit summary on the Paddington (film) page. An editor has described an edit as shitty. I appreciate that the edit was poor (I should know, I did it), but the edit summary itself isn't very civil and the editor themselves has defended their use of it because they are right. Which they are. But still..... Quentin X (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Quentin X. Describing an edit as shitty doesn't qualify for revision deletion. "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" can be rev-deleted; but random swear words do not qualify for revision deletion, especially when directed at an edit rather than an editor. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I respect that. Quentin X (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reveiwer rights

Do you need reviewer rights to review an article for GA or FA status? Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No. People with reviewer rights are able to approve edits to articles with pending changes protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)