User talk:Diannaa/Archive 17

Done the first bit I think
Hi Dianna. I think I've done everything that needs doing to the drive page and the Ombox. I have a screen shot to put in place in the morning. 500 reduction, yay! --Stfg (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so mucvh. What a great result :) Our best drive in quite a while. See you tomorrow. -- Dianna (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. I've now prepared the barnstars page. Please could you check it? I've checked that the number of entries there (40) is equal to the number of entries with non-zero article counts on the final results page, so I'm hoping at least not to have overlooked anybody, but you know how easy it is to miss things after a while of this. Probably better to knock off for tonight now. I'll have time tomorrow to dish out the barnstars if you're happy with the page. --Stfg (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything looks Great for barnstars; I will ask Dank to do the top third; if you could do the middle third and I will take the bottom third? I have placed hash marks to divide the sections. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?
That page is not to be used as his little soapbox any longer. He's indefinitely blocked, he's an unrepentant sockpuppeter, and just because he's got some admins in his corner does not mean he can have his little funny way. This is unbelievable, seriously. I am saddened that you in particular continue to think his sock page should remain like it was. Why? Doc  talk  05:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the rant no longer expresses his current feelings about Wikipedia and life in general so it's a good idea to take it down now. Thanks to Nobody Ent for doing that. The account is not blocked; in fact it is the one account he is supposed to be editing with, . People can change; you will see. -- Dianna (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course people can change, but not every person changes or wants to change. Things like this and this tell me it's the same ol' Jack, back for more attention for himself rather than the actual good of the project: reminiscent of, and possibly leading up to, things like this again. We'll never agree on it, I'm sure, and we'll see ;> Anyway, congrats on your recent awards! You are a good egg, Diannaa... Doc  talk  00:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The dice are still rolling, Doc, so just relax, and see what happens. Off to the gym now, ttyl. -- Dianna (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lame revert, BTW, especially after a sincere apology, and especially when it's not a revert from Bishonen. There will always be editors like me here, and we'll just have to learn to tolerate each others' comments, now won't we? Collapsing it in a box with a snarky little title would have been less insulting than just eradicating it, but I never get much credit for owning up to "human errors" in this situation anyway, so it's no surprise. Meh. Wiki is not censored, and painting me as a harasser... it's just not going to fly. Cheers... Doc  talk  02:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bishonen has been very ill for quite some time, and people tidy up her page all the time. -- Dianna (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Watching the neighbours squabble on her page is going to disturb her wa 倭. Hence the removal. -- Dianna (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry about that - I didn't know that, and I hope they recover. My last edit to her page hopefully conveyed my embarrassment for insulting her as an admin, and I regret adding to the thread because it was written under the influence of wiki-anger. So I actually have no problem with the revert itself. But the edit summary when removing the thread was not about tidying: it was saying I was a "bad neighbor", really. At least, that's certainly how it can be construed. It is abundantly clear that I (just me ;) and Jack's accounts have not crossed paths in any way recently: so it's impossible to suggest that I am preventing him from doing anything, or "harassing him", for danged sure. If he runs for admin, or starts running amok, I'll refrain from commenting on his friends' pages in the future (unless he brings me up), and I'll only comment in the appropriate venues. Deal? Doc  talk  03:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally: how on earth did you discover this little article? Or this one? Since Uncontroversial Obscurity "is the one account he is supposed to be editing with, as confirmed by ArbCom", I guess it might seem a little... "odd", these coincidences. It could almost seem (to a casual observer) like you must have known who it was, and even though ArbCom said what they said, you somehow didn't remember that. Weird. Doc  talk  05:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Doc, didn't you have some editing to do?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Doc, the thought of blocking him or turning him in to the Arb-com never even crossed my mind. In fact, I did pretty much the opposite: we have worked together on many articles, including the four I have taken to GA. I believe people learn by doing, and working together is a great way for me to demonstrate correct behaviour. I think he is finally ready to leave the socking life behind, so please don't upset yourself over things that have not happened yet; be patient. Regards, -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 16:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

CfD
"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Therefore I'm notifying you of ongoing discussions at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 1, as I believe that you may be able to improve the quality of discussion on a topic in which you are interested. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... and Back Atcha
Congrats to you, for your outstanding and voluminous work here at this worthiest of projects! Thanks, Cliff! Much appreciated, coming from you :) -- Dianna (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Loveley! Thank you very much. - Dianna (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

CE
I generally do not include/update/report anywhere after doing c/e work in an article. do I need to update here WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tito Dutta, and thank you for your interest in helping out with copy edits. We keep records of our work during our copy edit drives and for articles we work on from the requests page, but otherwise there is no need to do any record keeping or reporting. If the article you have worked on has a copy edit tag, please remove it on your own initiative when the work is done. If ever you should want your work reviewed or checked, please let me or one of the other coordinators know. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Puzzled by this one
Hi Dianna. User:Jack Greenmaven drew this to my attention not knowing what to do with it, and neither do I. He points out that User:Mistress9 looks like an article page. If it were in article space I'd have tagged it db-hoax for several reasons, including that it takes credit for films and TV shows released by other companies and that it cites 2012 financial results to the 2010 annual report of Christian Dior (with an access date of May 2011), which makes no mention of Mistress 9. But this is a user page, and I'm not sure about putting db-hoax on one of those. And then, this Google search doesn't show up any company, but it does link to another WP user page. It's now blank, but this version contains exactly the same thing. And finally, there's Special:Contributions/Helpalot8, which shows that there are a few Helpalots in the world, probably not helping very much really. So I suspect someone out there is pranking, and may plan to create more socks if not stopped. What does one do with such things? Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure it qualifies for speedy deletion; I had a quick look yesterday. User pages can be speedied if they qualify under one of the usual criterion. I have checked it over and think that the best tag is {db-hoax}. I am gonna tag it and another admin will review it for deletion. Sockpuppet investigations/Helpalot has already been opened by user:SarahStierch. I added Helpalot2 and Mistress9 to the list. -- Dianna (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have posted some more accounts at the sockpuppet investigation and tagged the userpage for speedy deletion. Thanks for showing me this stuff. I will let Jack Greenmaven know what I did. -- Dianna (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dianna. --Stfg (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Back after a long leave
I just wanted to let you know that I am back from being overwhelmed. So if I edit an atricle or two please do not yell at me....

If you have a good starter project I would be very interested.

Sincerely  Bullock    ✉  04:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! Wiki needs as much help as we can get, as always. What kind of subject matter are you into right now? That might give you an idea for an article to work on. --Dianna (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Generic copyedit, the subject really does not matter. My iterests are too varied to list.  Bullock    ✉  15:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. How about Chris Hillman or Tropical Storm Nock-ten (2011) or Schuylkill Mall. --Dianna (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
Happy Easter, Diannaa! Hope your day is great! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sara Hall
Thank you Trackinfo (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's that man again
Hello again. After our recent exchanges regarding the Adolf Hitler page, I revisited it tonight and saw that it continues to attract much discussion. You may remember me suggesting that the Legacy paragraph could be rewritten. May I take the liberty of sending you a draft of what I have in mind? I've no wish to edit the article unilaterally, if the result is likely to be contested. Could you have a look at this draft suggestion and feel free to play around with it? If we could agree on an improved section, we could subsequently post it. I have preferred to send you this for comment and amendment, rather than post it to the Hitler(Talk) page where it might attract a free-for-all.

I’m not sure we really need to know about the decline of the Hitler moustache as a fashion or the very obvious fact that the name Adolf has fallen out of favour in Germany – interesting trivia, but hardly ‘important' facts. So the new paragraph might look something like this:

Not long after World War II the German historian Friedrich Meinecke described Hitler's political career as "one of the great examples of the singular and incalculable power of personality in historical life". The English historian Hugh Trevor-Roper saw him as "among the 'terrible simplifiers' of history, the most systematic, the most historical, the most philosophical, and yet the coarsest, cruellest, least magnanimous conqueror the world has ever known." His policies and orders resulted in the death of approximately 40 million people, including about 27 million in the Soviet Union. Hitler’s actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral. Historians, philosophers, and politicians often apply the word "evil" in describing their consequences. In Germany and Austria, Holocaust denial and the display of Nazi symbols such as the swastika are prohibited by law.

When Hitler committed suicide, contemporaries likened the event to a "spell" being broken. His political programme seemed to leave no lasting legacy beyond the wounds and destruction it had inflicted on Europe and a Germany reduced to "Zero Hour". This necessitated a new political beginning.

Many developments in the post-1945 period can be seen as an indirect legacy of and reaction to Hitler’s rule and conquests. These include: post-war territorial adjustments in Europe; the division of Germany widening into the Cold War division of Europe; increased political co-operation among nation states leading to the European Union which promotes greater political union to minimize tensions and avoid catastrophic war; European-wide legislation emphasizing human rights such as abolition of the death penalty; the legal protection and greater social integration of minorities such as disabled people, homosexuals and ethnic groups; and the condemnation of genocide in international law.

Let me know what you think. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kim. It's great that you've taken an interest in improving the article. As you may have realised, almost all of it was written by others, not myself, so it was difficult for me to know why the material had been included in the first place. So knowing what to cut and what to leave has been an ongoing process. The notion of cutting the material about the moustache seems obvious once you point it out. The first paragraph is good; the second needs some work on the wording; and the third paragraph is without sources. Is it your own analysis? If so, we can't include it, as it is considered original research. I don't like "seemed to leave"; what does the source say? Are they wishy-washy, or bold? can we say "left no lasting legacy"? Does that align with your source, or not? And what about the destruction in Africa? These are just some initial thoughts. -- Dianna (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I realise you didn't write the article, but having read the various discussions, I am trusting in your sound judgement. For the first paragraph I was looking for a source of the 'no lasting legacy' type, which states that Hitler left nothing behind that advanced mankind (I'm not interested in relics like motorways). Trevor-Roper is not the only one to state that, so I might find another, even better quote. Also, the first half of his comment may be abstruse for some, and controversial, so it might be better to quote only the second half. I take your point about the second paragraph. The idea here was to convey the destructive nature of the direct legacy before moving on to how the world has changed in ways that can be directly attributed (at least in Europe's case) to the Hitler experience. The third paragraph is an almost impossible task to list developments today that can only be understood as reactions to that experience. It's unsourced as you say, because I drew up the list, and I realise that's unsatisfactory in Wikipedia terms. I'm wondering, therefore, how one could make a statement including a link to direct the reader to the Consequences of Nazism page. That would shorten the new addition, only the content of the linked page is very narrow, dealing with the immediate consequences rather than the long-term way in which Europe (the world? - mindful of Africa) has changed in reaction to Nazism. Maybe this can't be done except by an external reference which I don't have readily to hand. (That page does however link to other articles dealing separately with consequences.) I'll think a little more about how the article could be rounded off by two or three statements by historians about Hitler's 'legacy'. That would mean only one paragraph, but might be quite effective. I think post-war admirers of Hitler, like Sadat, can go because there are so many - how does one choose for inclusion? Also, I think you agree that the unpopularity of the Hitler moustache and the name Adolf in Germany hardly needs stating. Thanks for your time. Kim Traynor (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I've only just noticed the link to the Consequences of Nazism and Neo-Nazism above the section. Very unobservant of me! I clearly need to replace the list with a historian's general comment along the lines of "many developments in the post-war world can only be understood as a reaction to the experience of Nazism..." I'll go a-hunting for that. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a pretty extensive library here dealing with the subject and am quite amazed at how many books continue the narrative through Hitler's death to arrangements in Occupied Germany without pausing to take stock of the overall effects of Nazism. I've noticed that Speer's memoir refers to the 'spell' of Hitler being broken, and Toland, for whom I have no great respect on the accuracy front, provides a memorable image in likening the defeat of Nazism to a bubble bursting. I think I'll have to weave that in. Kim Traynor (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've consulted numerous books dealing specifically with Germany and have not found a neat summing-up of Hitler's legacy. I've also been looking at general histories of the 20thC in the hope of finding an all-compassing phrase, but without success. So here's a new tack. The issue that triggered the war - the expanison of Germany to include all ethnic Germans - was resolved by German's defeat. Germany left centre-stage and the superpowers entered. So, how would the following paragraphs look to you as a general rounding off? Perhaps the term 'Legacy' is not the best title for the section. 'Judgements on Hitler' might be a more appropriate, while retaining the link to the Consequences of Nazism.)

When Hitler committed suicide in May 1945, contemporaries likened the event to a ‘spell’ being broken. According to Toland, “Without its only true leader” National Socialism “burst like a bubble”.

Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral. His political programme had brought about a world war and left behind a devastated and impoverished Eastern and Central Europe. Germany itself suffered wholesale destruction, characterised at the time as “Zero Hour”. His policies and orders had inflicted human misery on an unprecedented scale and were responsible for the deaths of approximately 40 million people, including about 27 million in the Soviet Union. Historians, philosophers, and politicians often apply the word "evil" in describing their consequences. In Germany and Austria, Holocaust denial and the display of Nazi symbols such as the swastika are prohibited by law.

After the war the German Liberal historian Friedrich Meinecke described Hitler as “one of the great examples of the singular and incalculable power of personality in historical life". The English historian Hugh Trevor-Roper saw him as “among the ‘terrible simplifiers’ of history, the most systematic, the most historical, the most philosophical, and yet the coarsest, cruellest, least magnanimous conqueror the world has ever known.” For the historian J M Roberts, Hitler's defeat meant that “A phase of European history which Germany had dominated was at an end”. In its place emerged a global confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States in the shape of the Cold War of the latter half of the 20th century.

Any thoughts? Does this pass muster in your eyes? I feel it's an improvement on what exists at present. Kim Traynor (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now gone ahead and made the substitution. I think it looks more solid on the page compared with the superseded section. If you agree, we'll leave it there and I'll have to add the appropriate references on the book list. e.g. Roberts, Lichtheim. Or is that wise if they are not books specifically about Hitler? Kim Traynor (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The prose is for the most part good, and the text is appropriate and well-sourced. I have made some technical corrections:
 * We use flatty quotes, not curly quotes
 * Punctuation goes before the ref, not after it
 * Numbers like 40 million are obviously rounded off so there is no need to say they are approximate
 * We don't leave a space between the text and the citation
 * There's no need to link "United States" and "Soviet Union".
 * Too many quotations; I have paraphrased a couple.
 * Normally citations are added when adding the prose, so please put them in right away. If you have any problems with this step, please let me know. The books that need adding are Fest 1974, Speer 1970, Toland 1977, Fischer 1995, Trevor-Roper 1988, Roberts 1996, and Lichtheim 1974. The reference books don't have to be specifically about Hitler. You need to add them to the section marked "References" and they go in alphabetical order by author. If the Speer is "Inside the Third Reich" I will try to find the material in my 1971 copy so we don't have to add another edition. Thanks again for helping improve this article. I have to go to work now and will be back at lunch-time.-- Dianna (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those points. Toland is OK as is. I have added Fest, Fischer, Roberts, Trevor-Roper and Lichtheim. The last is a Sphere paperback. The original edition was published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson in 1972. My Speer 'Inside TR' is the 1970 hardback. I noted some variations in the references templates. Some have author-link, others do not. I have based my entries on the Fest template that was there, so I don't know if the author-link makes sense on the new entries - you might like to check. Thanks for your assistance on this. Feel free to free up your TalkPage by removing any of the above material I've posted. Kim Traynor (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * On a separate point, I'm not sure that your change to Roberts' statement retains its meaning. He's not primarily saying it's an end to Germany's domination of Europe, but that it is an end to a phase in European history marked by Germany's domination, i.e. a change for both Germany and Europe as a whole. So, I'd prefer the original quotation or, at least, a paraphrase that includes the "phase in European history" idea. Kim Traynor (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One more thing. I take your point about the word 'approximately'. I didn't supply those figures or that word, but I wonder if the word 'estimated' should appear, as the true figures are not known. Kim Traynor (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see from the View History that you've had a look at the section and made changes, but for some reason my browser is still seeing the page as I left it without these changes. I'm mystified. Kim Traynor (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * After several attempts at viewing the page, I've still been seeing the older version without your changes as seen in the View History. So, I have now tried to copy them faithfully and have changed the section once more, except that I've kept Roberts' statement as a quotation. I think the section has now settled down and we should wait to see whether any new reader feels it deserves further editing. Hope you agree. Kim Traynor (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Correcting a statement above, the Toland I've quoted is a 1977 hardback edition. Also, I suggested the section had settled, but I have a sneaky feeling that someone will object on POV grounds to the phrase that Hitler's programme brought about a world war. Yet I know Wikipedia is not happy with weasel-word formulations like 'widely regarded as having'. Perhaps the phrase should be excised? Kim Traynor (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Roberts quote could always be paraphrased as: Hitler's defeat marked the end of a phase of European history which Germany had dominated, or which had been dominated by Germany. Kim Traynor (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The {sfn} template requires that the last name be in the field for a clickable link down to the references section to be created. So I have changed the template for Fischer. Hitler's table talk is more correctly attributed to Hitler; Trevor-Roper wrote an introduction. ISBN-13s are preferred to ISBN-10s, so I have converted them using this website. Valid ISBNs have dashes, not spaces (the ISBNs are clickable links as well; that's why they're blue).
 * Different editions of a book will have different pagination; the 1971 paperback of Speer has the material on page 617, for instance. I am not finding a Toland 1977 on WorldCat. Can you please confirm the publication date and provide a publisher name and ISBN? Thanks. Don't touch the page just now or we will edit conflict. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, why does the apparatus need to be so complex? I'm surprised Hitler gets the credit as the author of the Table-Talk as Trevor-Roper, as editor I suppose, is splashed in large red letters across the cover. Apologies that I left out the dashes on some of the ISBM numbers because others didn't have them. My Toland is a 1977 Book Club Associates reprint by arrangement with Doubleday. No ISBN is given. The burst bubble mention is in the second sentence of the Epilogue. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki markup is to Wiki what Microbiology is to medicine: It's our weed-out course. Book Club Associates of London? Stay away from the page; I am still working. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"....Hitler left nothing behind that advanced mankind (I'm not interested in relics like motorways)." If it's OK for me to join the discusion, isn't the word "advanced" pov anyway. I remember reading ages ago an article that said that virtually all of the pre-war and wartime technological and social engineering "innovations" of Hitler's regime were retained by post-war Europe - motorways being one of them. It might have been in the Architectural Review. And all the military technology and techniques were also retained and improved on, of course.

Thoughts: in Europe, the end of WW1 was characterised by the destruction of the pre-war society, old empires fell, new countries were born, new ideologies spread, populations put the blame for the horrors of the war (and for there having been a war) on the failings of the leaders of all countries. None of that happened at the end of WW2. The lesson had been learned: just blame everything on Hitler. Meowy 21:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's always lots of technological advances in wartime as opponents try to get the jump on one another. If you can find a citation for these thoughts, that would be great. It's sorta like the cold-war space race, and how it led to wonderful improvements in miniaturisation and computer science. I gotta go do something else for a couple hours—if someone else wants to edit the article I am stopping for now. -- Dianna (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't know someone was evesdropping on this page! I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion here, but 'advanced' was just my shorthand for indicating 'progress' (another slippery word) in the Enlightenment sense. In terms of political philosophy, I think most people would agree that 1789 or 1917 liberated/unleashed ambivalent forces, and it's open to debate whether the good outweighed the bad. Most people would, however, acknowledge that both had an emancipatory element. In the case of Hitler's political philosophy (if that's not too grand a term) and revolution I can't think of a single positive contribution to mankind, except in terms of some technological advances such as magnetic recording tape or the Volkswagen (advances made by German science, not Nazi 'science'), or medical advances such as breast-screening/link between smoking and lung cancer (other Nazi medical advances being made at the cost of others). Motorways were a bad example, since they were a product of the Weimar Republic in terms of conception, for which Hitler took the credit by implementing their building. I think most people would agree that any positive factors that can be identified in the Nazi period are more than outweighed by the negatives. The motorways killed KZ-prisoners on the steps of the quarry at Mauthausen; the V1 &V2 rockets killed slave labourers, not to mention several thousand Brits etc, etc. I am therefore in agreement with Rauschning's belief in Hitler's 'revolution of nihilism', even though he used emancipatory concepts to mobilise the German people: 'freedom' meant German national freedom at the expense of others; political participation meant overthrowing bourgeois-democratic forms and replacing them with servile, controlled political behaviour. I don't agree that blame for the Great War was distributed in the way you suggest, certainly not in Britain. We always blamed an unstable Kaiser and aggressive Prussian militarism for the Great War, but for the sake of diplomacy, and to keep Woodrow Wilson happy, enable the League of Nations to function and avoid a second round of conflict we had to sing from the same hymn-sheet after the war - until Churchill reflected a return to the previous conception of German aggression. After the Hitler experience most German historians eventually agreed that the British were right all along. Furthermore, there are many who would argue that Hitler is not solely to blame for the war (or should that be wars- west and east?), but that the inept diplomacy of Britain, Poland and France (and cynical diplomacy of Russia?) was also responsible to some extent. But that was not the finding at Nuremberg (now we get into the debate about victors' justice...). Most historians of whatever nationality since the war have placed the blame squarely on Hitler and Germany, and so did the post-war generation of West Germans. A new generation of Germans, the grand-children of the war generation, are still prepared to blame Hitler (morally convenient) but are now inclined to qualify the extent of Germany's 'guilt' (much of that is input from the ex-GDR, a society that did not work through the issues as did the West Germans). I think that shift has to be seen against diplomacy once more, namely European integration. At least I thought so when on the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings the commemoration was attended by Chancellor Schröder, representing a Germany "liberated from Fascism"! Kim Traynor (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kim, this page currently has 141 watchers. Of course, plenty of them are sock-puppets of Jack Merridew, but still. You are writing for the mob here. -- Dianna (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Lots of minor changes are now being made to the Legacy paragraph. Someone has changed 'Hitler's political programme' to 'Hitler's reign' (I've changed this to rule), but that does not convey quite the same meaning. His political programme means the goals he was pursuing, and so includes collaborators like Slovaks, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Rumanians, Hungarians etc. Rule suggests an all-powerful dictator, which is contentious, so I intend to revert. Kim Traynor (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You OK?
As the header says... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wondering the same... Stfg (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * All okay; someone leaked something that revealed some personal information about me, but it has now been oversighted. Sorry to alarm you -- Dianna (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet activity
Hi! Diannaa. I have recently worked on Halim Rane, largely authored by User:Hrane. I tagged this with COI and followed up on articles by the same author. A new author, with no previous activity has removed all my tags, and I suspect that User:Liam clements may be a sockpuppet of Hrane. Can you help out on this please? --Greenmaven (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the maintenance templates as the issues have not been fully addressed. Mr Rane may have changed his mind about editing under his real name, and created a new account. This is allowed, and is not considered sock-puppetry if the first account is abandoned. We will have to watch. -- Dianna (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hi there. I have reason to suspect that a particular account is the sockpuppet of a previously banned user. I have a lot of circumstantial evidence, primarily revolving around similar: ares of interest, tendentious behavior, accusations of bad faith and vandalism against other editors, and constant edit warring against consensus. However, I don't want to cause a scene if my suspicions are incorrect. Do you have any advice on how I could discreetly move this forward? Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 17:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Torchiest. Depending on the sophistication of the user you want to report, you may be able to file a sockpuppet case without them being aware of it. You are not required to advise the person that a report has been filed. If that's the route you want to go, the place to file your report is at WP:SPI. If you wish more privacy, you can send an email directly to a check-user. A couple who are presently active are User:Amalthea and User:Tnxman307. -- Dianna (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. —Torchiest talkedits 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

May drive page created
Hi Dianna. I've created WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2012 and made it the current drive on the tabs at the top of the other pages. I see you've already updated the User box. I think the other things are more like a week from now, aren't they? Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Simon. Yeah, a week from now would be great, although people will start signing up right away. I think I will do so myself :) -- Dianna (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Torchiest already did. Took him a whole 21 minutes, though! Uh, teal transcludes span, I'm afraid! --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you think I know that? -- Dianna (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Trekkie, eh? That's *so* next millennium! (Interesting cross-pondian question there, actually. A Brit, unless a died-in-the-wool Trekkie, would say "Do you think I don't know that?" Is your way standard in the US or a Star Trek Special?) --Stfg (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, being Canadian, I would say, "I know that, eh? you hoser." -- Dianna (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, ahem, ah [[Image:Blush.png|16px]] and you mention Alberta on your userpage too. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am Canadian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1CwZgb_iAI


 * [[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px]] --Stfg (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for expressing your support for me in the User_talk:PumpkinSky thread and/or participating in the User_talk:PumpkinSky thread. Peace to everyone. Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! -- Dianna (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Renault FT Edits.
Hi, Diannaa. I'm afraid I'm not enamoured of the changes you've made to the article on the FT. Pls see here for reasons why. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! -- Dianna (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for Users
Your edits here were very helpful.  As a recently returning editor, I feel like I've stepped into an extremely hostile enviroment, and you stepping in to try and moderate an editor who is clearly way out of line made me feel like Wikipedia shouldn't be given up on so soon. San s culottes 01:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, San s culottes, and welcome! Thank you very much for stopping by. I hope you decide to continue editing here. There's plenty of quiet drama-free corners where you can work. All help is appreciated! See you around the wiki. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Help !
Hi,

I'm recently on the wikipedia english version (I know the french one, and it's totally different !). Could you help me ? I would like for exemple, create userboxes (like "I'm french" etc.) or know how to have "preliminary draft" on an article (like in french)

Thank you

--Bobybarman34 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bobybarman, and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry, but I do not have time to mentor anyone right now. You might like to select a volunteer at Adopt-a-user. But to be honest with you, I don't think your grammar and spelling skills are good enough to contribute here, so sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Burning Bridges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doeJSspVL5Y

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE FAC requests
Hi Dianna. Both Dank (on our talk page) and HJ Mitchell (on his) have agreed to abandoning the separate FAC requests page. Are you happy for me to go ahead and remove links to it and fold what's there back into the main requests page? --Stfg (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am in favour of folding it. -- Dianna (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. I've started. Is it possible you could remove the edit notice pointing to the FAC Requests from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, please? --Stfg (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I also tweeked the sidebar on the Requests page so it's no longer truncated. -- Dianna (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, that looks good. I've completed the job now. I suggest the remaining shell of the page and its redirects might remain for a time in case people follow links. It will direct them back to the main page. I've checked its what-links-here and I think only User:Jmajeremy/Books/Administrators' Reading List needs the link deleted. I've messaged him to suggest it. All the other links appear to be historical references from talk pages and archives. WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Potential Featured Articles/header is no longer needed as I've transcluded the tabs directly into the page now; likewise WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/Potential Featured Articles/2012, all of which I've transferred to the main requests archive. Have I overlooked anything that you can see? --Stfg (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have placed templates on the above two pages. They can be retained for future reference or deleted as G-6s at some point. As far as I can tell, that wraps it up. -- Dianna (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a lot of work, thanks guys. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Crazy (Live Roskilde 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgHioCC3yCo

Archiving
I am concerned about your premature archiving at WP:ANI. Just because the first reader of a section took action does not mean the section is done and over with. Especially in the case where your archiving is reverted, perhaps you should seek consensus that the issue is done before re-archiving? Given that there is now a minor edit war breaking out over your archiving, there is at least an argument that it was premature that could be made. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI - I unarchived the thread. Despite the predictable drama that will likely ensue, it seems there are multiple editors who would like to discuss this further.  ‑Scottywong | spout _  16:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Scottywong. It looks like my archiving was premature, Hipocrite; sorry about that. -- Dianna (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC) And looking closer, I see what you mean about reverting the archiving. I had not realised you had done that: I thought it had not worked because I hadn't added an . I don't use these templates much. It was not my intent to edit-war over the archiving; I thought I had busted it and tried to do it again for that reason. I gotta go now; I just accidentally dropped a bottle of olive oil on the floor so I may be gone for some time. :)-- Dianna (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Transatlanticism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNqQC7R_Me4

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! -- Dianna (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

00:00 UTC
Hi Dianna. I'm on an early routine at the mo and would find it difficult going on impossible to be up and about at 00:00, which is 1 am here. Are you OK with doing those things this month? If not, we could ask for help on the talk page, perhaps. Cheers, Simon the hoser. --Stfg (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on it; sorry for not answering sooner; I have cleverly shut off the orange message bar, with a kewl java-trick. -- Dianna (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a thought -- is there a way to get a bot to do this for us? --Stfg (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. -- Dianna (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't Stand the Weather
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix3inTQps20