Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Diannaa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ϫ 15:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyeditor's barnstar

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your work on the History of Allahabad article :) œ™ 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?

Can you help copy edit Dravidian parties and Tamil cinema and Dravidian politics? The former was nominated for GA but was not promoted mainly because of the style. Other issues raised are now sorted. Your help will be very much appreciated. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Dianna. I really appreciate your help. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I would have never realised how much better this can be written. I understand that it should be quite a task given that the subject of the article might not be very familiar to you. I’m really gobsmacked! Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I would read through once again. If all is fine we can nominate it for a GA review. BTW hope your dad is alright now. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please please please

...copyedit Kohala (mountain)? I asked my comrades and they're all busy so now I ask a stranger who just so happens to be a copyedit-er. Plz? :D ResMar 02:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ty! ResMar 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Universal Monsters

The Cleanup Barnstar
Great work copy editing the Universal monsters page. Keep up the good work Theo10011 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

homosexual v. gay

Hi Dianna. Love the cat. Just wanted to call to your attention the preferred use of "gay and lesbian" over "homosexual". This is in regard to your changes to the Madeline Davis entry. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#IdentitySee and http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200810/the-terms-homosexual-and-the-n-word. Thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Union section dif?

Diannaa, your recent edit to the Orthodox Union article did something weird. A diff [1] to the previous version shows the entire Sysnagogue Affiliation section to be changed. Do you know what caused this? Hard to see how small copy edits could do that. I do see that the text immediately preceding switched a fact-template at the end to a ref, which might be outside the scope of copyediting, but still seems unlikely to cause the analyzer to fail. Dovid (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you kindly for the barnstar! I hope to see you around the project. TheTito Discuss 10:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Wikiquette alert

Hello. I've responded on the page. RG (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maratha Empire heading in Rajput article

Namashkar Diana, after a long while I had a look at the Rajput article again and saw the usual gross distortion of historical facts and dubious assertive and opinionated distortion of historical data so I did some brief edit of the article. With regards to the title of the article you reverted, it is in my opinion that within realm of Indian historiography there was never a Maratha Empire, as during this period of Maratha ascention (1720s) till up to the early 1800s there was certainly no centralized governmental system in the Indian subcontinent, but although the Marathas were certainly the dominant/expansive power at the time there ever a Maratha emperor. The Marathas themselves were powerful but rigidly diveded people as authority was rarely in absolute hands of the supposed Brahminical head of the Marathas (the Peshwa), as different clannish warlords usually had their way. Rather than jumping to conclusions and create suggestive heading I thought it would be more appropriate to attempt to summarise the period in to a more holistic historical heading. 'Maratha empire' certianly sounds neater than 'Disintegration of the Mughal empire, Maratha disturbance to the British Raj' but it would be a gross distortion and simplification of pre-modern Indian history. Perhaps a more holistic title to this particularly troubled period in history is need?? Any help or suggestion is greatly appreciated, do let me know. Maharaj Devraj (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, been away for a short while. Concerning the heading of the concerned section, I would not be too suprised that the term being used in the Maratha empire article, as there are some element of certain right wing ideologies of mordern India involved here, although in my own opinion the Marattha's form of governence is more inclined fowards a 'confederate' rather than a centralised 'empire' with an emperor, so based on your suggestion I would much rather prefer some thing like 'Marattha ascendency'? Such simplification would still not do justice to the period of chaos that was 18th century India though, so seems like we got some kind of dilemma here.

Yeah, totally agree with you that a lot of Indian article needs editing. I will try to gruadual browse through some of the historical/cultural articles!

Let me give some thought to this matter for a day or two, also got to mention that Rajasthan and northern India was certainly never directly under control of the Maratha state you mentioned. Maharaj Devraj (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da page

Thanks for rearranging the photos on the Adi Da page. Much better! Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dianna, thanks for your input on the Adi Da article. I posted a Bibliography last night, if you wanted to look at it. Would you be able to give some feedback about the Books section? There is a current back and forth about what it should say in light of the Biblio, and I have posted my draft of it in Discussion. Would appreciate your feedback.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Let the record show that these two editors are avowed supporters of this controversial figure, and that Diannaa has been assisting them in removing cited and sourced NPOV info, and making edits to help them transparently burnish the image of this figure. Also, on Devanagari108's talk page, she thanks him for a message received from him yesterday (2/26) with no record here in her talk, reinforcing conspiratorial behavior as evidenced on Adi da page.Tao2911 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Diannaa, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Diannaa. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:User_talk||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==
I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#switch:
left = margin:0.2em 0.5em 0.2em 0; width:{{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; float: left; clear: left
 right = margin:0.2em 0 0.2em 0.5em; width:{{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; float: right; clear: right
 none = margin:0.2em 0; width:{{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; clear: none
 centre = margin:0.2em auto; width:{{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; clear: both
 #default = margin: 0.2em auto auto; width:{{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|100%}}; clear: both

}}; padding: 1px;"

style="background-color: #F0F2F5; font-size:87%; padding:0.2em 0.3em; text-align: {{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|left|{{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|center|left}}}}; {{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|color: {{{fc}}};|}}" | <div style="display: inline; font-size: 115%; color: {{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:#F0F2F5|#202122|var(--color-base, #202122)}};">Extended content
style="border: solid 1px var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); padding: 8px; background-color: var(--background-color-base, #fff); color: {{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#if:|#202122|var(--color-base, #202122)}};" |
{{{1}}}

{{= Apprentice Editor verging on incivility, and is assisting biased editors ==

I'd just like to leave record here that Diannaa has been sarcastic and 'snarky' in some of her comments after inserting herself into editing conflicts on the Adi Da page. She has sided with biased editors and not attempted to meet good faith POV editing suggestions by established editor on page (that would be me.) She has aided biased editors long-documented attempts to remove cited and sourced factual info that met NPOV standards, calling a 2-against-1 simple majority 'consensus', and has for my attempts to argue my case and keep these edits from occurring unfairly and unjustifiably accused me of incivility, vandalism, and a string of infractions that verges on template blasting. She waited for a single day that I was inactive, pointing to this and saying "let's make the edits." She is essentially helping to bully a 'minority' view, on a highly contentious page on a controversial religious figure/cult leader. This is not the high level of neutrality that Admin's have typically shown, on this page or others. I am not aspiring to be one, so I am sometimes frank and blunt in my comments with biased editors. However, admins should be held to a higher standard, that I do not feel she has met. I have been editing for many months longer than she has, especially on this page, and she has addressed me with contempt and arrogance, not respecting that she has little familiarity with topic or the page's history. I wish for this record to simply document my perception of her activities.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not responding to this attack as responding does not result in a cessation of attacks or an apology; it results in escalating attacks. Instead I have archived the talk page so I no longer have to look at this screed. --Diannaa TALK 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:User_talk||Template:collapse is not available for use in articles (see MOS:COLLAPSE).}}

Sock Puppet

I think Kookookoojoob is another sock puppet. Could you look into this? It seems obvious now. I don't know how to report and fill out those forms the way you did. Would you be able to do that, if you agree with my suspicion?--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you for your message. I've reminded Tao about playing the ball, not the player. If it happens again sanctions will follow. I'm also keeping an eye on the article and related matters; I think a fairly short leash (adminwise) might be helpful, so I'll post something to the article talk page. EyeSerenetalk 12:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I don't edit much over the weekend. Thank you for your efforts to help out there; it looks to me like you walked into the middle of some fairly entrenched opinions, and that's never a situation where it's easy (or even sometimes possible) to please everyone. EyeSerenetalk 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! --Panda609 (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hi Diannaa, quick question. In the Lead for Adi Da his other names are in quotation marks, and I was wondering if that is necessary and/or correct to do? Or if they should simply remain bolded. I notice in some other articles the other names are just bolded. Just a grammatical/encyclopedic question!--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I was wondering if, as a copy editor, you would be interested in tightening up the grammar on the Adi Da page? It needs some work in terms of grammatical flow, such as placing of commas, etc.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you check WP:External Links and see what you think about the last two External Links on the Adi Da page? It seems to me that the two official links should stay, but I question keeping "Case of Adi Da", since that is cited in the article, and Rick Ross, which is also cited within the article. But my understanding is not complete, so I'm curious what you might conclude about those links based on the policy (which I skimmed).--Devanagari108 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hello Diannaa. I noticed that you have been copy-editing my sandbox User:White Shadows/German U-boat bases in occupied France. Is it almost ready to go to the mainspace? Are there any Copyright violations still in existence?--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Adi Da

Thanks for your note. You could well be right about the identity of the IP, but as far as admin action goes it's largely irrelevant unless it's an indication that socking or block evasion is going on (which isn't the case as Tao apparently isn't editing from their account and their block has expired). What matters is the level of disruption caused, and at the moment there's not enough to merit any sort of protection or block. Your warning to the IP is appropriate so I think we should just maintain a watching brief for now. I don't know if it's worth adding that personally I believe Tao's suspicions about David Starr wanting to whitewash the article were correct, but as he's not editing now there's certainly no reason for inflammatory comments. Removing it was probably the right think to do. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 11:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's sometimes a close call with comments like that. My personal view is that I would have left it alone if it hadn't been directed towards an editor who'd used (presumably) their real name as their username. That I believe the allegation was broadly correct (though uncivilly stated) mitigates it a little, but I think you did the right thing. Better to err on the side of caution :) Best wishes for the GAN! EyeSerenetalk 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Thanks for this.

[2]. It appears to be an interesting possibility. I want to make sure I am clear on the goal here, though. Basically this involves general cleanup and refactoring of existing content, the addition of references and such, perhaps some fleshing out if needed, etc. And from the link you provided bringing things into conformance with the manual of style is also an important goal as well. Is this the proper idea of what is meant by copy-editing? --GoRight (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Netherlands

Thanks for all of the hard work you put into this article. Do you think that it's ready for a GAN? I know that there is one more problem, the citation needed tags in the Airforce section but other than that, this is a very good article IMHO.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Now we can nominate it! Has MWAK given us the go-ahead to nominate it yet?--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright then. But don;t you think that we can/should nominate ti anyway? I mean the article is in tip top shape and everything is fine. I don;t think that we need to wait for a certain editor to OK us nominateing it. That seems a bit like article ownership IMO.--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK then. I can wait.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Template:Table of Canon SLR

Thank you, thank you, Thank you!!! – ukexpat (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Cookies!
Enjoy! – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Page blanking vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Marina Rodina. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Sinistrial (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Unwarranted revert

more NPOV was needed as Arius also claimed to believe in a literal "Son" and for that reason he said that the Son must have come after the Father...so the prior reading was POV.   Your summarily removing what I put in was uncalled for.   Arius claimed to believe in a "literal Son" too.

In fact what's written further down in the very same article STATES that.   About Arius's own position...."were he a son in the truest sense" Arius argued, "he must have come after the Father."  

And it's been argued that Athanasius was the one that really took the position of a metaphorical Son.   (No literal son is the same age as his literal father).   But I did not put there.  How I re-worded it made it simply NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE.   That it is CLAIMED that Athanius took the first view, and that Arius took the second.   That notion is actually disputed.   And is a matter of opinion.   And it was being stated as fact in the article. (wrongly)

In fact some people say that just the opposite, about Athanasius and Arius, is true compared to what was stated in the article.

the prior reading is contested by nontrinitarian churches and was POV.   Please do not revert again, as this will result in an edit war.  I'll just re-do it again.   thank you

Template:Table of Canon SLR

Thank you, thank you, Thank you!!! – ukexpat (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Cookies!
Enjoy! – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

All Day Music

Hope you don't mind that I took another go at trying to fix the situation at All Day Music and gave my reason at Editor assistance. Despite accusations from the other editor involved, I am not an inexperienced editor, nor one who is hard to get along with, and I'm not trying to assert article ownership. I only made a couple of edits to the article before this happened, and am not its original author. More importantly, I have given reasons for my changes, and I believe article ownership issues have to do with people who just want it "their way" and don't care to discuss reasons for it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Error

Excuse me I'm wrong by scoring the vandalism that does not affect you but it was for the version of that person (99.24.161.251) which has sentences that do not relate to that page but which is in North Africa and Morocco. I apologize if you'd think that you are targeting. I had no idea how to correct my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comesturnruler (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello Diannaa, (I've also replied to what you said on my Editor Review). Can you do a copy edit for German submarine U-43 (1939), it's currently undergoing a GAN and the reviewer wants the article to be copy edited. Thanks ;)--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! This is for you for your hard work in copy-editing the article and gettnig it to GA status.
This user helped promote German submarine U-43 (1939) to good article status.
--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh and if you want, you can copy-edit German submarine U-42 (1939) as well. Once that's done, I can nominate it for a GA. Spelling and grammar are the only issues that remain for that article. (That and a few more citations, but I'll add those in once the review begins).--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA on Hold

Please see Talk:Battle of the Netherlands/GA2 for more information. This article is on hold for GA. Chris (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How soon will be finished with the article fixes? Please advise. Thanks. Chris (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Passed GA. Good job. Chris (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Chris (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at Erikupoeg's talk page.
Message added 09:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Hi Diannaa,

Here's a cookie for you! Thank you very much for the excellent copyedit on Organization_of_the_Luftwaffe_(1933–1945). '  Perseus 71 talk 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Clarification

Moved to Talk:First Council of Nicaea

Singing Dog article comment

As I understand the protocol (or maybe I don't), a editor should not replace an entire article from scratch, without conversing with other active editors on the site. That is the issue, not content. It is much easier to edit, if changes are done slowly, not massively. Did you see my suggested plan on the Article Talk? Is that a good approach?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But that is not what they did, is it? They worked the article in user space, and then cut-and-pasted it into the article. However, user space is public space as well, and you were/are free to post edits there, if you wish to contribute to the developing articles being made there.
But what I want to suggest you seriously think about is NOT whether or not you agree with their behavior, but which version is the better article? Which makes a better starting point for future revisions? I think it is the new one. It is well sourced, NPOV, meets wiki guidelines, contains a wealth of information not contained in the older version. If you keep focusing on their behavior instead of the article and its content, that is never a good thing. Diannaa TALK 14:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking, I'm thinking. Tough to get over the poor behavior. Yes, more information, but older relevant information was deleted too. So what you are saying I should have done was to edit a user talk page with proposed changes first. I asked the editor not to publish, but this was disregarded. Am I getting this?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Good morning (it is morning here in Alberta! and a nice one, too!). Yes, you could very well have edited the developing article and introduced changes. At least five persons did so, according to the talk page history. You can still contribute information from the old article if it is well sourced and valuable; please feel free to do so. The other parties do not WP:OWN the article even though there was one principal author. I know it is hard to just let it go when we perceive injustice but I think it's best to move on. Life is too short to get stressed by things other folks do. Diannaa TALK 14:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
wish it was nice here. Thanks for your help--Mrhorseracer (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit request for Penelope Cruz

Hey, I don't mean to bother you or anything but can you copy-edit the current GAN Penelope Cruz? The GA reviewer said that the article needs to be copy-edited by Monday May 3 or else they will fail the article due to prose problems. I left a request at the Copy-editors request page but I have not gotten any feedback and I asked another editor if they could do a copy-edit but they were unable to due to scheduling conflicts. I would so very grateful if you could do a copy-edit on the article. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 17:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for the copy-edit on the Penelope Cruz article

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for your hard work on your copy-edit for the Penelope Cruz article! Crystal Clear x3 05:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

talkback

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

Help pages

Hi Diannaa. I've seen the great work you do at Editor assistance/Requests. Do you watch Wikipedia:New contributors' help page as well? It's basically the same thing, but is more likely to attract questions from new users, though experienced users post questions there too. I've been posting replies on that page for over a year, but only started going over to Editor assistance regularly in the last month. I don't know if my answers are always the best, though. I don't have a ready list of answers to common questions, and am likely to respond off the cuff, which may look better than a cut and paste answer, but I may be missing concise answers. I think your style is the best of any of the regulars. The new contribs page does tend to get a lot of "how do I post an article", "how do I upload a picture" questions, which can be tedious, but again it's not too different from the other help pages. You would be very welcome there. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

about at least 2/3 of maximum capacity

From your recent edit I conclude I did not clearly explain in the text why Walker board set a minimum for normal load, so I tried again. Thanks for pointing it out. Just to clarify in case it is still not clearly explained: The low normal load of 400 tons (25% of the maximum) was a trick from the shipyard to decrease the draft and increase the speed during trials. The Walker board ended the malpractice by specifying a minimum. Yoenit (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I got the impression that they were required to take less coal to keep the armour correctly positioned above the water line. I think the section still needs a little more clarity and will think about re-wording it now that I understand the intended meaning. Diannaa TALK 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's perfect now. Many thanks for the help (if it still sucks feel free to correct me). Also, I have to apologize for doing pagenumbers in the references consistently wrong. Do you happen to know which page of the MoS deals with that? Yoenit (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the examples at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened footnotes. Also if the template:cite book template is used, this is the way they turn out, and using that template is acceptable standard for FA class articles (though not required). Diannaa TALK 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to mark your entries from the Requests page

On behalf of the coordinator of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Backlog elimination drive for May 2010, ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, I would like to thank you for your active participation in the Drive.

I am writing to inform you that we have introduced additional Guild of Copy Editors' Gold Star Awards for the drive.

To qualify, you will need to add an asterisk to all the full copyedits you have completed from the Requests page. More information can be found in the awards section of the Drive. If you have any questions, please post them to the Drive's talk page.

Once again, thank you for participating, and we look forward to a meaningful drop in the numbers due to your hard work and efforts.

- S Masters (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your kindness regarding: Talk:Countess Palatine Eleonora Catherine of Zweibrucken. I feel a little embarrassed to say that this user has long intimidated me from editing from an account. We have been in dispute in both English and Swedish wikipedia before, and the discussion have always looked about the same way as this one, so I suppose I felt that an account would expose me to more of this. It feels better to know that I did nothing wrong, and in the future, I will not hesitate to ask for a third opinion. Perhaps I will edit from an account in the future. Again: thank you for your help! --85.226.43.194 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Beware, Princess Elizabeth

Please do not accuse me of war, when I am actively engaged in discussion about this article. Please see discussion page for rationales behind my edits. And to clarify again, I am not providing speculation or research, only summarisation of a novel. Thank you for your attention. --Alwpoe (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing that problem with all the edit boxes being clustered up. It was very annoying! Torchiest talk/contribs 16:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Leaderboard

Someone smart put up a leaderboard at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/May_2010#Progress. You're on it, so if you can keep your numbers on it updated as you post your running totals, that would be helpful and much appreciated! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, glad to help. --Diannaa TALK 15:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the new leaderboard. You'll need to keep that updated if you want it to stay. And I'm a little hesitant to add a chart like that if it doesn't include everyone who is getting a barnstar. I'd hate for the guys with 4,000 words to go "Hey, where's my barnstar?" You may want to include a note that says its only listing the top ten. Also, the purpose of a leaderboard is generally to show how people are doing in a competition, and nobody is competing for barnstars...just the Gold Star Award. But I'm not going to ask you to take it down. Just expressing my opinion. Thanks again for the newsletter. I'll get it out here in a couple hours. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mina (Italian singer) in need of English correction

That's another GA candidate I have been working on. If you get time, can you correct the grammar? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will. Diannaa TALK 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have done the first round of edits and will work on it as time permits. We are going away for the weekend and I don't know if I will have time or access to a computer, but will finish as soon as possible. I have placed two questions on the article talk page. Diannaa TALK 23:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the work at Mina (Italian singer), I will nominate it soon for GA status. I don't think the Rotaru article is worth any further language correction, as it is in need of total content shift anyway. If you are interested, there is the Dusty Springfield article, which has not had a systematic language correction yet. Thanks again! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. The Rotaru article is in a better state now, and typically this means people will treat it more respectfully. Unfortunately you are right that the article needs a lot of work, because if all the unsourced material were removed there would be little left. I will go over Mina one more time section by section and look for anything further to fix. Diannaa TALK 03:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Newsletter

GOCE backlog elimination drive chart

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now reached the halfway point, and here's what has happened so far.

  • Requests Report - Good news! The number of special requests waiting to be edited has been reduced drastically, with almost all of the remaining items having editors committed to getting them done. Good work, people!
  • Target Report - ɳorɑfʈ's initial target of reducing the backlog of articles for copy edit turned out to be unrealistic insane, so a new target was set: we hope to reduce the to backlog to less than 7,500 items in the queue by the end of the month. The number in the queue was 7,950 as of close of business yesterday.
    • If we "concentrate our firepower" we can wipe out Jan, Feb, and March 2008, meaning the drive will have cleared four months off the backlog queue. Please consider copyediting from one of these months.
  • Rewards Report - We now have some clear leaders on the board in all three Gold Star categories, and many people have qualified for the various barnstars. It is not too late to participate, as it takes just 2,000 words (pre-edit) to qualify for a barnstar! Don't wait! Start participating today. Remember, the ultimate winner is Wikipedia.
  • Notice to Participants - For those who have indicated that you will be working on certain articles on the drive page in your respective tally box, please ensure that you complete these copyedits as soon as possible.

Thank you very much for your participation so far!

- Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk)

This newsletter by Diannaa (writer) and SMasters (writer and typesetter).
Thrown onto your doorstep by ɳorɑfʈ on a red Huffy bike.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Belated thanks

I forgot to respond to you about your editing on USS Constitution. Just wanted to relate my thanks for fixing things up. --Brad (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Final newsletter

Hi, could you do me a favor? I've got a lot going on IRL in the next couple days. Could you and SMasters work out a final newsletter to send to everyone? He's pretty good with graphic layout, and you're the communications deputy for the drive, so you two should make a great team on this. You're going to want to provide some statistics, like total number of words copyedited, total articles edited, etc. If you don't have time to do any of this, that's okay. I'll just do it when I get back. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can do it. I will post it to SMaster's Talk when it's ready and hopefully they will have time to help with the technical bits. Thanks for your work on the drive!!! Diannaa TALK 01:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, you can post it at the bottom of User:SMasters/Workshop and I will add the graphs, etc. Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, done. Please feel free to edit the draft as appropriate. Thanks for your help. :D Diannaa TALK 04:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

10k+ Copy Edit

The 10k Copy Edit Barnstar
For the following amazing copy editing:

during the May 2010 backlog elimination drive. Torchiest talk/contribs 04:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This was a reaallly good article. Diannaa TALK 06:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for the perfectly balanced barnstar as well. I didn't think I'd be able to find the right combination of articles to hit those even totals, but it worked out pretty nicely. :) Torchiest talk/contribs 12:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Thanks very much to all who helped with the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive. We were very close to meeting our target of 7,500 articles remaining in the backlog. Our most shining success is the incredible reduction in the backlog of Special Requests. That part of the project saw a drop from 62 articles in the queue, some dating back to February of 2009, down to a stunning THREE, all of which were being edited at the close of the drive. The Special Requests page will now be a great resource for people looking to tidy up their article in advance of a GA or FA nomination, instead of a place where articles go to die.

Moving forward

GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 May

The drive has not only forced a great leap forward in reducing the backlog. It has helped promote the Guild, and led to a greater awareness of the level of vigilance required to keep the backlog manageable. Ideas such as charts, graphs, and barnstars helped motivate editors, and meeting other users helped quell any feelings gnomish editors may have had in the past that they were toiling all alone. Keep up the good work people!!

Stats

Almost everyone who participated will receive a barnstar. We will be handing these out over the next week or so.

  • Five people will receive the highest award for word count (80,000 or more), the Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star: Bullock, Diannaa, NielsenGW, S Masters, and Torchiest.
  • The Order of the Superior Scribe (40,000+) goes to Auntieruth55, Bobnorwal, Kojozone, Lfstevens, and Mlpearc.
  • fds wins the Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (30,000+).
  • The Old School League of Copyeditors Barnstar for 20,000+ is awarded to A. Parrot, mono, Truthkeeper88, and The Utahraptor.
  • the Tireless Conributor Barnstar (12,000+) goes to dtgriffith, Laurinavicius, and Quinxorin.
  • Buggie111, Brickie, cymru lass, liquidluck, noraft, and Yellow Monkey get the Cleanup Barnstar for 8,000+ words.
  • The Working Man's Barnstar for 4,000+ words goes to Annalise and fetchcomms.
  • The Modest Barnstar is awarded to Theo10011 and The Tito.

Gold Star Award

The Gold Star Award goes to the top editor in three challenges: Number of special requests fulfilled, number of articles edited, and number of words. Here are the final results.

Final results: Gold Star Award:
Requests Articles Words
1. SMasters (17) Torchiest (250) NielsenGW (150,360)
2. Bobnorwal (13) Diannaa (212) Diannaa (136,200)
3. Bullock (9) kojozone (76) Torchiest (125,000)

Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk)

Drive

Thanks for helping coordinate the drive, Diannaa. I had a lot of fun. fdsTalk 15:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to do it. Diannaa TALK 03:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Signpost...

...wants to interview us. Please answer any or all questions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews2 if you'd like to participate (I'd like you to participate!). I've reserved the last question for you and SMasters only. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 10:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just got back from Wikibreak, will do instantly. Diannaa TALK 02:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

German Type IXA submarine

Hey there Diannaa! Can you please copy edit this article for me so it can pass a GAN? Sturmvogel 66 wishes for the prose to be reworded and fixed up a bit. Thanks.--White Shadows stood on the edge 01:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just got back from Wikibreak, and will get started soonest. Regards, Diannaa TALK 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Diannaa, as I was cleaning out CAT:TEMP, I kept noticing your name. Accordingly, I have turned on the WP:ROLLBACK feature for your account. Please let me know if you don't want it, and please read that page to see when and when not to use the new button. Happy editing! Courcelles (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will review the instructions and start using this feature. Diannaa TALK 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that you're a rollbacker (welcome to the club), you should get a hold of Huggle. It makes vandalism fighting really fun, and super fast. You can rollback and warn 10 vandals in a minute when you're really cooking. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You know what you're doing. WP:Reviewer... with flagged revisions coming in 2 days, the permission needs to be given out, so you've got it. You won't see anything different for a few days, but I think your head's screwed on straight. You'll have a couple more buttons, but this right is as active as you want it to be-it also serves to let you "patrol" your own edits on flagged protected pages. Courcelles (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Help!

I started giving out the barnstars, then got bogged down with other things right after the Working Man's Barnstar. Can you give out the Cleanup and higher awards? I'll do the leaderboard awards. If it is too much for you, shanghai S Masters too. You can grab the language for the award off the page of one of the Working Man Barnstar Awardees. Pretty basic. Just notes the number of articles and total words, really. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ok. Diannaa TALK 02:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Talkback

User:IBen/TB mono 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Surprise Gold Star Award!

The Guild of Copy Editors' Award
Diannaa, for your hard work and dedication to the encyclopedia during the May 2010 Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive, copyediting the second most articles (212) and the second largest amount of text (136,200 words); for your service to the GOCE in co-coordinating the drive; and for being there for me when I needed your help; I hereby award you this special GOCE Gold Star Award, for an absolutely stellar performance. You have my warmest thanks. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, in case you're considering it, don't give me one back. I really didn't do enough to earn one. I gave the April 2010 Good Article Backlog Elimination Drive coordinators Motivation Awards, which seemed appropriate, and aren't often awarded. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the special award. Maybe I'll send you some cookies or something, one day when you need them. Your work is appreciated. Diannaa TALK 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a job for...the Communications Deputy!

Hi Diannaa, I've been thinking a lot about marketing the drive, and I think one thing that would help is if we monitored the signups closely, and sent a welcome message to each new sign-up, with an exhortation to ask friends to join the drive. My target for participation this drive is 60 active participants, about double the last one. I'm also about to send out a notice to all GOCE members announcing the drive. Do you have any other ideas? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the "welcome" idea and will look after sending out the welcome messages to peple who sign up. I think you should send out another sign-up reminder to all Guild members about a week from the start of the drive, say on June 24, if that does not strike you as being too spammy. What's your opinion? And hopefully our Signpost write-up will help as well. Diannaa TALK 01:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, saw your message on my talk page. Hopefully you get this before you send the message out to those who have signed up. I've reworked your draft to sort of...get them into the spirit of the drive...make them want what we want. You'll see what I mean:

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ Talk! or Diannaa TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support!

— Diannaa TALK

ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. A few went out, but I will modify them. Diannaa TALK 02:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the message that went out to 250 members of the GOCE. It resulted in 8 signups over the next 10 hours after it went up. I'm sure there will be some more over the next 36 hours, so that's good. The Signpost article will come out in a dew days, and that should help as well. Basically I need two signups a day every day until the drive starts to hit the participation goal of 60. If we want a reasonable chance at making the backlog goals (below 6000 and clearing all of 2008), we'll need at least 60 editors, with some high-performers again. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I got Jimbo!

I invited Jimmy Wales to sign up, and he did! I told him that if he symbolically copyedited a single article for the drive, that we give us a lot of good exposure, which would help participation. I also offered to find him a short article to work on. I have a little assignment for you. I'd like you to post on his user page, introducing yourself as the drive communications coordinator, welcoming him to the drive as a participant (in reality what you're doing is both welcoming him and advertising to everyone who watches his page that he's signed up), and saying something along the lines of "we know you're busy, so would you like us to find you a short article to edit, or would you like to proceed on your own?" ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 10:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work, Noraft! I will think about this and post a draft here later today XD. --Diannaa TALK 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
We are already up to 27 people! Diannaa TALK 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure it is appropriate or wise to assume he is only going to copy edit one article. Perhaps his intentions are wider than that! I would not like to presume otherwise. Nor do I feel we should choose an article for him; if he browses the backlog the way other users do he will get a better picture of the enormity of the task. That's just my opinion though. Here is the first draft:

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number, so the exposure this project receives from your participation will be incredibly helpful. If you would like to take Noraft's suggestion and symbolically copyedit a single article, one of us would be happy to choose one for you if you want. Or if you have time to do more than one, that would be great too. As the drive communications coordinator, I thank you on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors for your support! Diannaa TALK 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this tweet so I hope he is going to be an active contributor to the drive! Let me know when you make up your mind. Diannaa TALK 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you should go to his talk page and read my invitation to him. That will explain why I think he may only copyedit one article. Since I made an offer we need to see if he wants to take us up on it. I don't want him to feel snookered into joining, like we offered something just to get him in, then didn't follow through. He may want to do more than one article, and he may want to find articles himself, this is true, but he hasn't indicated one way or the other, so we need to find this out. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a revised draft which I will move to his talk page once I get the OK from you. Diannaa TALK 02:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That looks great. I'd add in "Just let us know" to encourage a response one way or the other regarding the option we're presenting him. Go ahead and send it, and thanks! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The message has been delivered!!! This is gonna be huge. We already have 37 participants including high profile users such as Nerdy Science Dude and Fences & Windows. I have placed an announcement on the Military History wikiproject page as per your suggestion. It grows Diannaa TALK 04:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:IBen/TB mono 00:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CopyEdit Refferal

Hello, regarding your request for referrals to the CopyEdit Drive, User:SuperHamster might like to join. |:-) ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Talkback Me_· 05:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Super! I will place an invite on their talk page. Thanks. Diannaa TALK 05:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Pdcook says he would also like to help. Derild4921 14:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at Jubileeclipman's talk page.
Message added 20:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

User:IBen/TB —monopending changes begin june 15 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

British Commandos

Thank you for the copy edit very much appreciated. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Jim. An interesting read; it was fun. Diannaa TALK 13:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Back log drive

Hello Diannaa, nice to say hi, you've been to my talk posting things and I've never come by to say Hey. Have a small (Dumb) question, I recently opened my Public alternate account, my dumb question is can I edit in both accounts for the drive and log my complete articles under my main, or both, or none, or I can Only edit for the drive under the account I've signed up with (this one is my guess), but the only dumb question is "the one NOT asked" t Thanks Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 16:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mlpearc, nice to meet you! My feeling is that your public account was only set up to use at libraries, school, or what have you. I see no reason to restrict you to the home account only. When you have a minute, edit! You could check with Noraft to be sure. --Diannaa TALK 16:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you help on another one

I see you are active on the pop history articles again. Can you go through the Dusty Springfield article for grammar? I have written it but I'm not a native speaker. Thanks! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to get this one done! Diannaa TALK 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
That one is done. It was already in good shape. :-)) --Diannaa TALK 23:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stuart period

Hi Diannaa, I've just re-edited Stuart period, from the original Stuart period (England). I've fixed the dabs, and put a {copyedit tag} on it. I would like to take this to (my 1st) - {WP:GA+} article. As this article covers over 100 years of history, (social, royal, political and military &c), I would be most pleased if you, or anyone you suggest, could help me with any suggestions, or improvements, &/or Copy-edits? Thank you kindly for your time, and concideration, regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would Love to work on this. Will get started today or tomorrow. Diannaa TALK 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, and thanks very much for your contributions. I've left some edit suggestions on my User page. (I didn't want to edit these in, whilst you were working on it.) What do you think? Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stephen. Unfortunately due to time constraints and other commitments (both here on Wikipedia and in real life) I will have time to copy edit the existing material but will not be able to stay on board long term to help you develop the article. Sorry about that. I will continue to work on the article today. --Diannaa TALK 17:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have looked through the remainder of the article and from a copy editing point of view and it looks ok. For GA status, inline citations will need to be included for each fact presented; that is my main suggestion. Good luck! --Diannaa TALK 17:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Thank you for your fine copyediting, and advice on the Stuart period article, and especially for the good luck, which is always appreciated. Many regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Its a great honour. Thanks. --Diannaa TALK 21:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"Honour"... I don't know. I've flagged a couple hundred editors today in preparation for this trial... don't let it go to your head ;) Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

History of the Yosemite area

Thank you for your copyedit! Commas before quotes seemed odd to me too, but I added them after reading this. But this gives exceptions. So now I know. :) --mav (reviews needed) 01:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Mav. These are great resources. --Diannaa TALK 02:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Russian-Americans

Hello Diannaa, I certifiably don't wish to be involved in an edit war, however the other user, simply ignored the discussion posted by me and another user and kept reverting changes with any discussion at all. What is the best course of action in that case? Also I see that you have reverted the changes that I have made, this article is about an ethnic minority in the US, Russians, Ukrainians are not the same ethnic group, there is already a separate page for Ukrainian-Americans, etc. Please take a look the discussion and re post my changes. Sotnik (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did read a lot of the talk page comments before I reverted your change. User:Hmains has over 187,000 edits to Wikipedia dating back to 2005 so I trust his judgement in this. Sorry. Diannaa TALK 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain what you mean? If you have read the discussion page, you will see that there are multiple sources that back up what I said. He provided no sources at all, not to mention he ignored the discussion completely (both from me and another editor) and started reverting my changes. Certainly facts are not decided by who has more edits. Also I don't meant to repeat all the things that have been said on that discussion page, but you do agree that Russians and Ukrainians or insert_any_ethnic_group_here are different by definition and cannot be in the same category. That's the whole purpose of categories, to categorize. Sotnik (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not interested in getting involved in the content disute on the article. I just posted a warning to you as you were engaging in an edit war to restore your edit. According to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guidelines, when a change you have introduced is reverted, your next step should be to take it to the talk page. Not to revert back to your preferred version of the article. Diannaa TALK 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, that is exactly what I did and my posts on the discussion page were ignored (along with the posts of another user). Why am I getting this warning and not the person who is unwilling to participate in the discussion, who started the reverts? You seem to hint that you know the other party involved personally and you are taking their side without any merit at all. In addition, I went back and looked at the comment you made when you reverted my change, It's not appropriate to exclude people because they're Jewish or Ukranian. That is just HIGHLY offensive and insulting! You're implying that I'm trying to "exclude" someone based on ethnicity/national orgin, etc, but this article is about an ethnic group. What you said, is exactly like saying, "its not appropriate to exclude Buddhists from a list of Muslims scholars", i.e. total nonsense! If you don't like that there are groups and lists based on ethnicity, you can appeal to have them removed, but don't apply a double standard to Russian-Americans. Sotnik (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I have never encountered the other user before. I looked up their edit history using Soxred's edit counter after they posted an inquiry at WP:EAR. --Diannaa TALK 14:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
So given that high edit count and the fact that most of his edits seem to be on this and related topics, I decided to trust his judgement and reverted the edit. --Diannaa TALK 18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC

Jack Merridew

Thank you very much for your help, and sorry I misspelled your user name twice.

1. I've read Lord of the Flies and know who Jack Merridew is. What this Jack Merridew has done, however, is link his user name to that page. Did you notice we have two Lord of the Flies pages? The real one, and the one he copied and linked to his user name. Here are the two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies
 Oh, now I see--I thought WP pages labeled "(Redirected from...) permanently carried the label.
2. I know how to find user pages and talk pages and revision history pages. I was asking how to find user account history pages. Nuujinn provided the User:Jack Merridew/History link; I'm asking how I would find that on my own. Would I have to type in "user:jack merridew/history" to Google search, or can it be found from his user page? I googled for one for you and for me, and found we don't have one.
I'm astonished at the hijinks WP allows. Thanks again, --Yopienso (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK; sorry for assuming. The thing is called a "subpage" and many users have them. We do not all automatically have a subpage called "History." This history subpage of Jack's is a specially made page he created himself. To see if a user has any subpages, go to their contributions page, scroll all the way to the bottom, and click on "Subpages". I have several. Some people have their own personal sandbox, or articles in the process of development, drafts of items they are thinking about posting, etc. Jack Merridew is a returned formerly banned user who chose to keep this user name out of several he was editing under. As I said he seems a bit of a trickster; I am not prepared to comment on his activities or trustworthiness as I only know of him second hand from reading about him at WP:ANI. When I said I fixed the redirects, clicking on Jack Merridew used to direct to the top of the Lord of the Flies article. While that was amusing and confusing, it was not helpful, so I changed the redirects from Jack merridew and Jack Merridew to go directly to the section about the character at Lord of the Flies#Jack Merridew. If you have any more questions please let me know. Diannaa TALK 01:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You're a dear; thanks for the explanations. Next thing I'll want to know is how to create and subpage...and why I would want to.  ;) But I'm not asking yet--don't want to stretch my brain too far in one day! --Yopienso (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
fyi, I added the #Jack Merridew anchor in teh LotF article; it was after I last edited the redirects. And you can get to the /History page by clicking the sock icons. I didn't specifically choose this account, I was directed to use this one because I scuttled my original account years ago by blanking the email in prefs and scrambling the password. Jack Merridew 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jack, for clearing up my misconceptions. Hope nothing else I said was inaccurate (or offensive). Diannaa TALK 04:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries, and no offense taken; I shrug off a lot.where I was a volunteer
—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 05:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Pleased to meet you. It's been fun. :-)) Diannaa TALK 05:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
try repeatedly previewing my talk page; and note that my user page is dynamic— it will be different on different visits, over time. And please, no talkbacks; I hate teh things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I will remember. Love the tiger! Diannaa TALK 05:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

--

Why are you editing pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_School,_Rajajinagar? It's a private school, not a public school. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_school_(India_and_Sri_Lanka). Vvneagleone (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article is National Public School, Rajajinagar so I assumed it is a public school. Sorry for the mistake. --Diannaa TALK 18:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Super work!

Hi, I wanted to say that you've been doing an awesome job of contacting folks who have signed up for the drive. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Big numbers! It's gonna be huge. :-)) Regards, --Diannaa TALK 15:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Roger Aguilar Labrada
BTR-94
Pablo Quert
EE-T1 Osório
Raul Santoserpa
Kha
Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido
BTR-T
Julio Breff
Liliam Cuenca
Friulano
Juan Francisco Elso
Bhakral
Jaitawat
Hon (tribe)
Kheechee
Pablo Borges Delgado
Armando de Armas Romero
Ahirwar
Cleanup
Bhatia (caste)
Rafael Zarza Gonzalez
BTR-D
Merge
T-10 Heavy Tank
Locus Award for Best Novel
Mariko Mori
Add Sources
Luis Vega De Castro
German tanks in World War II
Nathawat
Wikify
Dor rajput
Disiz la Peste
TVM (Malta)
Expand
Kavanthandalam
Eastern Front (World War II)
Mexican Armed Forces

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on edit Biositemap

HI

Thanks for the reply. I didn't put any refs in myself but should have spotted that punctuation after ref. As there were already external links I thought it would be best to keep to the established format as I didnt what to change the ones there already into. I will make sure I remove them in future.

Also I didn't realise that if the article is Sugar and I link to sugar it would work - past experience has shown me that I had to get the capitalisation the same as the article name or the link would fail. I must have missed something there along the way.

I thought headers that were names would follow the same as for page titles - As it was the Biositemap Information Model (the name of it) I thought it should have been caps.

Thanks for your time on that and for the kind words :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I looked again and I think you are right about the header in this instance; the phrase is capitalised elsewhere in the article. For links, the first letter of the first word does not have to be capitalised for the link to work. example: electric guitar. However if intermediate words are capitalised in the article name they must be capitalised in the link or Apple-based computers will not find the link. Example: Oregon Trail. PC's will find the article as long as there is a redirect in place. Hope this makes sense! Thanks. --Diannaa TALK 04:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Something, Something, Something, Dark Side

Just wondering if you have finished copyediting the article. Gage (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes; that one I finished. I did not get to Spies Reminiscent of Us and it is still in the queue on the Requests page. --Diannaa TALK 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Inviting editors

I'd suggest you invite User:Nihil novi. I told him about the copyediting drive, but an invitation from you should inspire him further :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I will put a message on his talk page. --Diannaa TALK 16:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't want to start an entire new section, but just wanted to say thanks for the welcome. I'm afraid I don't really know anybody else who would be interested, but maybe some talk page stalkers will see it and join of their own initiative. :) — e. ripley\talk 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Thank you

Thanks for copyediting Spies Reminiscent of Us, still needs just a slight expansion in the reception section on my part, but I hope to have it at GA sometime in the near future. I was wondering though if you could help me out again by taking a few looks at Road to the Multiverse. I've added it to the GOCE requests page, so if you can't I'm sure someone else can take a glance, but I really envy your work ethic, and hope you'll consider giving the article a somewhat thorough copyedit, as I've also listed the article for a peer review, in hopes of eventually getting to featured status, though that is a long way off. Thanks again. Gage (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Long Range Desert Group

THANK YOU for the copy edit, very much appreciated. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Jim. An interesting article! --Diannaa TALK 13:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Referrals for the Copyediting drive...

I got AirplanePro2000 and HJ Mitchell both invited to join. AirplaneProRadioChecklist 00:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We will have to do a tally pretty soon. --Diannaa TALK 00:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Also got OnePt618 to join. AirplaneProRadioChecklist 04:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Stuck

Re this issue. I am doing the best I can to communicate on the talk page of the associated article. Trust the relevant Wiki editors will do likewise. It's probably ok to clear the thread for now if you want.

Neil Parker (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I have marked the thread as resolved. By the way, you might like to file a request for comment on the article as this could attract knowledgeable editors in the field that could help edit the article. --Diannaa TALK 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks - have filed an rfc as you suggest. Will be interesting to see what comment comes out of it.

Neil Parker (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

One more request in order to get this GAN through

I know that you've already copy-edited this article before but can you go over the Armament and crew section one more time on the German Type IXA submarine article? I only have to fix up the prose, fix any spelling mistakes in the article and seperate the paragraphs a bit more and then the GAN will finaly pass. Thank you so much :)--White Shadows There goes another day 19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem, I noticed you folks were doing a lot of edits so it is an excellent idea. I will finish up Al-Qaeda in Iraq and get to your article later today. --Diannaa TALK 19:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Torpedo trouble: this adds up to 23 torpedos, not 22. --Diannaa TALK 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think that there could have been a "spare" torpedo or perhaps the number in the article was wrong. I've seen other sources say 23 and some say 23 so I'm not quite sure which one is correct.--White Shadows There goes another day 20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have rearranged the information and that is how I noticed it didn't add up. Otherwise the copy edits are done. Nothing much else to report. --Diannaa TALK 20:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010

Hi, Diannaa, I'm having a problem with activating the link for page size. I have followed the instructions, but the page size option has not appeared when I have visited different articles. I'd really appreciate some help - thanks! David Rush (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at your cologneblue.js and everything seems in place. Try clearing your browser cache (windows: control F5 or an arrow icon thingy up top). Let me or Noraft know if you are still having trouble. Hope this works! --Diannaa TALK 15:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried what you said, but it still doesn't appear to be working. I should be able to see the words page size on the left of the screen when looking at any Wikipedia article, right? Thanks for your help so far! :) David Rush (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be at the bottom of the "Toolbox" menu (at least that's where it is on mine). I am using the Vector skin and it works on that one. I also had it working on Monobook. You could try rebooting your computer and if that doesn't work I am out of ideas; Maybe Noraft will have more things you can try. --Diannaa TALK 16:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed to the Vector skin as you suggested and it's working now! Thank you! :) David Rush (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. :-)) --Diannaa TALK 16:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at TEK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_1&oldid=1149971557"