User talk:DianeFinn

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Reubin O'Donovan Askew, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added his military rank. Isn't that constructive?

May 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Several of your recent edits introduced errors; please check before posting. Tvoz/talk 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Family of Barack Obama

I have nominated Family of Barack Obama, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family of Barack Obama. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Loonymonkey (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Advice

In controversial articles, such as Barack Obama, it's pretty tough to take any preventative measures to guard against users reverting. It's very tough to have anything met without controversy at this point. Pretty much all I can day is keep WP:BRD in mind, and do your best to sort out what you can. Wizardman 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AGK#Mediation tips

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

I have offered my response to your post; if you have any queries, please let me know on my talk page. Anthøny 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Further comments: Checkuser block - Alison ^❤ 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Template:Do not delete

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DianeFinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am being unblocked by mistake. If you look at all my edits, you will see that I am a productive editor and have not edit warred. While there have been disagreements on some topics, there is some agreement by others on my side. I have been very civil. I have looked at this Dereks1x and I have never edited the article that got him banned. My name is not Derek. I also see that there have been many accounts blocked as Derek. Since I am not Derek, I suspect that others may be accused even though they are not Derek. Can you justify and prove that I am Derek? Or will you perpetuate a wrong block by ignoring me. Please unblock. You will note that I even contacted 2 mediators for editing advice, which shows that I am sincere in getting along with others.

Decline reason:

According to Checkuser evidence, you are Dereks1x. — Rjd0060 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

DianeFinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Rjd0060 says according to checkuser evidence. I have just checked RFCU and checked the link. There is no checkuser evidence. I am not even listed in a RFCU. Please explain.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Rjd0060 says according to checkuser evidence.  I have just checked RFCU and checked the link.  There is no checkuser evidence.  I am not even listed in a RFCU.  Please explain. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Rjd0060 says according to checkuser evidence.  I have just checked RFCU and checked the link.  There is no checkuser evidence.  I am not even listed in a RFCU.  Please explain. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Rjd0060 says according to checkuser evidence.  I have just checked RFCU and checked the link.  There is no checkuser evidence.  I am not even listed in a RFCU.  Please explain. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Did you not read the big blue box above that says "Blocked as a sockpuppet ... Checkuser block" ? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked? I see it says sockpuppet but I am not Derek. My edits on Jimmy Carter are good. I also made good points about Obama. It seems that I am blocked because people want total devotion to electing Obama, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Since there is no RFCU, there is no checkuser evidence. Why did the checkuser go on their own to block? Political motivations? There is no explanation. This makes Wikipedia look bad.