User talk:Dianarama

Welcome!

Hello, Dianarama, 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Rklawton (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards of editing the article Murder of Meredith Kercher
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dianarama, I just wanted to thank you for your contributions thus far. Also, if you happen to get other editors reverting your contributions you can always go to the talk page to work it out. This article is getting a lot of different contributors and we may step on each others toes from time to time. Shine runner  (talk)   02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Shulgin
Hi, I reverted your edit on the Alexander Shulgin article because the source you provided (Facebook) was not sufficiently reliable. With biographies of living persons articles we must be particularly careful to ensure any controversial or significant information is properly referenced. There have been many instances in the past where people have been reported as being ill or even deceased when this is not in fact the case. I have searched for recent news articles about Alexander Shulgin but there does not yet seem to be any reporting of a recent illness. Maybe you can find some? Until such sources become available, perhaps you'd agree we would be best off keeping this information out of the encyclopdia. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - I think you must have misunderstood. Info about Shulgin's recent health problems is not just some random post I read on Facebook, I am FRIENDS WITH HIS WIFE who has been using Facebook in order to update Sasha's many friends and supporters of his health problems. I think it is totally absurd that you find his WIFE'S intimate knowledge of Shulgin's medical issues to be less valuable than something printed in the NY Times which would undoubtedly get it wrong! I have more new information about Shulgin FROM HIS WIFE and as you're on holiday, maybe it will be able to stay up for a while this time. Dianarama (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We limited ourselves to reliable, verifiable sources. Facebook is typically not one of them.  We could use Facebook information if it comes from the subject's own Facebook page, and then only if we had access to it and could verify that the page truly belonged to the subject. The one thing we don't do is original research. That's the way we roll here. Rklawton (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden
Please keep your conspiracy theories out of our articles - except perhaps in our articles devoted specifically to notable crackpot theories. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the legal and correct use of the word allegedly. You cannot say definitively that this is a fact. Who are you to say that you know everything that goes on in the world. Wikipedia is full of rubbish information and wiki-nazis like yourself who think you have the right to decide what is a fact. Since you are name-calling, I will return the favour: you are an unthinking automaton who swallows lies pumped out by Fox news and CNN. Dianarama (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the use of the word was proper. You wrote (most recently) "For reasons of accuracy and legality, you simply must put the word allegedly when ascertaining culpability for 911. He was never indicted and there was no trial. So even if the whole world believes it, the correct thing to write here is allegedly".  But if you read the sentence you edited, it did not call the attacks a crime.  Nor did it say that bin Laden was personally culpable for any attacks (or crime).  Furthermore, by your logic we could never say that the 9/11 hijackers were responsible for the attacks, because given that they died they were never indicted and there was no trial.  That is not, I believe, how it works.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)