User talk:Diannaa/Archive 23

Request for deletion of orphaned non-free revision
Hello mam. How are you? Please delete the below image's orphaned non-free revision. Thanking you.



Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 16:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All done! Best wishes, -- Dianna (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you madam. Have a nice day. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 10:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Trio c/e
G'day Diannaa, thanks very much for the c/e of Operation Trio. I feel much more confident putting it up for GAN now! Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Good luck! -- Dianna (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

British cavalry during the First World War
Hi Thanks for the copy edit.Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! -- Dianna (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting but
Hi Diannaa. No big deal but could I get a rev del on this. Not really my kind of humour. Slight Smile  20:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- Dianna (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Slight  Smile  20:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:Zoolea lobipes.jpg
I removed the db-f3 from File:Zoolea lobipes.jpg. The illustration was published in 1911 and is therefore in the public domain in the United States. CC BY-NC 3.0 refers to the additional text on the source site, which does not affect the public domain status of the illustration. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eastmain. -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bad In Each Other
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV8BrMDtOjY

Imagine (song)
Mission accomplished! ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You rule ~! Congrats — Dianna (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Catch The Wind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHLAbjULv5Q

Advice on citations, please?
Hi Dianna, would you mind taking a look at footnote 4 in Mauritius Blue Pigeon and the discussion about it at Talk:Mauritius Blue Pigeon? Here we have a 12-page paper that is cited 18 times. Funkmonk has been asked to provide page numbers for these and neither he nor I are quite sure whether it's best to give the whole page range in one footnote or to split it up. What would you consider best? The article is aiming to go to FAC. Thanks, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Simon. I have answered there and will watch-list the page for a while -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dianna, that answer is brilliant. I'm watchlisting it for a while too, but am away tomorrow (another jaunt to Hereford for music). --Stfg (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Heh heh! Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA
I imagine you'll be taking care of this end, am I correct in that assumption? ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do it if you want, but it's better if you do it yourself as I think we get a bonus point if you do (they have a point system ... it's totally Byzantine ~!). I have prepared a blurb and put it in a sandbox for you to check over. — Dianna (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (watching) they don't have a point system any more, they only think so, - articles were chosen without points, simply for arguments. I stopped doing point math a while ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and added it to the queue. -- Dianna (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:1988 Kitty Dukakis.jpg
Just go ahead and delete it. I share the copyright and uploaded it myself, but you are correct. I didn't have permission from the person who took the photo. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; another administrator will review the file in a week or so and it will be deleted at that time. Best wishes, -- Dianna (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:1st ACG.jpg
I have tried without success to find a way of indicating I own the copyright to my parent's photographs and I give my permission for their use. This apparently is not considered ownership of the property. What should I do now and in the future? Thank you. Brad Smith (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mr Smith. Who took the photograph? The copyright is owned by the person who took the photograph. -- Dianna (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dianna. My father, now long deceased, took the photograph.  I have been unable to find a way of indicating I am the legal owner of a photograph taken by my father.  Thank you for replying.  Brad Smith (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your father is actually in the photograph. So the only way he could also have taken the photograph is if he took it with a camera that had a timer. I will assume this is the case and have added more information about the copyright status to the file. The file will eventually be moved to the Commons. -- Dianna (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Where do you people get your silly ideas that the person in the picture can't be the owner of the picture because because the person took the pictre owns it? If the camera, film and whatever belonged to the person in the photo then it belongs to the person. Your saying that if I hand you my camera and say "take me picture", the picture belows to you and I need your permission to anything at all with the picture? BULL! In the case of the photo taken in Bosnia in the 2nd Infantry history it belongs to Jason Mitchell as so stated. He started the site and posted the photo, he also posted the other two photos. You people that think you have all the answers to all that is right or wrong with the world why don't you just delete everything in the site because it all came from some place else so therefore has the be copyrighted somehow. That goes for everything on Wikipedia, it all came from some other source and unless specifically stated as such shouldn't be on the sites. You have a lot of deleting to do! Lansmun (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The copyright is owned by the author of the work—the creator of the image—not the owner of the camera. There are exceptions, but in general, that's the law. Sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So I give you my camera, ask you to take my picture, that the camera back, say thanks and we go on our seperate ways. I later use the picture in various ways including on the web. You see it, how exactly are you going to prove that you took the picture? Just by saying so, where is your proof? Do you have the negative or the memory card from the camera? You or anyone else can say whatever they want about the picture but where is the proof! 24.1.149.179 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the example above, where Brad Smith's father is purported to be the person who took the photo and is also one of the people in the photo. In that particular case, I decided to assume good faith that Robert Smith had an advanced camera that was capable of taking timed shots. The camera must have been a good one, as it is a colour shot from 1944, and colour film was still fairly new at that point in time, so I think that is a fair assumption to make, though you are correct: I have no proof. In other cases I might make a different decision. For example, if an uploader has an extensive history of problematic uploads and violating copyright by copying other people's images from the Internet, I would likely make a different decision. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

New script
Hi, I am in the late stage of developing a sources script, and was wondering if you would be interested in being one of my testers. I've written up most of the documentation and built up most of the script functionality. There are some minor missing features. I have already created and stocked three extensive in-built libraries/vocabularies (1,2,3) which I will continue extending. There's still work to be done to rationalise linkages and optimise the precision in dab situations. I'd value your input regarding any aspect, whether the documentation, objectives, structure or the library itself, and of course how it works. Thanks, --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, I'll be away for a week. So if you would like to help, you can save up your comments and post them to User talk:Ohconfucius/script. Cheers, --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 11:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Eagles (band) CE Request
Hello, Diannaa! I was wondering if you (or another guild member, but hopefully you :>) could take a look at this article for expansion. It's a mess for such a relatively successful band, and my recent attempts to improve the article have only scratched the surface. Could you work the ref magic, so I can cite Felder's book more easily? The sfn|harvard style is fine with me, but I don't know the best way to implement it. Thanks for your consideration on this! Doc  talk  06:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude, I happened to notice this just now. I've set the article up so you can now cite the Felder book with . Cheers!~  GabeMc  (talk 06:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GabeMc! I want this article to be a lot better than it is right now, and Felder's book is an excellent source. Cheers :> Doc   talk  06:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome and I agree on both points. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's great that the sfn magic is spreading throughout the wiki. I will do some copy edits for you -- Dianna (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! A major improvement - more worthy of B class for sure. I will continue to expand it with the Felder ref (and others), and once again thanks! Cheers :> Doc   talk  03:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There's still more copy editing to do; I will finish tomorrow. There's a couple of hidden notes for your attention. See you laters -- Dianna (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am finished with my edits. There's still a lot of unsourced material. The article also needs some more information regarding the conflicts within the band—we hear nothing about it until they are coming to blows in 1980. Thanks for the interesting editing sugestion; nice working with you again. -- Dianna (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC 154
Thanks for semi-protecting the above, can I ask you watchlist the article as the addition of unsourced results is still going on. Mt king (edits) 00:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect pages deletion
Hello! Madam.

How are you?

My request is to delete the redirect pages for this article :

Sarocharu (including talk page also).

Redirect pages links :


 * 1) Saar Osthara
 * 2) Sir Vacharu
 * 3) Sir Vachaaru
 * 4) Saaroccharu

Have a nice day.

Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 08:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am well, thank you. I have deleted Saar Osthara, but the other three are getting hundreds of page views every month, and thus are serving to guide people to the article, and should be kept, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all thank you mam for that deletion. My kindly request is to delete all the other three pages because they are all implausive redirects. According to your opinion they should be kept. But i think they are unnecessary redirects and people will now view the latest title "Sarocharu" if you delete the other three pages. And more over those Spellings are wrong and space should not contain in those letters. This is single word "Sarocharu". If you know Telugu please read this title : "సారొచ్చారు" and see this image : "Sarocharu First look". The title is in clubbed form. So no gap should contain between those. So please delete the other three pages if possible madam.

Have a good day. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 16:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Raghusri. I am not going to change my mind, as these redirects are harmless, and they must not be totally implausible, as they are getting several hundred hits per month. -- Dianna (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok Diannaa no problem. Because your opinion is right. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 20:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Declined RFPP
Hi the article in question which requires full protection due to a merge. The last AFD said to discuss merging on talk page, yet no other parties, despite my invitations to those interested in the article (article notices/talk page messages etc). The article or the talk page hasn't changed since then, so putting it through AFD again would seem a little bureaucratic.

If you feel this is the incorrect procedure, please point me in the correct direction. Thank you.--Otterathome (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason you are being reverted when you do this unilaterally is because people do not agree with you that she is not notable enough for her own article. The article went through AFD in March and June, and the decision both times was Keep. And when you tried to turn it into a redirect in July and September, you were reverted. So my opinion is that the consensus is against you in this instance; people feel she is notable enough for her own article. Therefore I am not going to change it to a redirect and full-protect for you; the consensus says something else completely. If you don't agree, I suggest you go back to AFD. -- Dianna (talk)
 * I redirected it because nobody else was interested in discussion, despite all my attempts. Are you sure AFD would be appropriate in this case?--Otterathome (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My honest opinion is that consensus is against you this time, and the article should stay as-is. -- Dianna (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me...
...how a non-English user can take an English image, my original American Horror Story: Asylum image, and make it his/her own in Commons without me getting original credit for it? All they did was copy it to Commons! — WylieCoyote (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what happened. They took a new copy from the source website and uploaded it to the Commons, probably without even being aware that we had a copy on this wiki. Their home wiki is the French wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But the Source given in the Summary is “Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.” If so, shouldn’t the original upload info have been included? The previous image seems to be gone (in previous versions of the infobox it shows as a redlink redirecting to the Upload Wizard) so it can’t be checked any more, but with JPEGs comparing the exact file sizes is often all that’s needed to tell whether images are identical or just very similar. IMO it’s a shame to see Rennie Mackintosh so abused, but that’s neither here nor there. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added the original upload log to the file on the Commons. Sorry, it looks like my earlier remarks were wrong; I am not well today. -- Dianna (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dianna, although the description wikilink does not work for us commoners. In protest of the ease someone is able to just copy stuff to Commons, I have restored the original image to Asylum (not mine), but yes, mine and the copy were exactly the same. As for the Mackintosh abuse, that's a show screen capture and not Wiki's fault, except the aforemention copy transfer. — WylieCoyote (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course—I was just exercising my inner font-snob.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for the deletion of Orphaned non-free revision.
Hi Diannaa. Can you please delete the below non-free orphaned revision.



Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 20:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you madam. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Newcomer ask for help!
@Dianaa. can you hel me commons:User:Deklamat please with the problems on:



and



probably I maked a verry big mistake. Sorry --Deklamat (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Deklamat. Don't worry about making a mistake. Copyright law is complicated. Do you know who took the picture? The person who took the picture owns the copyright. If that person has been dead for 70 years or more, the picture is in the public domain in most countries and can be on the Commons. We also need to know what the source was. Did it come from the internet? Or perhaps it was scanned from a book or from a photograph in a private collection? Without answers to these questions the file will likely be deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Photo was in use from Perseus Verlag / Thomas Meyer he becames the heirship of W.-J. Stein from the daughter Clarissa Johanna Stein and give it as digital file to User:Marcuspater in February 2006 . The Photo is dated 1932. In the EU their is an rule that if the author of Photographies are more than 70 Years unknown (even if they where further on still allive the Photo belongs to PD (§ 66 UrhG) (look here (german language)) My opinion of this Situation:
 * After reading commons:COM:PRP my not authoritative oppinion {the authoritative oppinion belongs to the admins and OTRS-Teams) is:
 * there is not a significant doubt about the freedom of the file (only a little).
 * The copyright owner (if there exists one at all) to have sue allready if he did n't agree with the lot of publication of this and other photos of W.-J. Stein
 * The last copyright owner (Thomas Meyer) as bookseller and publisher know all the rights about copies and decided till now (also for photografies] by himself!
 * If their would be a chance to find out the photographer or his heirs, I would n't save effort and pain to find out and ask them. But after Worldwar II and the lot of destroyed things in EU it's impossible.
 * so I ask in this verry special case to temper justice with mercy!!
 * With kind regards and a still hope for a positive dicision: --Deklamat (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator on the Commons so it will not be up to me. -- Dianna (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin assistance at Gisele Bündchen please
Hi Dianna. I wonder if you have time to evaluate this edit at Gisele Bündchen (especially in the light of this discussion)? The recent article history will also help you to evaluate the situation. Thanks for any assistance that you can provide. GFHandel &#9836; 02:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources check out as to backing up the content. I have removed the OR that's posing as a citation and laid a modified on their talk. Hope that helps. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this, however are you sure that http://www.reocities.com/povo666/giselevip2.html is a reliable source? ReoCities appears to be some sort of archive of GeoCities pages (which was a repository of user-based pages). GFHandel &#9836; 03:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That one looks more like a wiki or blog; user-created content. Sorry, I thought I had checked all the cites but I missed that one. It's gotta go, IMO. I will do it. -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Along those same lines, I can't discern "ash" from http://caras.uol.com.br/canal/cabelos/post/como-conseguir-os-loiros-das-famosas#image7; and I can't find any mention of hair colour on http://www.roupa.net/2011/11/18/gisele-bundchen-a-musa-da-hope/ (and I spent a fair amount of time looking at that one!). Am I missing something obvious at those sites? GFHandel &#9836; 03:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "cabelo natural loiro escuro acinzentado" (Caras) Google-translates as "a natural dark blonde hair gray" and the gray means ash. So, dark ash blonde hair. "Linda, loira, alta, olhos verdes" (Roupa) translates as "Beautiful, blond, tall, green eyes", so that backs up the claim of green eyes and blond, though it does not state ash-blonde. I also found this source - an interview with a former hairdresser - indicates she colours her hair, and in a photo about half-way down, it does not look like she is a natural blonde at all. But, that would be OR on my part, n'est-ce pas? And also, I have now copy-edited the bejeebers out of this sad article, and will not be able to help you with teh tools in this matter. -- Dianna (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine; and I'm okay with the information now. Perhaps others at the article will have input, and I'm happy to wait to see what that might be. Thank you for helping. GFHandel &#9836; 04:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
Hi Dianna. I just wanted to thank you so much for the nomination, I really appreciate it, and am really happy that the process went well. Thanks! Sergecross73  msg me   13:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! -- Dianna (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE stuff
Hi Dianna. Are you happy for the election to be announced and for nominations to start? Have you any advice on the checking question? Thanks. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will reply over there. -- Dianna (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, V-9. There's always lots to do there, especially on teh weekends. -- Dianna (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I was coming here to give the same thing. Thanks for clearing the backlog Diannaa. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wreck it Ralph WP:RFPP Request
Hello Diannaa! I requested semi protection of Wreck it Ralph, which you declined. In response, I gave some examples of vandalism on the page. I also pointed out that there are many WP:FILMPLOT violations and additions of unsourced content if you read the page history. Could you please take another look? Thanks! Vacation nine 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I must be getting tired; I couldn't spot the trouble. -- Dianna (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! That happens to me a lot too :) Vacation nine 04:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Time for a sugary yet nutritious snack: an apple and a yogurt. -- Dianna (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay! Sounds delicious! Vacation nine 04:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

UAA Backlog
Hi again Diannaa, WP:UAA currently has 16 non-answered requests however it isn't being auto-tagged with Admin backlog which the page is supposed to do automatically when there are more than 10 requests. I made a post on the talk here. Any idea what is happening, and could you possibly get to the requests if you have time? I hope I'm not asking too much of you :) Vacation nine 04:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with that board, so best not tackle it when I'm tired. -- Dianna (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand. Vacation nine 04:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP
Hi, you recently semi-protected my talk page due to IP vandalism. Now, that the same IP is going around reverting my edits and posting the same idiocy in edit summaries that he/she was doing on my User-page and then Talk-page. I was wondering if you could perhaps block him/her. If this continues, what do you suggest I do, because this IP appears with different address every day.--Harout72 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you also delete this edit when you get to it.--Harout72 (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There were two items requiring revision deletion; let me know if you find any others. The IPs are too widely spread for a range-block; he may be editing from a mobile device as the most recent thre IPs geolocate to three different towns in Illinois. Please let me know when the activity resumes and we will block each IP individually as required. Short-term blocks of escalating duration normally put a stop to this kind of harassment within a week or so. If I am not around you can report this at WP:AIV. -- Dianna (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Diannaa, I don't see any other edits that should be deleted as he just reverted the rest of my edits without leaving comments in edit summaries.--Harout72 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP is back 1, 2. How do I deal with this ongoing harassment? This guy seems to have found a source of entertainment.--Harout72 (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The best way is to not respond; getting a rise out of you is part of the thrill. And for sure don't respond with personal attacks. Just revert the edits without comment and then post the latest IPs here for blocking. -- Dianna (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Doom Bar and sfn
Missed

Hi Diannaa. I was chatting to RexxS and HJ Mitchell at the weekend about Doom Bar, an article I was hoping to see at FA one day. One recommendation was that I transformed the reference system to be clearer, perhaps sfn and your name came up as someone who might be able to help out with this - in the absence of an editor who used to be very good at such things. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how best to go about updating something like this. Worm TT( talk ) 13:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Worm TT! I don't think the article is well suited to conversion to sfn templates, since there's such a large number of one-off citations rather than books that are used repeatedly throughout. What would work well, though, is to convert it to List-defined references, which means the citations are all pulled down into the references section, which makes for easier editing of the prose, and tidies up the page. There's a script available to help with the conversion. For an example of an article I recently converted you can have a look at Tool (band). There's also a newer better system for explanatory notes I can show you. Please think it over and let me know if you want to undertake these changes, and if you do, I will do the conversion for you. -- Dianna (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's sounding very familiar... and now that I look into it, I think something like that may have been done in the past. I remember being confused at the time and clearly forgot all about it. I think it'd be a great idea if we had some consistency in the references but I've no idea what sort of referencing would be best. If you could show me the system for explanatory notes, you'd certainly have my gratitude. As for the references, would the script be able to pull the rest down, or would I need to manually put them in there? I'm certainly happy to defer to the judgement of someone who has a bit more experience in references and the featured article process! Worm TT( talk ) 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The script will pull them down and interfile them with what's already there so that they appear in the order they appear in the article. Then if you add new content later you can interfile any new citations in the order they appear in the article, or you can just tack them on at the bottom of the group (just don't let Br'er catch you).The first step is to name any citations that don't have names, because otherwise the script will give them useless names like "autogenerated1". The new template for notes is the template. This template is simpler to use than the old   system, and allows explanatory notes to be pulled into the down-below, which is wonderful for articles that have a lot of explanatory notes. Ernest Shackleton and John Diefenbaker are good examples of what can be done with this system. Note for technical reasons we can't put a sfn template inside an efn template if the notes are moved to a separate section down below. But we can put in tags or use  or . -- Dianna (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant to say, thanks a lot for your help - I'll keep at it and hopefully submit it to FAC early next year. Worm TT( talk ) 15:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! God luck with your Arbcom bid. -- Dianna (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Favor
Hey Diannaa, I tried to reason with Kww, but he's not being very responsive or helpful. I'm going to post the thread so you can get a clear understanding of the request. Another editor actually agreed with me. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Link to conversation Hi Nathan. I have changed your copy-paste to a link to the conversation in question. Sorry, but I my opinion is that the location of the article needs to be left as-is; the disambiguation page at All I Want for Christmas Is You got 15,527 hits in the last 30 days, and the actual article at All I Want for Christmas Is You (Mariah Carey song) got 25,200 hits in the last 30 days. That's partly because the present article title is linked to in over 500 other articles around the wiki. People are finding what they are looking for, because a lot of people are arriving from a different article, not from the disambiguation page. There's a bit of a maintenance nightmare in moving pages that are linked in over 500 different places; are you going to go around fixing all those broken links, locate all the double redirects and repair them, etc?? Is it worth it? I don't think so; it would take many hours to complete, and there's just too much else to do, and there's no compelling reason to move the article. That's my opinion on the content issue. Now I hope you don't mind, but I am gonna give you some unsolicited advice here: Telling Kww to get over himself, implying he as a hidden agenda, and saying he is biased, is not likely to get a friendly response from him or from any editor on this wiki. Best wishes, -- Dianna (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Les Br'ers in A Minor
For the complete list, please go to User:Diannaa/Soundtrack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKAr5s9qTdw
 * Dickey Betts 4 eva. The Interior  (Talk) 05:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Recstacy_Logo.png
Could I get an express revision deletion to head off edit warring? Thanks very much for the ongoing image revdel work. --Lexein (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ and thanks for your supportive words. -- Dianna (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Edit war stopped, hurrah! --Lexein (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 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 Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

hello)
excuse me, please, for disturbing you. but i do need your help ;) i just happened across a Ukrainian Wikipedia local file that says it has been derived from an English Wikipedia local file (that got deleted here). is it possible to ask you to check the description of that deleted file? no need to restore it - just look and do tell me, please, if there was anything at all filled in the source and license/permission fields. link to the file in question File:Kyiv Rus 912 copy.png. thanks a lot! --antanana 16:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Glad to help. Here's what I found:

The file was deleted as an F4. -- Dianna (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you very much! --antanana 18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Links in cite references
Hi Diannaa. I was under the impression that it was acceptable to link cite parameters such as |publisher, |newspaper, etc., however I was just for similar links with an edit comment "removed links in refs". If I've not been linking correctly in references, then so be it; but what are the accepted practices for "linkable" parameters? Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLINK refers to repeating wikilinks in the citations, and our citation templates include an authorlink parameter that provides a link to the author of the citation should we happen to have an article on them. A GA reviewer will often ask for publisher names to be linked on first occurrence. So my opinion is that linking things in the footnotes/citations is acceptable practice and desirable practice. -- Dianna (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I agree. I guess that "first occurrence" can sometimes be difficult to anticipate based on how references are rendered (or how the order might change over time)? Perhaps you could keep an eye on how my partial is greeted? Thanks for your help. GFHandel &#9836;  03:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the first occurrence can change over time. In a BLP we could potentially see content added anywhere in the article, along with new citations. I will watchlist Neil Finn. -- Dianna (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)