Jump to content

User talk:Diannaa: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Hasmens (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 255: Line 255:
== Dear Dianna==
== Dear Dianna==


Unfortunately politics has interfered in my recent edits on Northern Cyprus. As a Turkish Cypriot I have volunteered my time to improve and expand the article on Northern Cyprus with my sources been taken from websites based in Northern Cyprus. Some of the information I added was changed around and improved in a way so in which it can be understood. If you could compare the information with the original it is quite different with some sections using different wording and such. I was ready to negotiate with Dr.K and was even prepared to alter the section into my own words. But unfortunately it wasn't enough. The dispute initially started with GiorgosY who is now banned from editing. Many attempts to vandalize the page where made by this specific user over the past few weeks. Attempts to delete, blank, and vandalize the page was also made by various other users disagreeing with factual well sourced information which has been taken from archives and books written by professional historians. I would like to state that Dr.K deletion of the sections on Northern Cyprus where politically motivated. As a regular Wikipedia reader and editor I will be very disappointed if information which doesn't suit the specific nationalistic interests of users is deleted. Thank you! ( [[User:Hasmens|Hasmens]] ([[User talk:Hasmens|talk]]) 09:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC) )
Unfortunately politics has interfered in my recent edits on Northern Cyprus. As a Turkish Cypriot I have volunteered my time to improve and expand the article on Northern Cyprus with my sources been taken from websites based in Northern Cyprus. Some of the information I added was changed around and improved in a way so in which it can be understood. If you could compare the information with the original it is quite different with some sections using different wording and such. I was ready to negotiate with Dr.K and was even prepared to alter the section into my own words. But unfortunately it wasn't enough. The dispute initially started with GiorgosY who is now banned from editing. Many attempts to vandalize the page where made by this specific user over the past few weeks. Attempts to delete, blank, and vandalize the page was also made by various other users disagreeing with factual well sourced information which has been taken from archives and books written by professional historians. I would like to state that Dr.K deletion of the sections on Northern Cyprus where politically motivated. As a regular Wikipedia reader and editor I will be very disappointed if information which doesn't suit the specific nationalistic interests of users is deleted. Thank you!


Regards ( [[User:Hasmens|Hasmens]] ([[User talk:Hasmens|talk]]) 09:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC) )
Regards


<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hasmens|Hasmens]] ([[User talk:Hasmens|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hasmens|contribs]]) 09:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hasmens|Hasmens]] ([[User talk:Hasmens|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hasmens|contribs]]) 09:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 09:23, 20 September 2014


 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Where this user is, it is 5:40 pm, 17 June 2025 UTC [refresh].
Role models
Non-attachment Logic Courage Class

CCI update

That was a rather big one... I'm going to have to work out how you do it so efficiently :) --Mkativerata (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ineffective page protection

How has this been allowed to happen, despite the page protection made in light of the persistent sock puppetry by User:MariaJaydHicky on that page? The most recent, HH.Mandem, created their "account" less than a week ago, yet has been able to vandalize an article protected against socks. Dan56 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not watch-listing that page, as it's outside the scope of my usual activities. How it happens, is the sockmaster knows that 10 edits + 4 days = autoconfirmed. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption is continuing, so I will watch-list and try to jump in quicker next time. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. This barnstar is awarded for consistently good judgement relating to administration. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil! Very nice to get some positive feedback. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for administational advice

Hi Diannaa , and sorry to bother You (again). Since I believe You to be "hard but fair" (hope this little general expression is OK), and never give favours nor the contrary, am I now asking for Your advices. I have previously experienced some problem with user Peter. A year ago or so, he rejected the idea of Scanian dialect as a part of the Swedish language (in the latter article). Eventually I accepted his ideas. But now he also rejects all ideas of Scanian to be based on the Danish language, nor anything "inbetween". (!!) This is the background of our current troubles. As a lingvist in general, I have no doubts that his knowledges are above my level. However not in historical matters, in my humble opinion. Main trouble and reason for this request, is that he rejects every source that in some way can be traced to "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF". Here I believe a litteral translation is called for, the three words mean "The foundation, Scanian, Future" - www.scania.org For instance he wrights at my talk-page "inappropriate sources like 333-årsboken[1]..." (Swedish ISBN 91-7586-384-7) "The 333 Year Book" from 1991, 333 years after Treaty of Roskilde, though it is just an assembly of 17 different authors (including f.i. Wilhelm Moberg that has been written over many decades).
Peter Isosalo has previously stated SSF to be "political extremists", though it has no political agenda at all, the only thing they seem to argue, is a call for a less centralised Swedish nation and improved Scanian-Danish relationships (is that "extemstic" in the current Global perspective ?). And SSF is indeed not a political party, and most certainly not even remotely close to for instance IRA, PLO or ETA, to my knowledge SSF is sooner a Scanian Gentlemen's association. Of cource I realise that "333-årsboken" as a source only is usable as source within the various topics its different authors handeles (but this has not been the troble for Peter Isosalo, only "the SSF connection" so to speak). Its different authors deals with different issues, like Danish-Swedish, Scanian-Swedish and Swedish-Danish history, Scanian dialects, the re-nationalisation of Scaniaand Skåneland (a wider area), its consequenses, specific crimes committed by Swedish military and Kings etc. Many authors are experts in history, lingvistic, social studies and culture and have university examinas while some others are (in Scandinavia) famous authors. Some of them even died long before SSF was founded. But Peter rejcets all its parts and athors based only on the fact that SSF has assembled and published the book, and that in his opinion SSF are "political extremists". So - if possible, and if You have time and inclination, Your advices on "333-årsboken" would be very much appriciated, regardless of Your verdict. Otherways perhaps You possibly could ask some other (preferably un-bias, un-Scandinavian) administrator or other suitable user You know if "333-årsboken" really is inappropriate in a Global perspective. And again, I'm asking for NPOV advice not any kind of benefits. I'm sorry to have bothered You again, but In a matter like this, in my own opinion and experience, You are the best to ask, who I'm aware of. Kind regards Boeing720 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boeing720. Unfortunately I do not speak Swedish so it's impossible for me to assess the publication or the organization that produced it. You might try the reliable sources noticeboard but I have my doubts about anyone being able to assess this foreign-language source. Looking on the Swedish wiki, there only seems to be one article that uses the book as a source. There's two articles on this wiki that cite it (searched via ISBN). -- Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, though www.scania.org is in English. I'll take it, as suggested to WP:RSN, thanks for this appriciated advice. Boeing720 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles on the website are in Swedish. Many do not provide an author, so I would not be inclined to consider it a reliable source for GA-level work. Perhaps for basic facts -- Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa-- when you have time, might you check the reason and validity of why the photo as to the subject of this article was deleted. The corpse of this early Reichsführer-SS was found in September 1933. The photo would be 80+ years old; what about fair use? Kierzek (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted as the user uploaded it to Commons without adequate proof that it is in the public domain. There's a copy here which pre-dates his upload, so I will bring it over for fair use. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; it always helps a bio article when a reader can see a photo of the subject. Kierzek (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Martin Bormann

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Martin Bormann you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Martin Bormann

The article Martin Bormann you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Martin Bormann for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indef Semi-Protection Request

Hey Dianna, hope all is well with you. Could you indef semi-protect this page in my userspace for me, please? Thank you....NeutralhomerTalk23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NH! the wee task is done. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must find you a greater task for next time. :) Thanks! - NeutralhomerTalk00:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Frampton

Article semi-protected due to vandalism. What vandalism? Tigerboy1966  16:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

diff, diff, diff -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

Can you look at this? I blocked this user on Commons for anti-Russian POV-pushing, and now he's come here and posted the same material on my talk here and at ru.wiki and uk.wiki. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing blockable, yet, on this wiki. I will drop a warning on his talk. I already have your talk page on my watch-list -- Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed?

Even after removing the copyright infringing content. I removed the Gamespot copyrighted content. Yet my article was still deleted for copyright violation. Also if you wanted me to add references someone could have told me and I would have put them in. The article was Army Men: Video game. JoshaGibby (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)JoshaGibby[reply]

The topic is already covered in our article Army Men. Also, the remaining content seemed to me to be likely copy vio as well, though I could not locate the source. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. Zath42 brought this deletion to my attention. I looked through the deleted revisions and it seems that the image was tagged as {{PD-self}}. It turns out that I personally know Zath42. He lives right by that interchange and took the photo himself. Could you review the history again and reconsider the deletion? Thanks. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 15:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an aerial photo of the interchange, not taken from the roadside. It also appears on the company website. The uploader states on the file talk page that Hoover Construction is the owner of the image. Therefore an OTRS ticket is required. Sorry, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but an IP hopper on the page Talk:Yet Another Movie has made a death threat.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoops gza (talkcontribs)

Thanks Hoops, I have emailed as per the instructions at WP:emergency -- Diannaa (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They have already responded, they are looking into it. Thanks for the report, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You marked this with {{nominated for deletion on Commons}}, but the file has never been nominated for deletion on Commons. What did you mean? This is possibly {{PD-textlogo}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to nominate, but for some reason it didn't get done. It's nominated now. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I overlooked that it was a British logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need your Assistance

First, my apologies for dragging you into this controversy and writing on your personal talk page. However, you seem to have an understanding of this controversy as well as Wikipedia policy better than a lot of editors/adminis out there. The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premakeerthi_de_Alwis which has been re-written lately from a neutral point of view. I was initially okay with the new writeup, however I am concerned about including an accusation on the page violating the Wikipedia policy. I have requested the Wikipedia Biographies of the Living People noticeboard to remove accusatory content from the article. I would appreciate if you could include your opinion on this issue as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Thank you.--108.28.168.3 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)--108.28.168.3 (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)--Ramya20 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Thank you!!--Ramya20 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom9/BigJolly9

I'm not confident enough to block, but it does look like we have a sockpuppet. Hence: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mushroom9. MER-C 11:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lives of a Bengal Lancer

Hi friend. Since I reviewed your Martin Bormann article would you be kind enough to review my The Lives of a Bengal Lancer article? You see it's my absolute favorite film since I can remember. I watch at least 2 times a day, so would be very keen on seeing it achieve GA status - which is why I have spent the last days significantly improving it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jonas. I have thought about your request for a few days and have decided not to do it. Sorry, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably worth requesting a copyedit for GA at WP:GOCE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive

You have been investigating my page Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vin09, I saw this also Talk:Khammam#Possible_copyright_problem. Can you explain me about that? Are my edits fine?--Vin09 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content looked professionally written, and same wording appears here. So I re-wrote it, per the cleanup instructions, which can be found at the top of the case page. -- Diannaa (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

I have reverted back the page to your version.It is being apparently being edited by an indef blocked user User:Academiava3 and have filed the report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wipeouting. Just for information.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pharaoh. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on Northern Cyprus

Hi Dianna. Sorry for the trouble. Just a question: Does this copyvio need to be revdeled? Thanks and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found another and removed it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Dianna. It is much worse than I thought. I removed several sections but I think there could be more which remain in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main author of this mess is Hasmens who left some PAs on my talkpage, instead of recognising the copyvio problem of his edits, despite my warning on his talkpage. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good work Dr K! I have manually checked the editor's 50 edits to the article. You missed a bit in the Sports section. I think it is clean now. Best wishes, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work Dianna and professionally done, including the notification on the talkpage. :) Thank you very much. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dianna. FYI, I have reported Hasmens at ANI. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LSSAH Barbarossa Deployment

This division was not deployed with the LIV Army Corps as part of Army Group South. The LIV Army Corps operated in the extreme south as part of the 11th Army around Odessa. LSSAH participated in the attack toward Kiev, as part of III Corps, when it was taken out of reserve.

Depending on the source on June 22nd, it was either deployed in 1st Panzer Group reserve, or as part of the XIV Panzer Corps, which was in reserve along with SS "Viking" and 9th Panzer Division. Axis history, which is pretty reliable has it as part of the 1st Panzer Group reserve, here: http://www.axishistory.com/other-aspects/campaigns-a-operations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/1925-22-june-1941-the-invasion-of-the-ussr, but Russian sources, such as this map http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/maps/1941SW/Vladimirsky/KOVO_June22_41.jpg, put it in the XIV Panzer Corps.

We can say here that it was in "reserve" with Army Group South and that should be sufficient.

It is simple enough to say that it was in reserve with Army Group South, as its precise attachment is irrelevant, since it was not fighting.

Referencing this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_SS_Panzer_Division_Leibstandarte_SS_Adolf_Hitler&diff=625701226&oldid=625673668Livedawg (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dianna

Unfortunately politics has interfered in my recent edits on Northern Cyprus. As a Turkish Cypriot I have volunteered my time to improve and expand the article on Northern Cyprus with my sources been taken from websites based in Northern Cyprus. Some of the information I added was changed around and improved in a way so in which it can be understood. If you could compare the information with the original it is quite different with some sections using different wording and such. I was ready to negotiate with Dr.K and was even prepared to alter the section into my own words. But unfortunately it wasn't enough. The dispute initially started with GiorgosY who is now banned from editing. Many attempts to vandalize the page where made by this specific user over the past few weeks. Attempts to delete, blank, and vandalize the page was also made by various other users disagreeing with factual well sourced information which has been taken from archives and books written by professional historians. I would like to state that Dr.K deletion of the sections on Northern Cyprus where politically motivated. As a regular Wikipedia reader and editor I will be very disappointed if information which doesn't suit the specific nationalistic interests of users is deleted. Thank you!

Regards ( Hasmens (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasmens (talkcontribs) 09:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]